a1 University of Liverpool
This difficult passage has been much discussed and the text of L emended usually by rearrangement of the verses. The work of commentators before Wilamowitz is practically valueless, for their inexact knowledge of Theban topography, with which Euripides' account of this battle shows a good acquaintance, was based largely upon the unsatisfactory description of Pausanias: despite the good sense of Markland, they misunderstood 653.
1 The identification of ‘1’, the notorious manus correctrix of the manuscript L (Bibl. Laurenziana, plut. 32. 2), with the Byzantine textual scholar Demetrius Triclinius was made by A. Turyn, The Byzantine Manuscript Tradition of the Tragedies of Euripides (Urbana, 1957), pp. 224–5, 242–58. Independent examination of L by myself and Dr. G. Zuntz of Manchester University shows that Triclinius made three separate revisions of the manuscript, the first as official diorthotes (symbol here: Tr1), the second and third as private student of Euripides (symbols: Tr2, Tr3). I follow the view of Dr. Zuntz, to be published in a comprehensive study of the problematic relationship between L and P (Bibl. Vaticana, Palatinus graec. 287 + Bibl. Laurenziana, Conventi Soppressi 172), that in the ‘alphabetical’ or ‘unselected’ plays of Euripides, of which the Supplices is one, P was copied from L after Triclinius' first official revision, but before his subsequent handling of the MS. I owe to Dr. Zuntz's kindness many helpful discussions of the L: P relationship problem and of textual difficulties in the Supplices.