The manuscript tradition of Euripides has a very curious and instructive history. It throws a suggestive light on the capricious nature of the process by which some of the greatest literary treasures have been saved or lost. Nine playsManuscript tradition of Euripides.of Euripides were selected, probably in early Byzantine times, for popular and educational use. These were—Alcestis, Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus, Medea, Orestes, Phoenissae, Rhesus, Troades. This list includes at least two plays, theAndromacheand theTroades, which, even in the small number of the extant dramas, are universally allowed to be of very inferior merit—to say nothing of theRhesus, which is generally allowed to be spurious. On the other hand, the list omits at least three plays of first-rate beauty and excellence, the very flower, indeed, of the extant collection—theIon, theIphigenia in Tauris, and theBacchae—the last certainly, in its own kind, by far the most splendid work of Euripides that we possess. Had these three plays been lost, it is not too much to say that the modern estimate of Euripides must have been decidedly lower. But all the ten plays not included in the select list had a narrow escape of being lost, and, as it is, have come to us in a much less satisfactory condition.A. Kirchhoff was the first, in his editions, thoroughly to investigate the history and the affinities of the Euripidean manuscripts.5All our MSS. are, he thinks, derived from a lost archetype of the 9th or 10th century, which contained the nineteen plays (counting theRhesus) now extant. From this archetype a copy, also lost, was made aboutA.D.1100, containing only the nine select plays. This copy became the source of all our best MSS. for those plays. They are—(1) Marcianus 471, in the library of St Mark at Venice (12th century):Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus(to v. 1234),Orestes, Phoenissae; (2) Vaticanus 909, 12th century, nine plays; (3) Parisinus 2712, 13th century, 7 plays (all butTroadesandRhesus). Of the same stock, but inferior, are (4) Marcianus 468, 13th century:Hecuba, Orestes, Medea(v. 1-42),Orestes, Phoenissae; (5) Havniensis (fromHafnia, Copenhagen, according to Paley), a late transcript from a MS. resembling Vat. 909, nine plays. A second family of MSS. for the nine plays, sprung from the same copy, but modified by a Byzantine recension of the 13th century, is greatly inferior.The other ten plays have come to us only through the preservation of two MSS., both of the 14th century, and both ultimately derived, as Kirchhoff thinks, from the archetype of the 9th or 10th century. These are (1) Palatinus 287, Kirchhoff’s B, usually called Rom. C., thirteen plays, viz. six of the select plays (Androm., Med., Rhes., Hipp., Alc., Troad.), and seven others—Bacchae, Cyclops, Heracleidae, Supplices, Ion, Iphigenia in Aulide, Iphigenia in Tauris; and (2) Flor. 2, Elmsley’s C., eighteen plays, viz. all but theTroades. This MS. is thus the only one for theHelena, theElectra, and theHercules Furens. By far the greatest number of Euripidean MSS. contain only three plays,—theHecuba, OrestesandPhoenissae,—these having been chosen out of the select nine for school use—probably in the 14th century.It is to be remembered that, as a selection, the nine chosen plays of Euripides correspond to those seven of Aeschylus and those seven of Sophocles which alone remain to us. If, then, these nine did not include theIphigenia in Tauris, theIonor theBacchae, may we not fairly infer that the lost plays of the other two dramatists comprised works at least equal to any that have been preserved? May we not even reasonably doubt whether we have received those masterpieces by which their highest excellence should have been judged?The extant scholia on Euripides are for the nine select plays only. The first edition of the scholia on seven of these plays (all but theTroadesandRhesus) was published by Arsenius—a Cretan whom the Venetians had named as bishop ofScholia.Monemvasia, but whom the Greeks had refused to recognize—at Venice in 1534. The scholia on theTroadesandRhesuswere first published by L. Dindorf, from Vat. 909, in 1821. The best complete edition is that of W. Dindorf (1863).6The collection, though loaded with rubbish—including worthless analyses of the lyric metres by Demetrius Triclinius—includes some invaluable comments derived from the Alexandrian critics and their followers.Editiones Principes.—1496. J. Lascaris (Florence),Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Andromache. 1503. M. Musurus (Aldus, Venice),Eur. Tragg.XVII., to which in vol. ii. theHercules Furenswas added as an 18th;i.e.this edition contained all the extant plays except theElectra, which was first given to the world by P. Victorius from Florentinus C. in 1545. The Aldine edition was reprinted at Basel in 1537.The complete edition of Joshua Barnes (1694) is no longer of any critical value. The first thorough work done on Euripides was by L.C. Valcknaer in his edition of thePhoenissae(1755), and hisDiatribe in Eur. perditorum dramatum relliquias(1767), in which he argued against the authenticity of theRhesus.Principal Editions of Selected Plays.—J. Markland (1763-1771),Supplices, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T.; Ph. Brunck (1779-1780),Andromache, Medea, Orestes, Hecuba; R. Porson (1797-1801),Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Medea; H. Monk (1811-1818),Hippolytus, Alcestis, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T.; P. Elmsley (1813-1821),Medea, Bacchae, Heraclidae, Supplices; G. Hermann (1831-1841),Hecuba(animadv. ad R. Porsoni notas, first in 1800),Orestes, Alcestis, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion, Hercules Furens; C. Badham (1851-1853),Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion; H. Weil,Hipp., Medea, Hec., Iph. in T., Iph. in A., Electra, Orestes(2nd ed., 1890). It is impossible to give a list of the English and foreign editions of single plays, but mention may be made of theBacchae, by J.E. Sandys (4th ed., 1900) and R.Y. Tyrrell (1892);Medea, by A.W. Verrall (1883);Hippolytus, by J.P. Mahaffy (1881); and of theHercules Furens, by Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (2nd ed., 1895), with a comprehensive introduction on the literature of Euripides. A selected list (up to 1896) will be found in J.B. Mayor’sGuide to the Choice of Classical Books; see also N. Wecklein in C. Bursian’sJahresbericht, xxviii. (1897), and for the earlier literature W. Engelmann,Scriptores Graeci(1881). The little volumes on Euripides by J.P. Mahaffy (1879) and W.B. Donne in Blackwood’s “Ancient Classics for English Readers” will be found generally useful; see also P. Decharme,Euripide et l’esprit de son théâtre(1893); A.W. Verrall,Euripides the Rationalist(1895), andEssays on Four Plays of Euripides(1905); N.J. Patin,Étude sur Euripide(1872); O. Ribbeck,Euripides und seine Zeit; and (for the life of the poet) Wilamowitz’s ed. of theHercules Furens(i. 1-42); P. Masqueray,Euripide et ses idées(1908).Modern Complete Editions.—W. Dindorf (1870, inPoët. Scenici, ed. 5); A. Kirchhoff (1855, ed. min. 1867); F.A. Paley (2nd ed., 1872-1880), with commentary; A. Nauck (1880-1887, Teubner series); G.G. Murray in OxfordScriptorum Classicorum bibliotheca(1902, foll.).English Translations.—Among these may be noted the complete verse translation by A.S. Way (1894-1898); that in prose by E.P. Coleridge (1896); and G.G. Murray’s verse translations (1902-1906). A literary interest attaches to Robert Browning’s “Transcript” of theAlcestisin hisBalaustion, and to Goethe’s reconstruction of Euripides’ lostPhaëthonin the 1840 edition of his works, vol. xxxiii. pp. 22-43.
The manuscript tradition of Euripides has a very curious and instructive history. It throws a suggestive light on the capricious nature of the process by which some of the greatest literary treasures have been saved or lost. Nine playsManuscript tradition of Euripides.of Euripides were selected, probably in early Byzantine times, for popular and educational use. These were—Alcestis, Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus, Medea, Orestes, Phoenissae, Rhesus, Troades. This list includes at least two plays, theAndromacheand theTroades, which, even in the small number of the extant dramas, are universally allowed to be of very inferior merit—to say nothing of theRhesus, which is generally allowed to be spurious. On the other hand, the list omits at least three plays of first-rate beauty and excellence, the very flower, indeed, of the extant collection—theIon, theIphigenia in Tauris, and theBacchae—the last certainly, in its own kind, by far the most splendid work of Euripides that we possess. Had these three plays been lost, it is not too much to say that the modern estimate of Euripides must have been decidedly lower. But all the ten plays not included in the select list had a narrow escape of being lost, and, as it is, have come to us in a much less satisfactory condition.
A. Kirchhoff was the first, in his editions, thoroughly to investigate the history and the affinities of the Euripidean manuscripts.5All our MSS. are, he thinks, derived from a lost archetype of the 9th or 10th century, which contained the nineteen plays (counting theRhesus) now extant. From this archetype a copy, also lost, was made aboutA.D.1100, containing only the nine select plays. This copy became the source of all our best MSS. for those plays. They are—(1) Marcianus 471, in the library of St Mark at Venice (12th century):Andromache, Hecuba, Hippolytus(to v. 1234),Orestes, Phoenissae; (2) Vaticanus 909, 12th century, nine plays; (3) Parisinus 2712, 13th century, 7 plays (all butTroadesandRhesus). Of the same stock, but inferior, are (4) Marcianus 468, 13th century:Hecuba, Orestes, Medea(v. 1-42),Orestes, Phoenissae; (5) Havniensis (fromHafnia, Copenhagen, according to Paley), a late transcript from a MS. resembling Vat. 909, nine plays. A second family of MSS. for the nine plays, sprung from the same copy, but modified by a Byzantine recension of the 13th century, is greatly inferior.
The other ten plays have come to us only through the preservation of two MSS., both of the 14th century, and both ultimately derived, as Kirchhoff thinks, from the archetype of the 9th or 10th century. These are (1) Palatinus 287, Kirchhoff’s B, usually called Rom. C., thirteen plays, viz. six of the select plays (Androm., Med., Rhes., Hipp., Alc., Troad.), and seven others—Bacchae, Cyclops, Heracleidae, Supplices, Ion, Iphigenia in Aulide, Iphigenia in Tauris; and (2) Flor. 2, Elmsley’s C., eighteen plays, viz. all but theTroades. This MS. is thus the only one for theHelena, theElectra, and theHercules Furens. By far the greatest number of Euripidean MSS. contain only three plays,—theHecuba, OrestesandPhoenissae,—these having been chosen out of the select nine for school use—probably in the 14th century.
It is to be remembered that, as a selection, the nine chosen plays of Euripides correspond to those seven of Aeschylus and those seven of Sophocles which alone remain to us. If, then, these nine did not include theIphigenia in Tauris, theIonor theBacchae, may we not fairly infer that the lost plays of the other two dramatists comprised works at least equal to any that have been preserved? May we not even reasonably doubt whether we have received those masterpieces by which their highest excellence should have been judged?
The extant scholia on Euripides are for the nine select plays only. The first edition of the scholia on seven of these plays (all but theTroadesandRhesus) was published by Arsenius—a Cretan whom the Venetians had named as bishop ofScholia.Monemvasia, but whom the Greeks had refused to recognize—at Venice in 1534. The scholia on theTroadesandRhesuswere first published by L. Dindorf, from Vat. 909, in 1821. The best complete edition is that of W. Dindorf (1863).6The collection, though loaded with rubbish—including worthless analyses of the lyric metres by Demetrius Triclinius—includes some invaluable comments derived from the Alexandrian critics and their followers.
Editiones Principes.—1496. J. Lascaris (Florence),Medea, Hippolytus, Alcestis, Andromache. 1503. M. Musurus (Aldus, Venice),Eur. Tragg.XVII., to which in vol. ii. theHercules Furenswas added as an 18th;i.e.this edition contained all the extant plays except theElectra, which was first given to the world by P. Victorius from Florentinus C. in 1545. The Aldine edition was reprinted at Basel in 1537.
The complete edition of Joshua Barnes (1694) is no longer of any critical value. The first thorough work done on Euripides was by L.C. Valcknaer in his edition of thePhoenissae(1755), and hisDiatribe in Eur. perditorum dramatum relliquias(1767), in which he argued against the authenticity of theRhesus.
Principal Editions of Selected Plays.—J. Markland (1763-1771),Supplices, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T.; Ph. Brunck (1779-1780),Andromache, Medea, Orestes, Hecuba; R. Porson (1797-1801),Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Medea; H. Monk (1811-1818),Hippolytus, Alcestis, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T.; P. Elmsley (1813-1821),Medea, Bacchae, Heraclidae, Supplices; G. Hermann (1831-1841),Hecuba(animadv. ad R. Porsoni notas, first in 1800),Orestes, Alcestis, Iphigenia A., Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion, Hercules Furens; C. Badham (1851-1853),Iphigenia T., Helena, Ion; H. Weil,Hipp., Medea, Hec., Iph. in T., Iph. in A., Electra, Orestes(2nd ed., 1890). It is impossible to give a list of the English and foreign editions of single plays, but mention may be made of theBacchae, by J.E. Sandys (4th ed., 1900) and R.Y. Tyrrell (1892);Medea, by A.W. Verrall (1883);Hippolytus, by J.P. Mahaffy (1881); and of theHercules Furens, by Wilamowitz-Möllendorff (2nd ed., 1895), with a comprehensive introduction on the literature of Euripides. A selected list (up to 1896) will be found in J.B. Mayor’sGuide to the Choice of Classical Books; see also N. Wecklein in C. Bursian’sJahresbericht, xxviii. (1897), and for the earlier literature W. Engelmann,Scriptores Graeci(1881). The little volumes on Euripides by J.P. Mahaffy (1879) and W.B. Donne in Blackwood’s “Ancient Classics for English Readers” will be found generally useful; see also P. Decharme,Euripide et l’esprit de son théâtre(1893); A.W. Verrall,Euripides the Rationalist(1895), andEssays on Four Plays of Euripides(1905); N.J. Patin,Étude sur Euripide(1872); O. Ribbeck,Euripides und seine Zeit; and (for the life of the poet) Wilamowitz’s ed. of theHercules Furens(i. 1-42); P. Masqueray,Euripide et ses idées(1908).
Modern Complete Editions.—W. Dindorf (1870, inPoët. Scenici, ed. 5); A. Kirchhoff (1855, ed. min. 1867); F.A. Paley (2nd ed., 1872-1880), with commentary; A. Nauck (1880-1887, Teubner series); G.G. Murray in OxfordScriptorum Classicorum bibliotheca(1902, foll.).
English Translations.—Among these may be noted the complete verse translation by A.S. Way (1894-1898); that in prose by E.P. Coleridge (1896); and G.G. Murray’s verse translations (1902-1906). A literary interest attaches to Robert Browning’s “Transcript” of theAlcestisin hisBalaustion, and to Goethe’s reconstruction of Euripides’ lostPhaëthonin the 1840 edition of his works, vol. xxxiii. pp. 22-43.
(R. C. J.; X.)
1A considerable fragment of theAntiopewas discovered in Egypt in the latter part of the 19th century; ed. J.P. Mahaffy in vol. viii. of theCunningham Memoirs(Dublin, 1891); and quite recently fragments, probably from theHypsipyle, thePhaëthon, and theCretans(seeBerliner Klassikertexte, v. 2, 1907).2(Originally simplyHeracles, the additionMainomenosbeing due to the Aldine ed.)3Introduction to theElectraof Sophocles, p. xiii., inCatena Classicorum, 2nd ed.4(According to Karl Krumbacher,Gesch. der byz. Lit., it is an 11th-century production of unknown authorship.)5See also a clear account in the preface to vol. iii. of Paley’s edition.6New ed. by E. Schwartz (1887-1891).
1A considerable fragment of theAntiopewas discovered in Egypt in the latter part of the 19th century; ed. J.P. Mahaffy in vol. viii. of theCunningham Memoirs(Dublin, 1891); and quite recently fragments, probably from theHypsipyle, thePhaëthon, and theCretans(seeBerliner Klassikertexte, v. 2, 1907).
2(Originally simplyHeracles, the additionMainomenosbeing due to the Aldine ed.)
3Introduction to theElectraof Sophocles, p. xiii., inCatena Classicorum, 2nd ed.
4(According to Karl Krumbacher,Gesch. der byz. Lit., it is an 11th-century production of unknown authorship.)
5See also a clear account in the preface to vol. iii. of Paley’s edition.
6New ed. by E. Schwartz (1887-1891).
EUROCLYDON(Gr.εὖρος, east wind;κλύδων, wave), a stormy wind from the N.E. or N.N.E. in the eastern Mediterranean. Where the Authorized Version of the Bible (Acts xxvii. 14) mentionseuroclydon, the Revised Version, taking the readingεὐρακύλων, haseuraquilo, or north-easter. The word is sometimes used for the Bora (q.v.).
EUROPA(or rather,Europe), in Greek mythology, according to Homer (Iliad, xiv. 321), the daughter of Phoenix or, in a later story, of Agenor, king of Phoenicia. The beauty of Europa fired the love of Zeus, who approached her in the form of a white bull and carried her away from her native Phoenicia to Crete, whereshe became the mother of Minos, Rhadamanthys and Sarpedon. She was worshipped under the name of Hellotis in Crete, where the festival Hellotia, at which her bones, wreathed in myrtle, were carried round, was held in her honour (Athenaeus xv. p. 678). Some consider Europa to be a moon-goddess; others explain the story by saying that she was carried off by a king of Crete in a ship decorated with the figure-head of a bull. O. Gruppe (De Cadmi Fabula, 1891) endeavours to show that the myth of Europa is only another version of the myth of Persephone.
See Apollodorus iii. 1; Ovid,Metam.ii. 833; articles by Helbig in Roscher’sLexikon der Mythologie, and by Hild in Daremberg and Saglio’sDictionnaire des antiquités. Fig. 26 in the articleGreek Art(archaic metope from Palermo) represents the journey of Europa over the sea on the back of the bull.
See Apollodorus iii. 1; Ovid,Metam.ii. 833; articles by Helbig in Roscher’sLexikon der Mythologie, and by Hild in Daremberg and Saglio’sDictionnaire des antiquités. Fig. 26 in the articleGreek Art(archaic metope from Palermo) represents the journey of Europa over the sea on the back of the bull.
EUROPE,the smallest of those principal divisions of the land-surface of the globe which are usually distinguished by the conventional name of continents.
1. Geography and Statistics
It has justly become a commonplace of geography to describe Europe as a mere peninsula of Asia, but while it is necessary to bear this in mind in some aspects of the geography of the continent, more particularly in relation to theIndividuality of the continent.climate, the individuality of the continent is established in the clearest manner by the course of history and the resultant distribution of population. The earliest mention of Europe is in the HomericHymn to Apollo, but there Europe is not the name of a continent, but is opposed to the Peloponnesus and the islands of the Aegean. The distinction between Europe and Asia is found, however, in Aeschylus in the 5th centuryB.C., but there seems to be little doubt that this opposition was learnt by the Greeks from some Asiatic people. On Assyrian monuments the contrast betweenasu, “(the land of) the rising sun,” andereboririb, “(the land of) darkness” or “the setting sun,” is frequent, and these names were probably passed on by the Phoenicians to the Greeks, and gave rise to the names of Asia and Europe. Where the names originated the geographical distinction was clearly marked by the intervention of the sea, and this intervention marked equally clearly the distinction between Europe and Libya (Africa). As the knowledge of the world extended, the difficulty, which still exists, of fixing the boundary between Europe and Asia where there is land connexion, caused uncertainty in the application of the two names, but never obscured the necessity for recognizing the distinction. Even in the 3rd centuryB.C.Europe was regarded by Eratosthenes as including all that was then known of northern Asia. But the character of the physical features and climate finally determined the fact that what we know as Europe came to be occupied by more or less populous countries in intimate relation with one another, but separated on the east by unpeopled or very sparsely peopled areas from the countries of Asia, and the boundary between the two continents has long been recognized as running somewhere through this area. Within the limits thus marked out on the east and on other sides by the sea “the climatic conditions are such that inhabitants are capable of and require a civilization of essentially the same type, based upon the cultivation of our European grains.”1Those inhabitants have had a common history in a greater measure than those of any other continent, and hence are more thoroughly conscious of their dissimilarities from, than of their consanguinity with, the peoples of the east and the south.
On the subject of the boundaries of Europe there is still divergence of opinion. While some authorities take the line of the Caucasus as the boundary in the south-east, others take the line of the Manych depression, betweenBoundaries.the upper end of the Sea of Azov and the Caspian Sea, nearly parallel to the Caucasus. Various limits are assigned to the continent on the east. Officially the crest of the Caucasus and that of the Urals are regarded in Russia as the boundaries between Europe and Asia on the south-east and east respectively,2although in neither case does the boundary correspond with the great administrative divisions, and in the Urals it is impossible to mark out any continuous crest. Reclus, without attempting to assign any precise position to the boundary line between the two continents, makes it run through the relatively low and partly depressed area north of the Caucasus and east of the Urals. The Manych depression, marking the lowest line of this area to the north of the Caucasus, has been taken as the boundary of Europe on the south-east by Wagner in his edition of Guthe’sLehrbuch der Geographie,3and the same limit is adopted in Kirchhoff’sLänderkunde des Erdteils Europa4and Stanford’sCompendium of Geography and Travel. In favour of this limit it appears that much weight ought to be given to the consideration put forward by Wagner, that from time immemorial the valleys on both sides of the Caucasus have formed a refuge for Asiatic peoples, especially when it is borne in mind that this contention is reinforced by the circumstance that the steppes to the north of the Caucasus must interpose a belt of almost unpeopled territory between the more condensed populations belonging undoubtedly to Asia and Europe respectively. Continuity of population would be an argument in favour of assigning the whole of the Urals to Europe, but here the absence of any break in such continuity on the east side makes it more difficult to fix any boundary line outside of that system. Hence on this side it is perhaps reasonable to attach greater importance to the fact that the Urals form a boundary not only orographically, but to some extent also in respect of climate and vegetation,5and on that account to take a line following the crest of the different sections of that system as the eastern limit between the two continents.6Obviously, however, any eventual agreement among geographers on this head must be more or less arbitrary and conventional. In any case it must be borne in mind that, whatever conventional boundary be adopted, the use of the name Europe as so limited must be confined to statements of extent or implying extent. The facts as to climate, fauna and flora have no relation to any such arbitrary boundary, and all statistical statements referring to the countries of Europe must include the part of Russia beyond the Urals up to the frontier of Siberia. In such statements, however, in the present article the whole of the lieutenancy of the Caucasus will be left out of account. As to extent it is provisionally advisable to give the area of the continent within different limits.
The following calculations in English square miles (round numbers) of the area of Europe, within different limits, are given in Behm and Wagner’sBevölkerung der Erde, No. viii. (Gotha, Justus Perthes, 1891), p. 53:—Europe, withinExtent.the narrowest physical limits (to the crest of the Urals and the Manych depression, and including the Sea of Azov, but excluding the Caspian Steppe, Iceland, Novaya Zemlya, Spitsbergen and Bear Island) 3,570,000 sq. m. The same, with the addition of the Caspian Steppe up to the Ural river and the Caspian Sea, 3,687,750 sq. m. The same, with the addition of the area between the Manych depression and the Caucasus, 3,790,500 sq. m. The same, with the addition of territories east of the Ural Mountains, the portion of the Caspian Steppe east of the Ural river as far as the Emba, and the southern slopes of the Caucasus,3,988,500 sq. m. The same, with Iceland, Novaya Zemlya, Spitsbergen and Bear Island, 4,093,000 sq. m. In all these calculations the islands in the Sea of Marmora, the Canary Islands, Madeira, and even the Azores, are excluded, but all the Greek islands of the Aegean Sea and the Turkish islands of Thasos, Lemnos, Samothrace, Imbros, Hagiostrati or Bozbaba, and even Tenedos, are included.