Greek Tragedy. Volume One, Aeschylus and Sophocles: Emendations, Interpretations and Critical Notes 9780231883320

Citation preview

GREEK TRAGEDY IN TWO VOLUMES VOLUME ONE

AESCHYLUS

AND

SOPHOCLES

GREEK T R A G E D Y EMENDATIONS, INTERPRETATIONS AND CRITICAL NOTES BY

J O S E P H EDWARD

HARRY

HOFFMAN P R O F E S S O R OF THE C R E E K AND L I T E R A T U R E IN 8T. STEPHEN'S COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

LANGUAGE COLLEGE

V O L U M E ONE

AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES

N E W

COLUMBIA

Y O R K

UNIVERSITY MCMXXXIII

PRESS

COPYRIGHT 1933

COLUMBIA U N I V E R S I T Y P R E S S PUBLISHED 1933

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES O F AMERICA THE C A Y U C A PRESS, I T H A C A , N . Y .

FOREWORD oiìhl νυν, ίφη, μανθάνω. τραγικώϊ, ην ò' l-γώ, κινδυνβύω \iyeiv.—Plato, Republie 413 Β. Little need be said in the preface of a work like this, for it contains just what the subtitle indicates: emendations and interpretations, with critical notes, and discussions of difficult passages in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides. In both volumes will be found also much information on the Greek language not obtainable elsewhere—facts collected through long years of patient labor, and corrections of errors in our textbooks, complacently handed down, from generation to generation, as statements of truth. An honest effort has been made to get back of the letters recorded in our manuscripts to the original text, to discover what the three great masters of Attic tragedy actually said. That I have sometimes failed to achieve what I attempted, I do not doubt, though even in these passages I may have opened up new paths for others; nevertheless, I feel confident that I have succeeded in solving many a puzzling problem in at least thirty-one plays of the Tragic Triad. Whenever a change in the manuscript reading, in my judgment, was not necessary, I deemed it necessary not to change. I have endeavored to give credit wherever credit was due, but if I have failed sometimes to do so, I pray that my debts be forgiven, «cai yàp αύτοί άφίομεν ταντί όφά\οντι ήμιν, for not a few of these debtors appear to have neglected to acknowledge their indebtedness to me, since the publication of my results long antedated theirs. Possibly we arrived at our conclusions independently. I have called attention to only a few of these oversights. I hope my criticisms of the theories of others will be received in the spirit in which they are offered, for I should be sorry to add

FOREWORD something to the litterae kumaniores to render them inkumaniores. All the references have been verified, but, since they run into the tens of thousands, an occasional slip is at least within the range of possibility; humanum est errare. My thanks are due to the efficient staff of the Columbia University Press for their patient and painstaking labors; and I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Mr. John Jay Chapman for his interest in, and enthusiasm for, the articles published by me abroad, articles which induced him to insist that my studies see the light in their present form. J . E . HARRY ANNANDALE-ON-HUDSON

April 9.1933

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ABBREVIATIONS

ix XXV

AESCHYLUS

Supplices Persae Prometheus Septem Agamemnon Choephori Eumenides

3 14 23 41 49 76 88

SOPHOCLES

Ajax Antigone Electra Oedipus Tyrannus Trachiniae Philoctetes Oedipus Coloneus

99 114 134 147 161 172 184

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF AESCHYLUS

197

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SOPHOCLES

208

ENGLISH INDEX

221

GREEK INDEX

226

INTRODUCTION Thirty-five years ago, at the suggestion of the foremost Hellenist of America, I undertook to edit the Hippolylus of Euripides. When I addressed myself to the task, I balked at the first sentence. To me it meant something entirely different from what the greatest authorities maintained. So I set to work to get the facts. When these were published I received a letter from Wilamowitz, in which he said: "Sie haben die Freundlichkeit gehabt, mir Ihre kleine interessante Abhandlung zu schicken, und ich kann da nicht umhin Ihnen meine Freude auszusprechen. Ihre Resultate sind wichtig." The facts gathered in that treatise may have been trifles; but some trifles are tremendous in their far-reaching effects. As Michel Angelo said, "trifles make perfection, and perfection is no trifle." In art nothing is small, and in the art of the great masters of Greek drama the blemishes in our texts are like so many blotches on the face, or splotches on the torso, or smutches on the robe of an Aphrodite of Melos, or so many dents and gouges in the smooth surface of an Apoxyomenos of Lysippus. Mekler declared over half a century ago that we are "von einem Euripides restitutus auch heute noch weit entfernt." This remains true today. But we have made some progress. Many passages have been elucidated, and a little light has been shed upon others; but six hundred remain to puzzle the editor and the investigator. One thing, however, seems certain: the true solution of a difficulty in a locus vexatus will not be found, if we continue the practice of substituting something we have evolved from our own inner consciousness for the text, if we neglect what is recorded in the manuscripts. I am convinced that the true reading will generally prove to be almost identical with what has been handed down to us in the best codices, mutilated though they be through centuries of transmission. This means that at least forty thousand conjectures (four thousand in the Alcestis alone), conjectures that ·ίχ·

INTRODUCTION

clutter up the pages of our editions and befuddle the brains and obfuscate the intellects of our students, must be cast overboard— among them some of my own, one of which Wecklein prints among his conieclurae minus probabiles, though made (and renounced) by me in the last century, κροσσών τοι σοφίη ylveraι άτροπίητ. The so-called 'emendations' are calculated also to lead editors astray. Grégoire, in one of his notes, says: "Après avoir été égaré par d'aventureux exégètes nous sommes revenus au sens naturel, aussi simple que satisfaisant." Many editors have doubtless had the same experience. Cis-Atlantic scholars have done little in hermeneutics and criticism, least of all in the sphere of emendation, or indeed in exegesis of any kind in Greek tragedy. Just why, does not appear. One writes that frankly he is not interested; another feels that one guess is as good as another (yes, but only if it happens to be right), and a third is confident that the field has been gone over as with a fine-tooth comb—nothing remains to be done, so why bother? But the best scholars are often wrong. A young man failed to obtain the degree of doctor of philosophy in one of our largest universities in 1900 because the results of his thesis on the equations of variations for the orbit of Hyperion differed from those published by earlier computers such as Laplace. In 1926 he was granted the degree—his results having in the meantime been found to be correct. There is no greater impediment to clearness of vision, no greater bar to substantial progress in hermeneutics and criticism, than the prepossession, or the obsession, that the greatest authorities are infallible. Perceptions contradict, Convictions come, anon depart. And but themselves as false depict. Assumptions, hasty, crude and vain, Full oft to use will science deign.

As Lessing once said, it matters not whose the assumption is, if only we arrive at truth by its aid. And the solution of a single phase of any problem may unexpectedly open vast areas and widen our horizons of knowledge. The emendations I propose in these volumes will not prove to be right in toto (that were too much to hope for), but even where ·χ·

INTRODUCTION

they are wrong, they may set the forces and processes of scholarship moving in the right direction, so that eventually the solution of many a vexed problem may be found. The aid and stimulus of rational hypothesis in the search for truth is immeasurable; but the hypothesis, in the matter of bettering our texts, must be based on what those texts furnish. Bryant may be right about truth's rising again after being crushed to earth, and about error's writhing in pain and dying amid his worshippers, but I am inclined to think that Pérez Galdós expresses a truth more in accord with human experience when he says " No existe nada que resigne a morir, y el error es quizás lo que con más bravura se defiende de la muerte." Certainly errors in our Greek texts defend themselves against death with surprising vigor, although their persistence is due in part to the apathy of scholars who feel that a graduate student can establish the text of a poet like Aeschylus—a text good enough for the professor, himself, to write a commentary on. " It is a rare gift of fortune," said Scaliger, "to be able to emend good authors and restore them to their proper dignity and splendor." But to do this successfully we must first know the language of our authors; and even after we have laboriously searched for and obtained the truth, there are always many champions in the field for the opposition, ever ready to react against the despotism of fact. Certainly the important thing for us to know is what Aeschylus and Sophocles actually said, not what some Graeculus opines they should have said. To get the facts about what seemed at first very minor matters has entailed the labor of reading wide ranges of literature. Some of my conjectures I have already published in American and European journals. The favorable criticism of Mekler, Nestle, Busche, Richards, and others, encouraged me to go on in my work. But Wecklein, to whose lot it fell to review one of my books, seemed to be not very much impressed. He dipped into it here and there, fell upon what seemed to him certain defects, failed to comprehend points I tried to make, declared that the work would have created a sensation fifty years earlier, confessed that he had not read it all, and left me with the cold comfort: " He knows Greek." That, of course, was •xi*

INTRODUCTION

something, though not distinctly encouraging. But Wecklein's strictures did not affect my equanimity, for I soon discovered that Wecklein himself was far from being impeccable, that in scores of passages he was palpably wrong; so why should I be disturbed by the fever of a differing mind? The greatest encouragement I received from Gilbert Murray and from my friends and colleagues at the Sorbonne—Croiset, Girard, and Haussoullier. To their kind words and heartening letters I owe more than to anything else, for they stimulated me to continue in the delicate but gigantic task of constituting the text of the "Great Three" and of publishing an annotated edition of the supreme dramatic artists of the world. To do this properly, I was obliged to transcribe the thirty-three plays in my own handwriting, so as to become more familiar with the style, syntax, and vocabulary of each, and to leave ample space for my corrections of the text and for marginal notes. That Demosthenes copied Thucydides eight times is probably fiction; but we know that Charles Nodier copied the whole of Rabelais three times in manuscript, in order to learn something about the use of his native tongue. When I finished my work, I was amazed to find that the number of mistakes I had made in copying was very large indeed, some of them escaping my eye even after a second revision. But I observed that my errors were almost identical in kind with those which appear in some of our Greek manuscripts (corrected in others) and with those which are still to be found, as I believe, in the corrupt passages of our best codices: haplography, dittography, misdivision of syllables, transposition, omission of letters, mistaking one letter for another, glancing at the wrong line, heeding the voix intérieure when it had mispronounced a word, anticipating a letter when writing in haste, blots, blurs, and a multitude of causes such as drowsiness, interruptions, and collateral circumstances. On one occasion I had made Apollo say "mon oncle a dit" instead of "mon oracle a dit" (I had just written "mon père"). It is quite an easy matter to manufacture mistakes that might occur; but the value of these errors made in my transcription lies in the fact that they did actually occur. I have space to cite only a few: 'capabable' for 'capable,' 'Lending adds' for 'Lenting adds,' 'pendand (pendant) des,' 'limb from • xii ·

INTRODUCTION

bimb/ Ιρφάντ' for Ιτφάντ' (Soph. Ai. 144. Cp. Eur. Hel. 673 φΧΑφαρον for ß\i < φιλανθρωπίας (in the same sentence), 285 ώμως κάναιδως. For the meaning of όρ-γή cp. Prom. 80,378 (distempered temper), Pind. P. 1.89; 2.77; 9.43, I. 2.35; 4.34; 1.41, P. 6.12, and Plato, Leg. 718D ωμής ψυχής. Galatea's skin is more lustrous than an unripe grape (δμφακος ώμας, Theocr. 11.21). Cp. Plato,Leg. 908E ávev κακής οργής τ( και ήθους. In our passage στρατός ( = λώς) is the subject of ίτόρνυται as in •6-

S υ Ρ PLI

CES

Septem 792 (j>tî), and not "celui qui conduit 'l'élan de cette troupe," as Mazon translates. In the very beginning of his speech on the False Embassy, Aeschines speaks of the ωμότητα of Demosthenes, and in the next breath he says: «cai τα Or' tírtv ού δι' όρτγήν, which shows that όργ ή is used in a different sense from Suppl. 187 (immanitate > < humanitate). A man άργην ώμόΐ has cruel instincts, is merciless, without bowels of compassion, is like a wild beast. Cp. Aeschin. 2.180 yvvaiKtîos την òpy ή ν (Demosthenes), ώμόττ/s is a permanent quality, whereas τ^θη-γμίνοτ implies a temporary condition. But sentir is the rival of comprendre, and if I have not proved my thesis, ridearti aculiores. I still think, however, that the poet means άτήμων > < ώμόφρων (bloodthirsty). 196 Geel's Çaxptî, for MSS τα χρία is probably right. 201-300 212 Wilamowitz emends κικ\ήσκ€τ( (MSS κικΧήσκ(ται) and this seems to me a palmary emendation. 215 Lobeck's ovyyvoly for (ίτγνώη is undoubtedly correct. 226 How easily one letter may be mistaken for another is seen in the M S S àvaivtvoi, which Plutarch gives as àvayvtùοι (Mor. 417 f., 607 E). 232 I accept Stanley's τρόπον for MSS τόπον. Another example of the dropping out of a letter. 235 Bergk's correction κάμττνκνώμασιν for και τυκνώμασι is demanded by the context. See Phot. Lex. sub voce. 266 Hermann's μηνιταΐ' and Martin's ίχη are necessary corrections of the meaningless μηνίίται άκη. But Austin Smyth (CR, 1921, 97-99) would read δηναιά δίκη, which he interprets 'monsters which the earth produced for a long time.' For the corruption he compares Eum. 848, 880. 271 f. A very difficult passage. The M S S read ίχον δ' âv (in marg. ίχουσαν) and ytvoir' âv . . . λίγοι τρόσω;. Most editors accept Heimsoeth's ίχουσα δ' and Robortello's Xéyoij τρόσω. Hermann reads ίχοντα, which is impossible. Stanley changes r ' âv to σόν, Oberdick λίγοι 1rpóccos to λ ί γ ο υ atfitv. Tucker makes more violent alterations: ίχων . . . Tis iv μίρ«ι (for MSS τεκμήρια) . . . λίγοι 7ορω$. His arguments against accepting the other emendations are strong, but the arguments he advances in favor of his own are far from convincing. The king is answering the query of the chorus in verse 247. He is Dorian and his speech is laconic. Aeschylus speaks with Shakspearean brevity. The correct emendation has not yet been found; but I am inclined to think that it lies much nearer the M S S reading than any of the numerous suggestions hitherto offered. The king has given no positive proofs (τικμήρια > < σημίία). Consequently, τ ά τ ' ίμου cannot modify τίκμήρια (which is the object of the verb, not the subject). This phrase τ ά τ ' ίμου = τα ύπ' (μου (ΐρημίνα >< τ à i r ò σοΟ \ίχθησόμίνα. Cp. Ar. Plut. 100 ιστον yàp ήδη τάτ' ίμου. The king means that his statements can be verified. Cp. Eur. Ion 329 ίχω οΰδίν τίκμήριον, Hipp. 984 τό τ ρ ά γ μ ' ίχον καλού; λόγου? ( = τίκμήρι' ούκ ίχον), 'although one could make fine speeches about the matter, if the truth were revealed, one would find that it is not as one has preconceived it to be,' Aesch. Eum. 662 τίκμήριον δί τοΰδί σοι δ(ίξω λόγου, Eur. Ι.Τ. 822 τάδί φράσω τίκμήρια. Lys. 12.33 των τότί λίγομίνων τίκμήρια λαμβάνοντας, 29.1 τίκμήριον . . . 6τ ι αληθής ο ίσα τ υγχάνιι. Now, ·7·

SUPPLICES τάτ' ίμοΟ (keybßtva) is correlative to yivos &v \iyois in the next verse: " I have told you my lineage; it is now your t u m to tell me yours"—politely, not brusquely, hence the optative with &v instead of the harsh imperative: "Veuillez me dire la vôtre (race)." I cannot believe that ίχον δ' &v is a mistake for ίχουσα δ', and if we change ίχον to ίχων, as Tucker would, we have a declaration which is untrue, for the king is not addressing Danaus; and the masculine singular cannot be used in speaking to a chorus of women. I suggest the following: ϊχοι δ' âv f/δη τάτ' ίμοΰ τίκμήρια. y tvos τ' αν «ξίίιχοιο και λέγοι$ τρό σων. Corruption, like disease, attacks the extremities. When ?χοι became ίχον and τρό σων became τρόσω, the whole machinery of the sentence was thrown out of gear, yivos τ' &v becoming y'tvon' av (the optative sliding down from verse 271 to 272) and the two verses merging to form a single sentence (necessarily), whereas in fact they are two distinct utterances, asyndetic, thoroughly Aeschylean. Cp. 632 f., 1001 f.. Prom. 195 f., 611 f. The σ of λέγοis was inadvertently carried over (by false pronunciation) to the next word. Cp. Cho. 402 Xoiyòv ipivvs for X017ÓS, ίρινύν. The σων (which became σω% or σω, and then merged with τ pò to form τρόσω), is the counterpart of τάτ' ίμοΰ (τό ίμόν y tvos > < TÒ σόν yivos), and it is placed at the very end of the verse for emphasis. The coryphaeus is asked to speak in behalf of the fugitives—as an advocate. Cp. Soph. 0.7". 10 τρό τώνδί φωνέίν, and O.C. 811. 287 Wellauer'sKptoßbpovsis a certain correction for KpeoßpÖTOVs. 295 Most editors accept Hermann's κίκρνπτά y' .. . ταύτα τάμτa\άyμaτa. This is a very doubtful solution of the difficulty. Paley changes to κού κρυττά, Stanley to κού κρνβδα, Butler the last words to ταλλακίσματ' ην, Lincke to άιταιο\ήματα, Tucker to άτ' άντιτατ/μάτων. In spite of the scholiast's ai τ(ριτ\οκαί and Hesychius' ίμταλονγματα ' ai ίμτλοκαί Hermann's emendation is to be rejected, for there have been no τίριττλοκαί. Nor do the conjectures account for the corruption. Besides, we are not sure that t μ τ a \ ά y μ a τ a can be used of /ore-embraces. See Tucker's note. In classical Greek ίμτλίκεσθai is not used in the sense of 'embrace.' Hera was aware of the hot fire of love which was consuming her lord, and she would naturally oppose any consummation of his desire; but as for 'embraces'—there had been none. Furthermore, κάκρνττά y' "Hpaj is inadmissible, for 'unconcealed of Hera' is not 'unseen of Hera.' The genitive must go with some other word—possibly ύλάγματα. We know from Homer that domestic wrangling would be the result as soon as Hera discovered Zeus's amour for Io, and the Queen of Heaven's snarling words would certainly prove an obstacle to Zeus's desire to συναιρίσθαι Κύτριν with the daughter of Inachus {Prom. 650) that he might Χωφήσχι τόθον (654). Hence I suggest και κρυττά y' "Hpas ταΟτ' tir' άλλ' ύλαγμάτωιν One syllable dropped out, αλλυλαγ being shortened to αλλα7· For the idea compare the idle 'yelpings' of the chorus in the Agamemnon: vrpriois v\äyßa.aiv (1631), τωνδ' ύΧαγμάτων (1672), Φ 575 vXayßov. The words of the king in the next verse (βασιλέων νίίκη τάδί) cannot refer to • 8 ·

SUPPLICES 'embraces' of any kind; they point unmistakably to a former mention of wrangling words. "How did these quarrels end?" is answered by " T h e upshot of the m a t t e r was, Hera changed Io to a heifer" (presumably to prevent Zeus from accomplishing his purpose). When this difficulty is met by Zeus (who changed himself into the form of a bull), his &Χοχοΐ ισχυρά sets Argus to watch the transformed Io. Then, when Argus is slain by Hermes, Hera sends the gadfly to harass the heifer—another contrivance of the watchful Hera to foil her spouse. Austin Smyth (CR, 1921, 97-99) would read ταΟτ' ά τ ' ά \ \ a y μ ά τ ω v , 'from the reprisals of Hera,' comparing Eur. Or. 1157. This I consider very doubtful. Of course, one cannot be cocksure in conjectures of this kind, especially in a stichomythia. Perhaps my own conjecture should be changed to ταύτα κ&ΧΧ'. T h e words Ήρα* ΰXayμάτωv are equivalent to U p a s ύλακτούσTJÎ. If this epithet is felt to be too strong to apply to the Queen of Heaven, we must remember t h a t it is used with reference to Zeus's point of view. Clytemnestra does not hesitate to designate the august elders of Argos as a 'barking' pack [of hounds]. 301-400 316 7 r j < s μίρο>5, Todt. 324 Zakas proposed μ < t v μ>οι. 331 This is indeed a locus conclamatus. Pages and pages have been written about it; but no solution of the difficulty yet offered is satisfactory. I had thought of άχίίματα for Ιχ«ι μ«τά (metathesis of vowels). Aeschylus is fond of the neuter plural of adjectives, e.g., κράτιστα (Prom. 216), Χωστά ( Ag. 1053), a form rare in prose (in this construction), never used by the orators. The fugitives have put into a harbor safe—άχίίματα. Cp. Eur. Andr. 749, Heracl. 428 χίίμωνος inipuyóvTts âypiov μίνο*. But, by a sort of irony, (ύναίων Ύάμων is added and the illusion broken—a combination of the real and the metaphorical, which is not unfrequent in Aeschylus. Cp. 134 ff. and τ λ ά τ α μίν ουν Χινορραφήΐ τ ί I δόμος ¿Xa ariyuiv Sopòs | άχΐίματόν μ' ίτ(μτί συν τνοαΐς (Arat. 1121), άχ«ίμ«ροι (Nonnus 1.142). If this is correct, the participle ττοίουσαν (note the accent) may have been originally TOT' ουσαν, the o falling out (by reason of the tribrach), and πτουσαν becoming ττοΐουσαν as the only possibility. B u t certainty cannot be attained in a conjecture of such a corrupt passage. 323 T h e reading άντήαα% is impossible. Austin Smyth suggests άντλησα.!, which, in my judgment, is also impossible. The correction by Victorius άνστήσχις, 'lift up' (as from sanctuary), i.e., 'succour' is by far the best. So Smyth. Mazon retains άντήσαΐ, translating "traite donc en Argiennes celles dont la troupe est ici devant toi." 351 Hermann's Χυκοδίωκ-ον for Χευκύδικτον is plausible. 352 The M S S read ήΧιβάτοισιν. Valckenaer's -ois lv' is a neat correction. 361 Read with Weil y (papà φρονων for ytpaippòvcav (haplography) rather t h a n •γίραώφρων with Burges. 374 Pauw's θρόνοιs for χρόνοισι a t least accords with the sense. 386 δυσταραθίΧκτουί Burges, -TOH MSS. 395 H e a t h ' s φ\τγάν for φυγαί is an easy and necessary correction. 397 M a a s ( W K P h 1915, 694, and 1917, 536) would change κρίμα to τ pay μα, or read ίίκριτον τό χρήμα ' μη μ ' αίροΰ κριτήν. 400 Porson's τύχοι for τυχθχι seems necessary. ·9·

SUPPLICES 401-500 406 Headlam's Ipias for ίρξαι improves the text. 417 Metathesis of construction: SoKti &tiv for δοκίίν δ ti. The correction is due to Turnebus. 428 Pauw may be right in reading τάν ίκίτιν for τ' άαΐσταν M (rXatjjs τάν m in margin), but I have grave doubts: the dissimilarity is too great. 435 κτίοτ7$: =τοιήσΐ7$, 'whichever you do.'—The emendation &p (κτίναν (Abresch) is the best so far proposed, much better than Seidler's "Apti 'xTtivtiv and Boissonade's δορί rivtiv. Tucker's μίνοΰντ' ίκτίνΐΐν diverges too widely from the text (μίνίΐ). 458 Markscheffel's τ ά χ ' äv for τύχαν is a simple remedy. 464 άτλώΐ for άλλα xws is a certain correction. An identical mistake was made by the scribe at Eur. I. T. 98. See my article in the Revue de Philologie (October, 1930). 486 I read with Hermann οίκτίσas Ιδώι> for O Î K T O Î (ίσιδών. 501-600 502 Valckenaer's ξυμβοΧουσιν is an improvement on M S S ξυμβόλοισιν. 514 Headlam conjectured άναρκτον for ανάκτων, and I think he is right. Wilamowitz changes to άτρακτον. 518 M reads πι «τω, the other M S S «τιίτω. The chief emendations are as follows: πίίσω (Turnebus), σπίύσω (Martin, Heimsoeth), ΐρπω (F. W. Schneider), κίω (Zakas), πατώ (Wecklein), στίίχω (Weil). Not one of these is admissible, though στίίχω has been accepted by most editors. Some of them are impossible palaeographically (notably στίίχω) ; others are debarred for other reasons. Many years ago I suggested φοιτώ and I am still inclined to think that this is correct. The error is due to metathesis of vowels. In early Greek φ was pronounced p-h; and in later Greek οι and a were identical in sound. Consequently, I think that φοιτώ became ΐΓ«τώ, then πι «τω by metathesis of letters. Similarly in Cho. 418, φάντΐί became ιτάντίί. Cp. Ag. 823, where ίφραξάμ(σθα became έτρα£άμ«σβα, and 1194, where θηρώ was transformed into τηρώ. For the sense compare X 539 φοίτα μακρά βιβίσα, Γ 449, E 528, I 10 φοίτα κηρύκίσσι λνγυφθόγγοισι κ(\(ύων, Ν 760, Μ 266, Β 779. 527 ytvtL σώ is Schütz's correction for •γίΑσθω, and this is tempting, but it is doubtful whether any change is necessary (η/ΐνίσθω =òòs yevicdai). 556 Headlam's σινουμίνα for ίκνουμίνα is the best conjecture yet offered. 575 Lacuna after Zeús: "βία quid sit versu intercepto sciri nequit" (Wilamowitz). 584 Tucker accepts Stanley's φνσίζοοί for M S S -oov, but φυσί'ζόου (Schütz) is better. 601-700 617 ΐίσ&πιν χρόνου; i.e., eis τό λοιπόν, or simply τον λοιπόν χρύνον. 620 βόσκημα πημονής, 'a thing to feed suffering.' Cp. 618 παχOvai, and Shakespeare's 'to feed fat.' 647 σκοπόν:=όφβα\μόν. Cp. the Italian iettatura. So Terzaghi: "Minaccioso e pericoloso vi si asside non più l'occhio ma il malocchio, il male inviato dal dio stesso." 660 Fähse's ravit for τώνδί improves the text. 662 Porson's 7 0 5 must be read for τά$. 683 Stanley's Ιξω ταίζων for M S S (ξσττλίζων is a certain correction (Schreibfehler, A for Λ as • IO ·

SUPPLICES often). 685 An excellent example of incorrect division of syllables (δπτμόί for δ' Ισμίκ). See on Ag. 304. 691 Tucker's βòr' àypoîs for ßpirraros is plausible, but not certain. 693 Metathesis of letters—\άθοκν for θάΧοκν. T h e emendation is Hermann's. 695 The M S S read μοΰσαι 6tai r \ which Hermann changed to μονσαν θ(ίατ'. If this is correct, the verse means: άσαιντο ιτοιηταί. 701-800 718 Herwerden altered τώσ . í¡> to τοϊσιν, and this seems to be right. 722 (Örpej-Tos. i.e., ¿τίστ/μοί, or erupa.vT¡s ('in plain sight'). 727 τρίσβη, i.e., •xptffßtia. 732 "Supprimit quod in animum incidit 'nec desperandum etiamsi ab aris vos detrahant, luent enim aliquando sacrilegii poenas' " (Wilamowitz). 745 By simply changing an accent Stanley secured good sense, τ ο λ ί ΐ for ιτό\(ι, i.e., ττολλω. 746 Read with Schütz μίσημβριατ for -lei. 750 Delete δ in δουΧόφρονα (Valckenaer). —δ' txtìvoi (H. Voss), 5¿ καΐ (M). 765 otói was certainly originally ου δ«Ϊ (Bamberger). 782 Heath's ίφρικτον for άφυκτον gives, I think, the best sense. Tucker changed to the genitive plural, which is much nearer the manuscript reading: but if ρ dropped out, άφικτον would probably have been copied as άφυκτον. See on Ag. 288. 794 i f . λκτσά$, 'bare,' άπρόσδιικτοτ, 'un-point-out-able,' 'outranging sight,' οίόφρων = μονόφρων (in proud seclusion, like the Matterhorn), κρίμαs, 'beetling,' 7ir7riás 'vulture-haunted:' " O ! t h a t a peak t h a t dominates the air, a beetling inaccessible crag, far beyond the range of sight, solitary retreat of vultures, might afford asylum, to witness my downward plunge—down, down, to my doom!" 801-900 811 For Χύσιμα μάχιμα Wilamowitz proposed λύσιμά τ' άχιμά τ'. This seems to me to be a palmary emendation (Χύσιμα, "that promise deliverance,' άχιμα, 'that promise peace'). 812 Lachmann's φίλοι s makes better sense than M S S vhX*Îs· 819 μίτα . . . διόμίνοι: =θιiptúovTts, διώκοντ€ΐ. 836 ff. Anapaests such as these do not accord with the sense. Hence Conradt would read οΰκοΐ»> oí, 'etwa n i c h t ' . . . Dann!' "So kommt Sinn und Metrum zurecht. Wir erhalten zwei Dochmien." Both strophes and antistrophes are hopelessly corrupt. Conradt accepts Hermann's kit' άμαλα (Hesych.) for ΐκάμι&α. 853 Butler's οΰ σίβω is better than ΐΰσίβών. 856 Scaliger's άε£όμ>ov for δίξόμΐνον seems necessary. 867 Read aî yàp (Heath) for και yàp. 877 f. No satisfactory emendation has yet been made. Smyth reads λύμαs (Dindorf). Hermann conjectured συ irpò yds. Mazon does not attempt to make sense but prints λυμασ« ύτρσγασυλάσκίΐ. Wilamowitz adopts Enger's ύλάσκων. But this verb is not found elsewhere. Conradt, in his review of Wilamowitz's edition, says: "Auch dem Sinn dient besser úX$s και; denn das eis σύ τ pò yâs bezieht sich auch auf ßpuäftis. Es ist eine unwillige Frage." 884 The M S S give où δαμάξίται. Pauw's simple correction is by far the best yet proposed: ονδάμ' astrai. 886 Very corrupt. 892 Valckenaer's τ α should probably be read for M S S βά. •II·

SUPPLICES 901-1000 918 Porson's ταμ' όλωλύθ' is a palmary emendation (MSS τ άτολωλάθ'). 928 Heath's λέγοιμ' is to be preferred to M S S λtyoít. 939 tíatadt καυτός χοΐ (R. Ellis), ασθι,-γαυτοί χοιΐ (Μ). 950 The MSS ισθιμίν rah' ήδη . . . ίρ(ΐσθ( means nothing. I read with Cobet t o i y ß t v and aptΐσϋαι (Porson αϊρίσθαι) in lieu of anything better. The true correction has not been found. 954 Schütz changed φίXou to φί\αα. The feminine is better. 959 (ύθυμΰν was obviously originally ίνθ' ύμΐν (Kirchhoff) and ίντυχούση probably tbrvKovs (Porson). %3 Canter's \ωτίσασϋ( is a necessary change of λωτίσασθαι. 966 Porson's ά-γαθων for aya doit should be accepted. 974 Spanheim's (Ιτυκοί is better than M S S (ντυκτος. 976 I am inclined to think that Mazon's iv r¿ x¿ipαδιναν (Wilamowitz). I prefer the reading of the later M S S (-όν) : the adjective goes more naturally with ¿cos than with xaptíáv. The change from -òv to -ων would be easy under any circumstances, but with the juxtaposed δσσων doubly so. Austin Smyth would read \(φομίνα ftißos raptiâv comparing Soph. Ant. 528 ff. The Greeks said Xtißtiv fieos, but Xetßeotiat βώματι raptiäv. Cp. Eur. Andr. 532 (with schol.). 401-500 409 Many attempts have been made to restore the lost word (or words): τ' ίσχατιαί (Weil), θ' Ισιτίριοι (Wecklein), δυρύμίνοι (Fritzsche), πρθομίναν (Dindorf), δακρυχΐίΐ (Hermann, who reads the στίνονσα of Ν), τ' οίχομίναν (Mazon). Probably none is correct, for we can never be sure when the possibilities are so great, one guess being as good as another. 415 ff. Cp. Nero 3.3 "The men of Colchis a t thy suffering grieve; | The shaggy dwellers of the Scythian rocks, I The Mosch condemned to perpetual snows, | That never wept at kindred's burials, | Suffers with thee and feels his heart to soften." 420 Dindorf, Boissonade, Mazon, and Smyth read Ά p a ß i a s (MSS). Many conjectures have been made, the best, perhaps, being Ά piai τ' (Martin, Härtung, Wecklein). Burges suggested Άβάρια, Schütz χαΧυβίας, Wieseler Άραμία?, Hermann Σαμαρτάν, Ludwig 'Ißepias, Heimsoeth Χαλκίδοί, Foss Άρίίων. 431 ff. Most scholars think that in these admirable verses the poet is describing the grief of nature for Atlas. In my edition I declared that I had always believed that they form the climax to the verses describing the universal mourning for Prometheus. So Bevan (later) in his translation (p. 89) ; also his reviewer in CR. So Smyth in his translation. Mazon's rendering does not make it clear whether he considers Atlas or Prometheus the object of "leur plainte désolée." Ribbeck would transpose the strophe and antistrophe. But the strophe, I think, does net belong here at all. This is shown by the lack of responsion, by the subject-matter, and by the words ίκαμανταδίτοπ Χύμαι%. The antistrophe is really an «ryáós. Havet believes that it is all an interpolation (425-35), probably from another work of Aeschylus (RPh 47.80 ff.). 435 στίναν is always used, both in prose and in poetry, either with a direct object or absolutely. Hence στίνουσtv âXyos is not equivalent to στίνουσιν άλγοΟσαι, as many scholars interpret. Cp. 397 στίνω at.. . στίνουσι τιμάν. It is the 4X70$

•33·

PROMETHEUS of the Titan, not of the nymphs themselves, that the Oceanides have in mind. στίνω SXyos in the sense of στίνω στύνον is an impossibility : no parallel can be found in Greek literature. Cp. Eur. Med. 996 μίταστίνομαι σον άλγοί, Soph. Ph. 341 ά\·γήμαθ' ώοτί μη τα των TíXas στίν(ιν, Aesch. Eunt. 58 μίταστίνίιν The noun Tcòvov, δ 261 άτην δί μίτϊστίνον, Archil. 9.7 Í X K O S άναστίνομ(ν. άλγοί means both dolor and maeror. Here it is equivalent to irövos. Cp. Plato, Rep. 413D τόνου* ytav και ά\·γήδονας. Aesch. Prom. 66,98 πήμο. στίνάχω, Eur. Hee. 589, Hei. 463, Soph. Ph. 338, and later in this play (615) θρήνων TÓvovs. So in Lycophron and Nonnus. 442 The MSS reading τα.ν ßporois δί ττήματα is correct. There is no need to change to δωρήματα, or δ' ίργματα, or δί πταίσματα, δ' ίνρήματα, δί πράγματα, β' ήρήματα. 443 το πριν: = τρόTtpov. The article is not necessary in poetry, but it is in prose. 452 άήσυροι: scurrying, swarming, 'ants make their ado.' 461 "Memory fills her ample page I With truths pour'd down from every distant age" (Cowper). 463 σωμασιν, Pauw σ ay μασά, which has been (rightly, I think) received into the text by Weil, Wecklein, Blomfield, and Smyth. Mazon retains σώμασίν. Faber conjectured σήμασίν, Brunck κίντροισιν. 480 W. Aly (RM 1914) would read τταστόν for πιστόν, comparing Theocritus 11.2. 481 τρίν ye, 'that is, before' = until, hence indicative, the only example with irpiv in Aeschylus. σφίσιν = αυτοί s (the only example in tragedy). 501-600 510 «δίλιτυ followed by μηδέν instead of οϋδίν (regularly) and the future infinitive, which is the usual construction: but ί\τίζαν may have the present (Sept. 76, Cho. 187, Fr. 281), or even the aorist. 521 There is a secret . . . which may transfer the scepter of wide heaven, | The fear of which perplexes the Supreme (Shelley). 536 The context shows that τόδ( refers to the wish just expressed. In fact, οδ(, ηδ(, τόδί refer to something just mentioned more frequently than our manuals would lead us to believe. Nor does ivtua follow its case invariably : it precedes much more frequently than the casual observer would suppose. There are hundreds of examples of the pre-position. 541 To fill the lacuna Dindorf suggested yvuxffibpou, Fritsche χα\κ(υμάτων, Minckwitz βουλαΐϊ θe¿3i>, Kiehl αύθαδίφ, Stüremberg Ζηνί στιτγόί. But, of course, not one is certain. 543 For Ιδία γνώμρ Reisig conjectured αντσ·γνωμόνω*. Weil ο'ώφρων yi/ώμαν, Wecklein μουνάδl γνώμρ, Heimsoeth αντοβουΧία. There seems to be no good reason for abandoning the reading of the MSS. In fact, not one of the emendations is palaeographically probable. Both Smyth and Mazon read ιδία γνώμςι. 549 The MSS iaòvtipov is sound and should not be rejected for άντόναρον (Reisig, Weil).—There is a lacuna, probably after ο&ττοτί (—). Meineke proposed before à\aòv, and this is accepted by Wecklein. Minckwitz wrote Ut\óvupov, Fritzsche ùs óvtipov. Alii alia. 572 κ way ti is Hermann's emendation of Kuvriytra 1. He is followed by Wecklein. Brunck reads nvvayerti, which is accepted by Dindorf, Smyth, Mazon; and I now believe that they are right. 574 Liddell and Scott construe νηστιν as an adjective modifying ψάμμαν, whereas in fact it qualifies μ«: of this there

•34·

PROMETHEUS can be no doubt. The object is put at the head of the sentence; then the subject (τηρών) ; these are closely knit together by τ< και, and the sentence ends with νηστιν ίνα την ταραλίαν φάμμαν (famished along the coast). Cp. 600, Cho. 250, Eur. Ι.Γ. 973. 601-700 609 Earle would read ή dis (CR 14.21). But μασσον ¿is, though rare, is good Greek. See note in my edition. 621 Read the aorist participle σαφηνίσατ (Linwood). 638 f. μέλλοι: the optative because it is complementary to the infinitives. So regularly. 649 With ίμίρου ßeXti compare Heliod. 7.7 raîs jSoXaîj των οφθαλμών, Molière, L'École des femmes "Vos yeux ont fait ce coup fatal," Shirley, Witty Fair One 1.3, "Either eye are arrows drawn to wound." 668 The M S S read ίξαϊστώσίΐ, and this Mazon adopts. Smyth accepts Blomfield's emendation -ωσοι. The indicative can stand, but the optative is more likely. 676 f . Austin Smyth would read ίΰττοτόν ye Κ ípxvtias ρ tos, Αίρνηί τιβήνην ( M S S re . . . άκραν re). Most editors accept Canter's re κρηνήν. There are half a dozen conjectures. Cp. Αίτνα χώνο% τιθήνα. 692 The text is right as it stands in the MSS. φύχίΐν is the consecutive infinitive, πήματα, λύματα, δίίματα being the subjects of μολύσθαι, which still lingers in the mind from verse 689. 701-800 749 Note the attributive position of πάντων. The other examples in Aeschylus are Prom. 483, 751, 841, 975. 790-97 If we restore the final vowel of τίρωσα to φλοΐσβον, we secure a Πόντον "Αφλοισβον, which the poet imagines in this dimly known region, whether the 'surgeless' sea be the Caspian or purely fictitious. This emendation was made by me thirty years ago. But Groeneboom does not seem to have seen it, for he says (1927) : "Equidem suspicor locum non esse corruptum, sed verba male esse distincta\ Aeschylus enim scripsit: τ όντον ιτίρωσ' αφλοισβον." Thirty-nine of the forty mouths of the Araxes empty into marshes and lagoons, forming a veritable ITÓVTOS άφλοισβοί. Cp. Hdt. 1.202. The shorn and parcell'd Oxus strains along Through beds of sand and matted rushy isles. In Homer φλοΐσβον refers only to the din of battle. The word is not found in the Odyssey—only in the epic of tumult and war, where it always means ταραχή, θόρυβοs. In Aeschylus the word occurs only in this passage. Elsewhere in classical Greek I have not come across a single example, except in a fragment of Sophocles, where it seems to be a Homeric reminiscence: φλοΐσβον μ tra κόπον καθημίνοα. Lycophron furnishes a second (379, φλοίσβων ôivais), and we fish up a third five hundred years later from the mud of Oppian's tract On Fishing (φλοίσβο$ ¿Xuóíis). B u t even when we restore α to its rightful owner by a correct division of syllables, the sentence still lacks a verb—there is no main clause. Consequently, scholars have universally assumed a lacuna. Let us suppose that the missing verb is the imperative (as in 810). Such a verb could come only after άντολάί. In 253 we read φλσγωπόν τΰρ, and in 498 φλογωττά σήματα.

•35'

PROMETHEUS Now, φ\ a f t e r δράτω (anonymous). The end of the play could hardly have been written by Aeschylus—for artistic reasons alone. See Wilamowitz, Beri. Sitzb. 1903, 436 ff. ; and his "Aischylos" 88. As Pohlenz says, "Auch Roberts Versuch (Oedipus 1378), wenigstens die Einführung der Schwestern für Aischylos zu halten, scheint mir misslungen. . . . Entscheidend ist, das die Anapäste 861 ff., die die Schwestern einführen, mit ihren unpoetischen Wendungen und zwecklosen Ausmalungen unmöglich Aischylos zugetraut werden können."

.48·

AGAMEMNON The Oresteia is a magnificent tableau in which different stages of the same great action pass before our eyes and in which are unfolded the long consequences of a sin. The Oresteia is "probably on the whole the greatest spiritual work of man" (Swinburne). The characters are real personages, not mere puppets of the poet's brain. The movement is slow and stately, though the tone is somewhat tempered by the watchman and the returning soldier. After a few verses we learn that Troy has fallen. But the drama makes but little progress until it is half over. In the next play fearful conflicts are presented with remarkable brevity, but in the Agamemnon the audience had to be got into the right frame of mind. We are oppressed at the very beginning with a vague sense of many crimes—we hear the distant rumbling of a gathering storm. If the house could speak, says the watchman, it might tell much. The chorus of elders, in their entrance song, take us back to thoughts of the army when it left for Troy ten years before. The succeeding lyric dactyls are the most elevated measure known to Greek; on them prayer wings itself heavenward. The triumph of good is sure; but a repeated cry of woe accompanies that prayer for good; the solemn knock is heard at every step. When the queen comes forth to sacrifice, the elders begin a dactylic strain which brings to mind another sacrifice. This gives the keynote of the catastrophe. Brooding trochees follow and we hear the lull of the wind that will not waft the fleet to Troy. Then come grave measures and an account of the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, after which Clytemnestra announces the capture of Priam's citadel. The burghers are incredulous. Has she merely dreamed it? But no, a surer messenger had come. This description of the relay of courier-beacons is one of the most celebrated passages in Greek literature. Through it all runs a wild sensuality; and there is an intense personification. The queen then dwells on the images of prostrate forms and ransacked

•49·

AGAMEMNON

homes in Troy. The chorus dismiss her in a short and rather ironical commendation and sing a song in praise of Zeus, who brought it all about. Then comes the other guilty person, Helen, who yields to temptation, and the theme changes to the trouble brought on innocent people at home. The action is gradually moving toward Argos. Suddenly a soldier enters and brings direct news of the great event. He addresses the gods, one after another, and blends sad memories of the suffering he has endured, of comrades left on a foreign shore, with the joy of treading his native soil again. He relates to his sympathizing listeners the manifold hardships they had had to bear, and hopes that Menelaus may reach home in safety. Mention of the brother chieftain prompts a new ode on his wife, after which the king enters, and with him Cassandra. Agamemnon speaks grandly of his victory. Clytemnestra receives him with adulation and with protestations of love and fidelity. Her expressions of loyalty are exaggerated because they are mendacious; but her joy is real (she has her victim)—the exuberance of her speech carries with it the suggestion of great force of character. The king is not deceived by his queen's hypocrisy when she approaches him with this outburst of superabundant love. Gow thinks Agamemnon has no suspicions, for he nowhere treats her as he would be bound to, if he knew the truth; he fails to understand the hints of the chorus, and it is this failure, as much as the generally disquieting course of the subsequent dialogue, which arouses in the chorus the forebodings expressed in 966ff. But Gow, I think, is wrong. He says that Headlam and Verrall are the only two he has been able to discover who hold that Agamemnon suspects Clytemnestra. Perhaps the others did not think it necessary to comment on the circumstance. I have known several eminent scholars who agree with Headlam and Verrall. A. Y . Campbell also (CQ 1932) holds that Headlam is wrong in his view. But, after all, is it not a mere quibble over words? Agamemnon was certainly a man who could read character, and he could certainly divine that his wife's words were mendacious; but Aeschylus obviously did not expect his audience to believe that " h e knew the truth" and consequently walked into the trap with full knowledge of Clytemnestra's designs. His suspicions were not suffi.50·

AG

AMEMNON

ciently aroused to put him on his guard: of course, he never dreamed that she would go to such lengths. The words λέξασα, ίκτάνασα, ψαώρόνου$, are all appropriate. Clytemnestra had certainly ' held forth' (Χί£ασα = Xòyovs ποίησαμένη, not άπουσα), and had kept on 'ringing,' like the orators of whom Socrates complains in the Protagoras (ώσιτίρ τα χαλκέία πλη"/έντα μακρόν ηχβΐ καί άποτίίνα.) ; and she certainly had met her lord φαώρόνους, as every word she utters in her feigned outburst of love indicates. But he yields finally to her insistence. Reluctantly he enters the palace with that pomp which he feels is a challenge to the envy of the gods. The Oriental luxury displayed, though only symbolical, awakens the apprehensions of the chorus. In wonderful verses they give expression to the fears that besiege their souls. Here begins the second part of the tragedy. The ode is brief because the catastrophe is approaching. The inner excitement of the elders is admirably brought out by the rapid hexapody. Suddenly that "strangeeyed, spirit-wounded, strange-tongued slave, questing houndlike where the roofs red-wet as a wet-red grave," utters a wild cry. The chorus question in surprise why she appeals to Apollo with a cry of woe. She does not answer but talks mysteriously, as if to herself, of the house accurst that could tell of many a bloody deed of butchery, of the little wailing children slaughtered for a meal. The mystified chorus cannot understand the purport of her utterances, but a faint cold fear runs through their veins and almost freezes up the heart of life. They marvel more and more and wonder how it will all end. Finally the inspired virgin foresees her own doom. She predicts that doom in dochmiac measure. Then the oracular tone is abandoned. No riddling now, but plain speech. As she moves toward the door and enters the palace the audience is overwhelmed with painful suspense; and Agamemnon's death-cry comes almost as a relief to the tension; and later when their queen meets the burghers with the bloody axe (or sword?) still in her right hand, they are awed into silence, for they thought to meet the despicable Aegisthus, but find their queen, whom they are accustomed to obey. She does not flinch: triumphant she stands there declaring exultantly that the deed is hers. Though inwardly overcome by the strain, she controls •51 ·

A GΑ ΜΕ ΜΝΟΝ herself by mere force of will power. One thing, however, she will not be able to control—the worm of conscience which will begnaw her soul. Clytemnestra has certain dregs of conscience within her, commentators to the contrary notwithstanding. She had put no faith in dreams, in the phantasms of a sleep-imprisoned soul, but now she will cry out in sleep: "Out, damned spot!" Clytemnestra has suddenly changed. She acts as a free agent, upborne by her indomitable will, magnificent even in her crime. This Clytemnestra is the creation of Aeschylus, who transformed the myth so that the guilt strikes her alone. When Aegisthus appears and the chorus denounce him as the assassin, and he confesses that he had planned the murder, the queen remains silent. But finally she steps between the contending parties and counsels moderation. The tragedy ends with trochaic tetrameters (which mediate between the first and second plays of the trilogy, and is a prophecy of what is yet to come) : this shows that the end is not yet, that there is only a truce, not a final pacification. Clytemnestra is composed of tougher fiber than Lady Macbeth, is cast in a different mold; she is not so elastic, not so sensitive: she has the energy and decision to consummate the business happily without a sign of breaking down; her nerves are never unstrung. " The solidity of her character is impressed upon us with a force and reality that has never been surpassed" (Symonds). Con la regina scota su'l lido nel lume di luna Sta Clitemnestra : tuffan le bianche braccia in mare.—Carducci.

Mr. Frederic Harrison says of the last part of the Agamemnon·." The whole range of the drama contains no scene so tremendous, so vivid, so rich in mass, pathos, and intensity of colour;" and Goethe, in the letter (Sept. 1 1816) in which he thanks von Humboldt for his translation of the Agamemnon, calls it " d a s Kunstwerk der Kunstwerke." 1-100 7 Bracketed by Pauw, Weil, Headlam, Smyth, but not by Mazon. 10 On ßtyas αντίδικος see Pearson CR 1923, 104. 32 ff. The watchman will dance, as a φροίμιον to his good luck; the beacon has thrown treble sixes for

•52 ·

AGAMEMNON him (μοι), not for his master alone, hence abròt îywyt. Agamemnon has had good luck (τα όίσ-κοτων tí τ ta όντα), which means his own as well. He proposes to reap the benefit at once, since the Aiòt κύβοι have fallen well for him. Wilamowitz translates: "efficiam ut bene cecidisse erae res videantur"; Smyth: "for my lord's lucky cast I shall count to mine own score"; Murray: "for my master's dice I score good." θήσομαι is indeed the technical word 'to make a move' (in τίσσοί), but here probably in the bookkeeping sense. Mazon translates 'je les porte à mon compte,' but he adds in a note "Litt. J'en ferai mon jeu." 50 VRATOI is always superlative = ύψιστοι. Hence the translation 'high above,' 'au-dessus de l'aire' is questionable. In 514 wr aros χώρα s means 'supreme in the land.' Headlam would read ύτατη\(χίων, 'in exceeding anguish for their lofty-cradled children.' Housman proposed άτarg Χεχαίων, which is very doubtful. The same may be said of Adams's άτάτβ \(χίων (CR 1930). 69 Casaubon's νποκαίων for ΰτοκλαίων is a certain correction. 70 Smyth translates ¿πύρων itpCiv 'sacrifices unsanctified,' and explains in a note: "that will not burn." He thinks it is a veiled reference to the sacrifice of Iphigeneia and the wrath of Clytemnestra, or to Paris' violation of the laws of hospitality that provoked the anger of Zeus. Mazon translates "dont la flamme ne veut pas." He explains: "on estime que le Ciel refuse de les agréer." Cp. Soph. Arti. 1007 ff. Pearson, in his review of Mazon's edition, holds that this is incorrect. L. Campbell (AJP 1880) suggests that the sentence means 'the unrelenting Wrath attending on the rite which employs no fire." And this is certainly the meaning of άκυρων. Cp. Pind. 0. 7.48, Soph. FT. 417. 77 Hermann's άνή,σσων for αν άσσων is correct. 95 Dindorf says: "Improprie de unguento non adulterato (άδόλοισι)." But L. Campbell thinks that the adjective here means 'incapable of deceiving,' since the unguent would not have been drawn from its repository except by the arrival of authentic news. Mazon translates: "dont la douceur n'est pas trompeuse," and he explains by 'destinée à stimuler la flamme, elle use sa douceur pour la réveiller, non pour l'endormir.' 101-200 103 Read rijs θνμοβόρου φρίνα Xwrijs (Hermann) for την θυμοβόρον Xwrijs φρίνα (F). M has θυμοβόρον. 105-46 For an analysis and interpretation of these verses see Siisskand, WKPh 1915, 496-502. Campbell would read π«ιθοϊ instead of ταθώ (106), as an instrumental dative: "Although my bodily strength declines, the Muse is with me still." Dawson would read ίρικύμονα in 119 (CR 41). He claims that verse 122 is still within the direct influence of Ζ 57-60 —the twain, two in temper, but Agamemnon dominating his milder brother. 115 Thiersch (after Blomfield) corrected ápyías to &pyq.s. 116 ϊκταρ μίλάθρων: near the palace. See Kranz, Hermes, 54.303. 131 Hermann rendered ιτροτνπίν by 'prius percussum,' and his explanation has been generally accepted. So Smyth, "smite it ere it reach its goal;" Mazon, "prenant les devants." This seems questionable to Agar (CR 1923. 16 ff.), and he suggests 'forward flung,' comparing Kipling's "our far-flung battle-line."—Hermann's &ya for óra is a certain correction. 134 οΐκτω (Scaiiger), for MSS οίκφ.

•53·

AGAMEMNON !41 Wellauer changed άέλττοκ (M) to Xérrou, which seems to me better than óérTOis (adopted by Mazon). 144 alvo. Gilbert, airtì MSS. Campbell would read a i m ('yields assent'). 145 Porson bracketed στρουθων, which is better than Headlam's deletion of φάσματα. 165 t ò (Pauw), τ¿Se (MSS). 170 Austin Smyth would read ΐ\ξ(ται 'will weigh' (CR 25.141), but H. L. Ahrens' oΰδè Χίξίται (fut. mid. as pass.) is far more probable (MSS ουδέν λέξαι). 177 TÒV (Schütz), τω (M). 189 ταλιρρόχ0ο« (Η. L. Ahrens), -ρόβοπ (MSS). 194 Mackworth (CR 23.11) suggests άλαί for άλαι ('cooping up'). 201-300 202 (ΚΛΑ-ΓΞΊΡ (Porson), €κ\αξ( (MSS). 205 Stanley's TÒT' for τόs to indicate a light appearing from the northeast. He conjectures τροήνυσίν for irpòs ήδονήν. But this is not only a violent change—it necessitates another change (ισχύν for £σχύ$); and it results in a very doubtful verse. That πύκη conceals an original Τίφρικί is at least not unlikely, for ρ was probably voiceless after κ in later Greek, and here it is preceded by two labials (τίφρικί became τίφικί = TÍVIKÍ = πύκη). See Sturtevant, Pronunciation of Latin and Greek, pp. 165 f. (Chicago, 1920), and my note on βίβόντ (Eum. 76). 301-400 304 No editor retains χαρίζ ίσθαι, the reading of all the MSS. Yet this is precisely the word demanded by the context. Casaubon corrected to χρονίξ ίσθαι (which is palaeographically most improbable) and this emendation has been accepted by practically all editors, in spite of the fact that, in my opinion, it yields no plausible or tolerable sense. The passage cited from the Septem (54) has nothing to do with the case: και τωνδί πύστι* ουκ όκνω χρονιζίται. One can urge a runner to μι) χρονίζ ίσθαι, but what in the world doesώτρυνί θίσμόν mean? In verse 312 we read, it is true, τοιοίδί roí μοι λαμπαδηφόρων νόμοι, but by no stretch of the imagination can this be considered analogous to θίσμόν μή χρονίζίσθαι. Margoliouth tries to join μη with χρονίξίσθαι to form a new infinitive: μηχανησασϋαι. But it is very unlikely that a copyist would have mistaken -χανησασθαι for χαρίζ ίσθαι, especially with a prefixed μή. Our text is correct, I think, as it appears in the manuscripts, with the sole exception of μή, a word that no scholar has tried to emend. One syllable dropped out (as frequently), because it formed the second mora of a tribrach. Then the truncated (and meaningless) μα was altered to μή to make an iambus, and a t

.56·

AGAMEMNON the same time apparent sense. But χαρίζίσθαι now became nonsensical: the context demands a positive, not a negative statement. The light of the beaconsignal rouses another great blaze on its arrival, ά μ α , tout de suite; another mighty flame shoots skyward : όρος τ' br' AiyÎir\a.yKTOV ίξικνούμίνον ΰιτρυν' ffi ίσμόν άμα χαρίζίσθαι τυρός. The flambeau is here a swarm of fire, and in the next sentence a great beard of ^ame'

τίμιτουσί δ' άνδαίοντις άφθόνω μΐν(ΐ οπ\ηθή \ δ' ίσμόν, 223 πέΚαίδων, 684 νοΰσων, Plato, Rep. 450Β, Athen. 10.432C. 309 The beacon from Mt. Arachnaeus would not have been visible from Mycenae, but it would from Argos. Indeed. Mycenae is never mentioned by Aeschylus as the site of Agamemnon's palace. But in Homer and in Sophocles the commander-in-chief of the Greek forces at Troy is king of Mycenae. 314 What is the meaning of νικφ? How can one who runs last be equally victorious with the one who runs first? Some scholars explain by asserting that the beacon on Mt. Ida started first and finished last, whereas the one on Mt. Arachnaeus started last and finished first. But that would be an odd kind of a race. An exact correspondence between the ordinary \αμταδηφορία and this beaconrelay is not intended—the comparison is true only in a peculiar sense: there is a chain of fires (like runners) and the torch is 'passed on,' but there the similarity in the races ends. Each runner is victor (νικ£), bears a message of victory, and in a sense he is also a winner, but he does not 'beat' a competitor. Nevertheless, the whole team wins, just as it does in the torch race in Athens; the victory belongs to all the runners alike, for each has run his part of the course without •57'

AGAMEMNON letting the fire kindled on Mt. Ida become extinguished until it reaches M t . Arachnaeus. 344-49 These verses are often misinterpreted. In 346 «-ypjjyopòi is adjectival, or (if we accent as a proparoxytone) an adjective pure and simple. I agree with Könnecke t h a t the meaning is: "Dann durfte sich das den Umgekommenen widerfahrene Leid wach d.h. wirksam erweisen, vorausgesetzt, dass nicht noch ein neues Unheil sie treffen sollte." But there is a covert allusion to Aulis: Clytemnestra is in fact thinking of Iphigeneia when she says typriyopòs τό πημα των όλωλότων. Hence the words immediately following: ti τρόσταια μη τΰχοι κακά. Agamemnon has had a long respite; but his crime is not forgotten. 389 Pearson's rpooßokais is a certain correction of τροβολαίϊ. 394 τoravbv (Schütz), ττανόν (F), -ττανόν τιν' (Ν). 397 Klausen's των for τωνδί is probably correct. Mazon accepts Weyrauch's τωνδ' ίτίστροφον 6i for τον δ' ζκίστροφον τωνδ(, and Wilamowitz's τρόστριμμα θ(1ΐ άφίρτον for -ιμμ' άφ(ρτον deis (395). 401-500 404 Η. L. Ahrens removed r« και from the end to the beginning of the verse. 405 < 0 ' > (Hermann). 412 ciyàs άτιμουs άλοιδόρονς (Hermann), σιγάς άτιμος άλοίδορος (MSS). 413 Enger's άλγιστ' for ài ιστός improves the text. 418 f. Scholars differ widely in their interpretations of this short sentence. Smyth translates "in the hunger of his eyes all loveliness is departed," Swanwick "Not Aphrodite's self can still the hunger of his eyes," Davis "all of fair and gracious dies before the hunger of his eyes," Ellis "And love himself a mask of famine wears, the heavy eyes are famine's," Blackie "in his eye pines Aphrodite leanly." Let these suffice to show one conception of the connotation of ομμάτων and ίχηνίαις. Gow declares that the allusion is to Helen's eyes, and he quotes Ach. Tat. 6.6 and Eumanthius 3.7 in support of his contention. I could quote a dozen more in the same tenor. But Mazon thinks the eyes referred to are neither Helen's nor Menelaus's: "La grâce des belles statues n'est plus qu'odieuse à l'époux: elles n'ont pas de regard, tout leur charme amoureux a fui." So evidently Murray: "Images in sweet guise | Carven shall move him never. | Where is Love amid empty eyes?" Conington seems to think that even the statues refer to Helen: "No more in rapture mute he I Beholds her sculptured beauty; | In the blank that lies before his eyes | All lost is Venus' duty." Liddell and Scott translate 'in the eyes' blank gaze.' Whose? Of the statues, or of Menelaus? Many translators will not commit themselves. So Verrall: "Grace of beautiful idols the husband hateth: in the want of the eyes all the passion is gone." To what does "the want" refer, to whom do "the eyes" belong? Goodwin is a little more definite: "For in the want of living eyes all love has vanished." Aphrodite is σίμνή ye μίντοι κάττίσημος tv βροτοΐς. She confers grace and beauty, not passion alone, upon her devotees; and the love and worship of physical beauty is one of the most striking characteristics of the Greek race. Why does the poet mention statues here at all? They give pleasure to the Greek eye and soul. But to Menelaus they are now cold and dead. They are as beautiful as his departed wife: but

.58·

A G AM

EM

NON

they are not the living Helen. Aeschylus himself is not careful to specify what eyes and what lack or want he has in mind : he is merely contrasting the vacant home with what it once was, and in which, now that Helen is gone, no beauty will satisfy. The eyes of the most beautiful goddess carved in marble lack lustre, lack life: " L o s t in the lack of eyes that shone, | The warm love dead and gone" (Headlam), " I n the spirit's listless void | All sense of beauty sinks destroyed" (Campbell), " A n d in the penury of life's bright eyes | All Aphrodite's charm | T o utter wreck has gone" (Plumptre). 423 The M S S read ôpâv, which Scholefield emended to ôpç.. The infinitive is due to its juxtaposition to δοκών. Mazon, however, retains ôpâv: "car c'est bien vanité, si du bonheur qu' on croit voir." So Headlam, who has a good note on the passage. to άταδονσ'. 430 The M S S give τίνθα.a 426 Dobree corrected oraôoîs τ\ησικάρδιοτ, which, as Headlam says, is the opposite of the sense. He would 433 Porson inserts ris after yap, which both read irtvQti άτ\ησικάρδιοί. sense and meter require. 437 f. Norwood would construe bopbs with ταλαντούχος. C p . the genitive in the preceding line. Both are corrective or limiting genitives. The precious dust which Ares gives is the dust of slain men, the beam of his balance is the leveled spear. 444 Calder (CR 37.55) seeks to prove by an inscription from Laodicea Combusta that (ύθίτον of the M S S is correct (editors generally accept Auratus's (ύθίτονs). With τίμπα Ares becomes a consigner of freight—not of men, but of ashes, with which he loads, not ships, but urns. And this mortal freight is tWtroj, 'easily-handled,' not 'decently bestowed.' This interpretation is challenged by Dawson (CR 42). The phrase is as old as Homer: Achilles eJ ίθηκί Patroclus. In the Galatian inscription, 'easily handled,' or even 'convenient' is unthinkable (it reads μ' Wtaav (WtTov). Cp. θήκη in this very strophe. 468 Grotius' ύτ(ρκόπωΐ seems a certain correction of \παρκότω%. 470 Tucker's κάρανα for Ktpavvós has found favor with Headlam and with Smyth, but not with Mazon. Wilamowitz retains Ktpavvós. But κάρανα seems to be exactly what the context demands. 489-500 Kcnnecke thinks these verses should be given to Clytemnestra. On her lips alone are such expressions as rtpirvov φώ%, τό χαipttv μάλλον, and irpòs tu φανίισι "denkbar." The stylistic quality of the verses favors the same view. Note the "überladenen und gesuchten Bilderreichtum des Ausdrucks der für die innere Unwahrheit von Klytaimestras Wesen so bezeichnend ist." In the mouth of the chorus they would be a parody. Clytemnestra is convinced that the gods, and especially Δίκη, are on her side. Her silence before the herald is explained by her absence—she has reentered the palace. So perhaps Atossa in the Persae. Most scholars, however, assign the verses to the coryphaeus. 494 μαρτυρά does not mean "m'en est garante," nor "bezeugt," but 'indicates,' 'zum Beweise dient.' Cp. Soph. Ο.T. 1032. The cloud of dust merely indicates the great haste of the herald, whence one may surmise the great importance of the message. The returning soldier is not "mit Staub und Schmutz bedeckt," as Schneidewin-Hense render. We have to do here with K0m. not the herald. 496 Agar (CR 37.16) would read o5re toi, representing the ordinary οίτοι, non sane. " T o the appearance of σοι may be traced the

•59·

AGAMEMNON M S S misattribution of the speech t o C l y t e m n e s t r a . " 498 τό χαίραν μάλλον is often incorrectly explained. Schneidewin translates: " E r wird die durch die Feuerzeichen geweckte Lust bestimmter herausreden." But Könnecke is right, I think, in explaining: "seine Botschaft wird die Aufforderung enthalten, uns noch mehr zu freuen" (than heretofore). C p . τιρπνον τόδ' (λθάν φω% (492). 501-600 504 T h e genitive δίκάτου is better t h a n the dative. 511 ήσθ' (Askew's margin), ηλθ' (F), ηλθις (F 4 and Ν). 512 Dobree's και παιώνιος is a certain correction for και irayúvtos (F), κάπ- (Ν). 539 Verrall says: " T h i s line is hopeless." Numerous a t t e m p t s have been made to mend it. Enger added 76 after χαίρω, and this is accepted by most editors, including the latest (Smyth, Mazon). B u t χαίρω y e would be an answer to xaiptu, not to χ cup«. T h e sense of the passage is: "If it were now t o die, | 'Twere now to be most h a p p y ; for I fear, | M y soul h a t h her content so absolute | T h a t not another comfort like to this | Succeeds in unknown f a t e " (Othello, 2.1.187). Wilamowitz also adopts < 7 « > , as does Wecklein. H e a d l a m ' s emendation rtBvαίην δ' does not account for the corruption—nor does it accord with what follows. T h a t some form of θνήσκαν was in t h e original text is indicated by verse 550: tbs νυν—τό σον δη—και θανίίν πολλή χάρις. This form (τίθνάναι) we find in our manuscripts. B u t a syllable m u s t be added t o χαίρω (metri gratia); and this syllable I conceive t o have been, not ye, b u t re, which is not, however, t h e enclitic, but an integral p a r t of t h e verb: χ α ípoirt τίθνά ναι δ' οΰκίτ' άντίρω 9eoîs. T h e first re dropped out before re in τίθνάναι, and the truncated χαίροιremained, which easily became χαίρω under t h e influence of the superposed Xaîpe. W h a t would be more natural for one who saw xaîpe a t t h e beginning of one verse t h a n to convert χαίροι in t h e next verse into χαίρω, as an answer? As in Soph. Tr. 227, t h e chorus greet the herald: χαίρίΐν τον κήρυκα προΰννίπω, and t h e latter replies not with χαίρίτί, b u t with χαίροire, which is more significant—in view of what he is a b o u t to add. " χ α ΐ p e " , he implies, is not the greeting meet for him, b u t τίθναθι—if t h e gods so ordain: ού χαίραν άλλα τίθνάναι, et oi θ(οί μ( θανίίν kíXíúouv (Cp. Achilles' θάνί και σύ t o Priam's son). He is prepared to obey their behests, for he has seen his native land again— nothing more in life matters. Cp. Eur. Hec. 426 χ α ΐ pe . . . χαίρουσιν άλλοι, μητρί δ' ουκ 'ίστιν τόδί, Xen. An. 4.7.20 e¿ δί μή, τίθνάναι tirr¡yyéλλero, Soph. Ai. 479 καλώς τίθνηκίναι τον eirytvij χρή. T h a t t h e optative is what the context demands is f u r t h e r supported by Homer (r¡ 225), the very passage which Aeschylus may have had in mind: ώ$ κ' ίμί τον δύστηνον ίμψ ίπιβήσετί τάτρηί | καίπ(ρ π ο λ λ ά παθόντα· ίδόντα μ( και λ ί π ο ι αιών | κτησιν ίμήν δμωάί τ ί και υφίρίφίί μtya δώμα . Cp. Η . Η . Aphwd. 154, Aesch. Cho. 437, Eur. El. 281 θάνοιμι μητρός αίμ' ίπισφάξα! ίμηί, Οτ. 1116 και μην τόδ' ep£as δις θανίίν οΰχ αζομαι ( = τ(θνάναι δ' οΰκίτ άντίρω 0eoîs), Musaeus 79 αύτίκα τίθναίην \(χίων ίττιβήμtvos "HpoOs, Callim. Fr. 219 τ(θναίην οτ' ίκίίνον άποπνίΰσαντα τνθοίμην. 544 τπτΧψ/μίνοί m u s t be changed to -οι (Tyrwhitt). 546 < μ ' > is Scaliger's certain addition t o rt% for M S S où λαχόντίί. This, however, would require a second negative. Wilamowitz changes ήματος to ισμαros (which is used only by Lycophron), Stanley \αχόντ(s to κλαίοντίί. But all these alterations (some of them very violent) do not improve the text; and they do not go to the root of the matter. The text as we have it is, I think, correct, with the sole exception of où. In the preceding verse the poet has in mind the hardships of the night—cramped quarters and poor bedding—in this verse the ills of the morrow, after the night has passed, the ήματοs μίροί of the twenty-four hours. And this av is repeated in the next verse to contrast the hardships ashore with those during the voyage; then later on the trials in winter quarters (χαμωνα) with those in the summer time, the θίρου$ μίρο% of the year. For the accusative μίρος with λαχόι>τα compare Soph. El. 1135 κοIVÒV είΧηχώς μίρο%, Ant. 918 οΰτί τοΰ γάμοι; | μίρος ΧαχοΟσαν οΰτ( ταώίίου τροφηί, Eur. Fr. 403 λάχω? μέρος. Agar (CR 37.16) translates 'haud sortiti locum sedendi' (standing room only) : τίμα from ήμαι is as legitimate as πράγμα from πίπρα-γμαι." 560 Pearson deletes yap (rightly). 562 Agar says that the grammatical anomaly of τιθίντα has nothing to justify its presence (CR 37.16). He would change the text to τιθίν τάχ' Ινθηρον τρίχας (no comma). The cause persists (ίμπ(δον) and before long produces the disastrous effect. Conradt (in his review of Wilamowitz) has this to say about the passage: "V. Wil. zieht τιθίντκ zu δρόσοι und sieht darin ein Beispiel für die feminine Geltung des masculinen Partizips. Aber haben die Griechen wirklich geglaubt, dass Läuse, auf die nach v.W. das Ινθηρον geht, vom Tau kommen? Und τρίχα ΐσθημάτων? Wer denkt denn bei ΐσθήματα an Pelzsachen!" He thinks TidtvTts should be changed to τιθίν Τ' «μ' and ίσθημάτων be taken with σίνοί. I do not think so; but he is in agreement with me in believing that où should be changed to α5. A. E. Taylor, CR 45 (1931) calls Liddell and Scott's rendering of Ινθηρον strange ('wild,' 'rough'). It means verminous ('germey', one of the notorious discomforts of trench warfare). Cp. Eur. Rhcs. 289, Soph. lehn. 215 f. There is no evidence that the word has any other meaning (Soph. Ph. 698 'maggots') in the classical literature. 572 Read (with Blomfield) ζυμφοpàs for -aîs. 584 Smyth accepts Margoliouth's ήβη, while Mazon retains ηβξ., as does Headlam. I think ήβφ is right.— «5 μαθέίν: > άταis, Bothe . Mazon accepts the former. I prefer the latter. 734 Kirchhoff accented το\υκτόνον, which is undoubtedly right. Mazon keeps the MSS ιτόλϋκτονον. 736 Read προσ(3ρίφθη with Heath (MSS ττροσΐτρ&φη). 740 < ¿ ' > (Porson). 745 Agar would read ταρακλίνασα δ' eriupa- | ve -γάμου πικράί reXfvràs. Cp. 239. 766 Klausen's όταν for MSS &rt is unnecessary. The subjunctive without âv is merely a relic of the older speech and gives the expression an archaic color. 767 ¡paos τόκου (H. L. Ahrens) for MSS φάουί κότον, which is due to metathesis of consonants. 768 Read τάν with Hermann for τόν. 771 Casaubon's άδομίναs is better than MSS -kvav. 776 tòtffXa (Auratus) for ioffXà is generally accepted. 778 Hermann's προσίμόΧί is the best emendation of προσίβα τοD, in spite of the dissimilarity in form. 782 Blomfield changed τοΧίπορθ' to πτοΧίπορθ' (rightly). 800 after yàp is necessary. The addition is Musgrave's. 801-900 803 ¿κονσιον is a Sprachfehler for ίκ θυσιών (H. L. Ahrens). 805 Lachmann assumed a lacuna, but I am not sure that it is necessary. Agar declares that (ΰφρων conceals the necessary verb, ίΰψρονώ, or possibly (ύφημώ (Cp. 596, Eum. 1039). This makes a complete dimeter. A paroemiac is not in place, for it interrupts the continuity of thought. 823 Francken's ίφραξίμίσθα for ίπραζίμΐσθα is tempting. There was little difference in pronunciation (ir and ph). Cp. φοιτώ and ireiτώ (Suppl. 518). Mazon keeps MSS reading. 825 Read άσπώηφόρος (Blomfield) for άσπιδηστροφοί (F). 835 Porson's πίΐταμίνφ for MSS πίτταμμίνω is a certain correction. 850 The MSS give πήματος τρίψαι νόσον. Porson saw that -aros τpepai stood for an original άτοστpepai. Hence he emended: ττημ' αττοστpepai νόσον. This is unquestionably right. 863 We must read κλήδονας (Auratus) for ήδονάΐ. 864 f. Campbell thinks commentators have missed the point. He interprets κακού . . . ττημα 'a worse evil than death would have been' and sees in it a covert •62-

AGAMEMNON allusion to Cassandra. This is very improbable. 868 τίτρηται (H. L. Ahrens), τίτρωται (MSS). Mazon retains the latter; but τίτρωται cannot be applied to a net. 869 ίτλήθυον (Porson), -θυνον (MSS). 871 Schütz brackets (rightly). 872 Paley's \aßtiv for λαβών is certainly correct. 878 Spanheim's πατωμάτων seems more probable than M S S χιστ(υμάτων, which Mazon retains. 901-1000 903 roí νιν (Schütz, roí νυν (MSS). 933 Many attempts have been made to emend this verse. Schliack's tt&is (for Stiaas) μ' âv comes nearest to what the context demands. But the violence done to the text seems too great. 935 Read δοκέί with Stanley for &OKT¡, which is due to the influence of the preceding âv. 943 The text is sound. If we change, with Weil, to κρατά? μίντοι παρίίΐ -γ' ίκών ίμοί, or with Wilamowitz to κρατά s μίν, το δί πάρα, a serious and significant act becomes a mere play on words. Besides, we can hardly say that Agamemnon knew the intention of his wife; hence tlôûs cannot be right. Perhaps μ' has fallen out before av. Cp. Ξ 342. 945 Cossatini would read (ίμαριν for Ιμβασιν. Cp. Pers. 660, Eur. Or. 1370. In vpo&ovXos he sees an etymological allusion to the sense of (ΐιμαρα (πρό6ου\ος = άντίδουλοτ). But no change is necessary. 948 Schütz's emendation δωματοφθορ&ν (MSS σω-) is generally accepted; but it is by no means certain. 959 ισάρτγνρον (Salmasius), (is apyvpov (MSS). 961 Karsten's a\is for άναξ is tempting, but hardly necessary. Headlam quotes Theocr. 22.222. He thinks that if any change is made in the text it should be οίκοι (MSS OIKOS). Mazon accepts Porson's οίκοis: "la maison est en état d'avoir de tout cela." 963 δ' eίμίτων (Canter), δίψάτων (MSS). 965 μηχανωμίνγ (Abresch), -17s (MSS). 969 μολόν (Η. Voss), μολών (MSS). 975-1033 One of the most beautiful and profound odes in Aeschylus, but also very obscure and often misunderstood. The second antistrophe is the most difficult and the most corrupt. The rhythm accords with the content in a marvelous manner. See Süsskand W K P h 1916, 354-57 for analysis and translation. 982 Scaliger's tfet is a necessary correction for ϊ£ίΐ. Campbell says: "I cannot think that χρόνος is subject of •καρηβησιν. Mazon reads hrei (F) instead of tri (Ν), which is printed by Smyth, who accepts also Verrall's παρήμησίν, 'collected the sands of the shore upon the cables.' 984 ζυνίμβολάΐί (J. G. Schneider), -01s (MSS). 990 ομωί (Auratus), όπως (MSS). 997 Wilamowitz and Smyth accept Headlam's conjecture κνκώμίνον for κνκ\ούμ(νον, which Mazon retains and which seems to accord with the juxtaposed δίναΐί, and even with κίαρ, 'le coeur qui danse une ronde folle sur des entrailles,' i.e. «ri διαφρά-γματος. Cp. Prom. 881 κρα&ία it φόβω φρίνα λα/crífet, Cho. 166όρχήται κραδία φόβοι (the palpitating heart is like a dancer beating the ground with his feet), 1024 irpòs δέ καρδίφ φόβος I φδίΐν ίτοΐμοί, fi δ' νπορχέίσθαι κρότω, Shakespeare, Macbeth 1.3 "And make my seated heart knock at my ribs." So Calderón: "Del corazón que por verlo I Llama al pecho." Headlam cites Archilochus and other authors for κνκώμίνον, but these do not prove conclusively that Aeschylus wrote κνκώμίνον. Cp. Eur. Or. 632 τroí σον τόδα κνκλάs; I.A. 1056, Hei. 1312, Ar. Ran. 440 •63·

AGAMEMNON vw itpòv àvà κύκλον âeâs. The Greek κύκλοΰσΰαι (in a dance) is the Spanish zarandearse. One who has seen a Modern Greek dance will know what the poet means by κυκΚούμίνον and (if he knows Greek) will be inclined to think that this is the word required by the context. XuptiTf

1001-1100 1001 Corrupt. For r â j πολλά s Paley conjectured τό μ«7άλα$ which some editors adopt. 1002after γαρ Blomfield. 1010 Hermann, whom most editors follow, translates bene attemperato, Housman 'from a capacious sling,' i.e., with unstinting hand. Wyse calls attention to the fact that σφενδόνη was part of an 'elevator' used for unloading vessels, something like a 'crane.' "Comme elle était suspendue à des cordes," says Bourguet, "la forme générale en pouvait être comparée à celle d'une fronde. Mais le mot ne se rencontre avec ce sens dans aucun texte." 1019 τπσόνθ' άπαξ was doubtless originally άπαξ ireuóv, the participle becoming masculine because the next word began with Θ. Auratus emended the participle and Porson transposed the words. Süsskand, however, does not accept the correction, first, because blood, when first shed is red (κροκοβαφηs σταγών 1121) and, second, θα,νάσιμον applied to μί\αν αίμα is not only superfluous but untrue. "Diesen Schwierigkeiten geht v. W.-M. wohl aus dem Wege, indem er von 'des sterbenden Mannes Blut' spricht, das 'den Boden mit Purpur genetzt,' er wird aber seinem Texte nicht gerecht, und das τροπάροιθί, oder sein πρόπαρ kommt überhaupt nicht zum Ausdruck." He believes also that the whole context requires ròv δ' «ri, since here it is a question not of a violent but of a natural death. Some would write την δ' 'tiri yâv. Smyth, Mazon, and most editors retain τό δ' «ri of the MSS. 1024 Hartung's irr exava tv for a LIT' tirava' is a certain correction. 1041 δουλία! μάζης τυχίΐν (Enger), ¿ovXeías μ. βία (F), και ζιτγων Oiytïv βίρ (Ν). 1045 Editors are not in agreement whether παρά στάθμη ν means 'beyond' στάθμη or 'according to' (precise). The phrase occurs in Theogn. 543, 945 and Soph. Fr. 421 (in Eur. Ion. 1514 the metaphor seems different), and always with the second meaning. If it means exact, says Gow, then ώμοι καΐ παρά στάθμην is a ridiculous climax; and παρά στάθμην may belong to the next clause. The assumption of a lacuna (Wilamowitz) is unnecessary. Gow accepts Thiersch's yt after ώμοι and writes και παρά στάθμην | ?£eis παρ' ημίν oiairep νομιζίται (regular allowances and regularly distributed). 1055 Casaubon changed θνραίαν to θυραίρ and Musgrave τήνδ' to rfjô'. Most editors accept these emendations. Wilamowitz keeps θυραίαν, but alters τήνδ'. The verse means, Ί have no time to linger for this outsider.' τά (after rpißtiv) is accusative (not the article with μη\α), 'quant à l'autel central.' Cp. 830 rà δ' « τό σον φρόνημα. There is no need to change πυρός to πάρο$ (Musgrave), 'the sheep already stand for sacrifice at the fire.' Nor is the next verse an interpolation, though Wilamowitz says "confectus ex 1044 et 1043," for χάριν Ίξαν here does not have its ordinary signification 'to be grateful to,' but 'to have delight in.' Agar suggests χάριν ηζ(ΐν, but this is not so good. 1091 καρατόμα (Kayser) is a plausible correction of καρτάναι (Μ), κάρτάναs (Ν). 1995 τοίσδΐ •64·

AGAMEMNON τίχΐίθομαι (MSS) of course stands for τοίσδ' ίτιτίίθομαι (Abresch). Headlam's τό μίν for ημΐν (FNV), η μίν (M) is probably correct.

X099

1101-1200 1111 ορύγματα, Hermann from schol., ¿>ρ(τγόμ(να (Μ 1 ), -μίνα (Μ 1 ), όρ(τγμίνα (FNV3). 1117 Bothe changed άκόρίστοτ to àKÓptros (rightly). 1122 Mazon adopts Casaubon's και δορί (και bo pía Μ, και δω pia FV3), but possibly Dindorf's καίρια is better, though not certain. The whole sentence is difficult. Hermann's interpretation, accepted by Dindorf, is: "tangit cor meum purpurea gutta, quae ferro humo profusa cum occidentis vitae lumine finiet." Schneidewin says this interpretation is very strange; and he reads avyás. Wilamowitz translates: "Eiskalter Hauch zieht lahmend durch die Adem mir. So fasst der starre Frost totwunden Krieger wenn des Lebens Schimmer weicht. Rasch kommt der Tod." But this is not in the Greek. Verse 1121 is literally 'the saffron-colored (drop) ran to the heart.' (vvavirrtι does not mean 'end,' nor 'stop,' nor condii, nor inter emit. It occurs only here. Even συνανύω is rather rare—only in Aristotle and Plutarch. Here the verb probably means concedere, referring to a byaîs : "the blood leaves my face (ceases to be together with), even as the blood disappears from the face of those smitten in battle when life departs." Bisoffi ( R F 1915, 621-25) translates 'la crocea stilla corse al cuore.' The chorus simply mean that they haven't any blood left in their veins. If άνΰπι meant 'ritirarsi,' 'allontanarsi da,' the ablative would be required. With ζυν- it is equivalent to 'cessa di essere insieme con.' Or airy aïs is locative. Bisoffi translates freely 'cosi il sangue scomparisce dal viso anche ai colpiti in guerra allor che si spegne la vita.' The old men stand rooted to the spot "senza vista, coli' espressione terrible dei morti dagli occhi vitrei, esangui." 1128 ίνΰδρφ (Schütz). 1133 τίλλίται Emperius for στίΧλίται. 1137 Headlam's άτ?γχύδαι> has found favor in certain quarters; and it is attractive. Mazon, with his usual conservatism, follows M (twey χίασα). Campbell changes it to an infinitive (epexegetical). 1146 Another transposition: άηδόνοί μορον (MSS), μ. ά. (Hermann). Π47 ταρίβαΧον (Hermann), -βάλοντο (Μ), πρφα\όντί% (FNV3). 1148 What is the meaning of κ\ανμίτων &rtp? Murray translates "and an easy passing without pang or tear." Smyth renders "without tears." He says in a note 'the wailing of the bird is unconscious.' That is true; but did the Greeks know it? And even if they did, would a poet represent it as being what it seemed or as it did not seem to be? Surely Cassandra's utterance refers directly to the last words of the chorus. True, Coleridge exclaims and then asks

Most musical, most melancholy bird! A melancholy bird? O idle thought! In nature there is nothing melancholy.

But in all Greek poetry the russet nightingale, ή ξουθά, is the type of lamentation, and lamentation without consolation, whether (in nature) conscious or unconscious. So I look through a score of English translations of this passage,

•65·

AGAMEMNON and I find renderings such as these: "mellow bird, thou dost not wail" (Blackie), "safe, calm, sweet life" (Campbell), "life of pleasant days with no fresh cause to weep" (Plumptre), "unmarred by tears" (Swanwick), " a tearless struggle, a sweet passing" (Davis), " a sweet life without weeping" (Goodwin), " a pleasant life without a groan" (Conington), " a sweet passage and a tearless" (Verrall), "and life apart from wail" (Morshead), "sweet to live—sans tears" (Cookson), " a tearless change" (Trevelyan), " a sweet tearless passing" (Warr), and I begin to waver, fearing that my first impression of the meaning of κλαυμάτων árep is wrong. Then I turn to Mazon and I find this: "Hélas! hélas! n'évoque pas le sort du rossignol mélodieux; d'un corps ailé les dieux l'ont revêtu; sa v i e — n'etaient ses plaintes—ne serait que douceur", and I lead no longer a life of faith diversified b y doubt. I then bethink myself of Headlam, and I find this note: " I have never been able to see that κλαυμάτων áríp can have any other meaning here than that which Schneidewin also had suggested." Headlam understands the passage precisely as Mazon: 'save only for wailing.' Ε Ί rosignuol, che dolcemente all' ombra T u t t e le notte si lamenta e piagne.—Petrarch, Sonnetlo 10. In northern climes, however, the nightingale regularly represented the joyous and beautiful, as for example, in the old didactic poem " T h e Owl and the Nightingale," in which the nightingale on a blossoming branch, looking disdainfully at the owl on an old ivy-grown trunk near by, speaks for the aesthetic as opposed to the moral sense. So Drummond of Hawthornden: Sweet bird, that sing'st away the early hours, Of winter's past or coming void of care . . . What soul can be so sick which by thy songs, Attir'd in sweetness, sweetly is not driven Quite to forget earth's turmoils, spites, and wrongs? Spenser calls the nightingale "the soverign of song," and Freyer says: " T h e Nightingal . . . is constant Chearer of these Groves." Even Keats thinks of the nightingale as joyous, for he notes the "plaintive anthem" only at the end of his ode: I 'Tis not through envy of thy happy lot, B u t being too happy in thine happiness. II What thou among the leaves hast never known, The weariness, the fever, and the fret Here, where men sit and hear each other groan. And Milton: O Nightingale, that on yon bloomy spray Warblest at eve when all the woods are still. Shelley (in Adonais) naturally speaks of the nightingale as the Greeks of the άηδών, for it is appropriate to his theme: The lorn nightingale Mourns not her mate with such melodious pain.

•66-

A

GAMEMNON

1154 κυρίίν as in Suppl. 589 τόδ' &v y evos λίγων έξ 'Έ,πάφου κυρήσαις. Könnecke suggests τραπέίσαν for τραφίίσαν : 'nachdem du über das Meer nach einer fremdredenden Stadt verschlagen bist.' The aorist corresponds with the thought, whereas with τραφέίσαν we should expect the perfect. With τραπέίσαν compare τόλΰτ poros. There are numerous examples of the simple accusative in Aeschylus, τρίφαν refers to "körperliche Pflege" up to the fifteenth year. Cp. Hdt. 1.136, Soph. 0. T. 1123. 1161 Casaubon's correction of δχθουί to όχθας should be accepted. 1163 άνθροητων is an error of transcription for âv άΐων (Karsten). Allinson proposes αν φρονών (CP 1910). 1164 Hermann's δάκίΐ for δψγματι is doubtful. 1165 Canter's δυσαλγ« is a certain correction of òvaayytì. 1172 Allinson suggests τάχ'ΐμί πίδοι βαλω. 1174 Read κακοφρονων with Schütz for κακοφρονέίν. 1181 Bothe's emendation taföttv for ks fäeiv is plausible. 1194 Canter's θηρω for τ υρω is much more probable than H. L. Ahrens' κυρώ, which Mazon adopts. This Sprachfehler (smooth for rough, or the reverse) is much commoner than editors imagine. 1198 Another case of the dropping of a letter: χημα MSS, τί^γμα Auratus. Cp. Eur. I. A. 395 TOUS κακώς xaykvras δρκονς. 1201-1300 1211 Here we have the opposite phenomenon—the adding of a letter, avaros Canter, &νακτ$ ττοιησαμίνη) and ίκτίίνασα (Cp. Plato, Prot. 335 C) describe exactly what Clytemnestra did on her lord's arrival (and Cassandra was a witnessof thescene). Agamemnon was so impressed t h a t he said at once: " T h y welcome, like mine absence, h a t h been long." And, after all, what is a φαιδρόν ουs? Of a horse it may well be said, for his φαιδροί vois is manifested by an actual pricking u p of the ears, auribus erectis (φαιδροί ώσίν, Ar. Pax 156); but in a woman such an act would be grotesque (granted t h a t she had the gift possessed by some individuals). Here there is no wriggling of ears, nor wagging of tails. A dog does express his joy by a "lowering of the ears—a smile", but even these animals show their joy άπό των προσώπων φαιδροί (Xen. Cyn. 4.2). Clytemnestra manifested her (feigned) joy by her language (γλώσσα) as well as by her countenance, φαιδρόί \άμποντι μίτώπω (Ar. Eg. 550), presenting to her lord an όμμα φαιδρό ν (Eur. Med. 1043), not an ου s ορθόν—physically or metaphorically. T h e figure of speech does not go beyond μισητήs KVVÔS, an epithet used by Cassandra to express her own feelings on the subject: "detested bitch!" So Mazon: "ne sait pas ce que l'odieuse chienne, dont la voix longuement dit et redit l'allégresse," etc. Finally, the expression of joy on a dog's face in welcoming his master home after a long absence is never mendacious: such a conception is a base slander on the noblest and most honest creature in the world. See my Dog and Dogs (Sears & Co., New York) passim. 1249 tîirtp tarai (Schütz) is a necessary correction of ei παρίσται. 1251 ayos (Auratus) is better than M S S άχοι, which Mazon retains. 1252 κάρτ' άρ' âv corrected by Mazon to κάρτα λίαν, but Hartung's κάρτα τάρα (or Sidgwick's τάρ' âv) is more probable. Agar would read άρχην (to begin with). Cp. Soph. Ant. 1252. 1267 τΐσόντα y' (Blomfield), τισόντ • άγαθώ δ' (MSS). 1268 &τιjs (Stanley), &την (MSS). 1271 μ ί γ α (Hermann), μίτα (MSS). 1277 άντ' (ΐτίξηνον (Schütz), άντίτίξηνον (MSS). 1284 ύττίασμα κ(ΐμΐνου πατρός is not merely another way of saying πατήρ WTTIOS Kt'wevos : it means, as Mazon translates; "L'appel suppliant de son père a b a t t u . " B u t there is possibly a double entendre—outstretched corpse and suppliant hands. This accords with the opening scene in the Choephori. There is only one other example of νπτίασμα in Aeschylus (Prom. 1005). See note in my edition. 1286 Another example of the inadvertent omission of a letter: κάτοικο! for κάτοικτος. The emendation is Scaliger's. 1287 Musgrave's (ιδον for «Γχον is a certain correction. 1292 ΤΑΟΔΕΓΩ (Auratus), ΤΑΟΛΕΓΩ (MSS). 1299 Hermann's χρόνον for χρόνω does not improve the text. Voss's χρόνου makes sense and is good Greek. Auratus read χρόνου πλέων. Smyth accepts χρόνον (πλέω FV3), b u t Mazon reads χρόνω πλέον, and this may be right: "Mais de l'heure dernière le prix est infini" (and not "Yet he t h a t is last has the advantage in respect of time"). The meaning is 'the latest moment is the best' (when it is a question •68·

A

GAMEMNON

of d e a t h ) . A g a r would read μίΧ«ι (or μίλώ, 'concern for a respite,' as a noun supplementary t o &Xu£ts). "Eiscape is not possible; I care not for the t i m e . " 1301-1400 1 3 0 5 σων (Auratus), των ( M S S ) . 1317 ά λ λ ' ¿ » ( M S S ) , άλλωΐ (Hermann) which does not improve the sense. 1322 Hermann's où for jj seems a plausible correction, but the corruption m a y lie deeper. Gow considers ρησιν intolerable. 1325 Locus conclamatus. Mazon joins όμοΟ with φονιυσιν and compares E u r . Tro. 3 5 9 - 6 4 and 460-61 (for the sense). 1328 Mazon adopts Boissonade's αν πρίψΐΐΐν which seems to me better than Person's âv Tpeptitv ( M S S avTp'eptitv), which gives no plausible sense. How could a shade τ pire ιν anything? T h e meaning is: " L e u r bonheur est pareil à un croquis leger; vient le malheur: trois coups d'éponge humide, c'en est fait du dessin!" T h e σκιά is a σκιαγραφία. So I a m b l i c h u s , Prolrept. 8 ti θίωρήσίitv inr' aùyàs τον άνθρώπινον βίον- ίύρήσΐΐ yàp τα δοκοΰντα tlvai ßeyaka τοίs àvOpunrois πάντα

όντα σκιαγραφίαν. As Headlam says: "πρόΙ/titv implies t h a t life, when seeming most vivid, is only a pencilled sketch." Compare the description of the victim, Iphigeneia, a t the sacrificial altar at Aulis: τρίπουσά θ' tv γραφαϊϊ (242). S m y t h accepts âv rptytiev. 1321 ¡)ήσιν rj is probably patchwork. Gow would substitute πριν θανέιν. 1334 μηκΐτ' « ίύξαιτο, Musgrave , Canter , Porson , Weil , E . A. Ahrens . "Αλλοι άλλω^ άλ\ω$. Schneidewin's emendation was at first rejected, but it is coming into favor again (Headlam, S m y t h ) . Mazon, on the other hand, pronounces in favor of Musgrave's TÍS. 1347 Mazon adopts Keek's correction άνδρα for M S S άν πω$. S m y t h accepts Weil's ήντως, Headlam Donaldson's tu irojj, comparing E u r . Ph. 1466. B u t this does not prove that the poet wrote tv here; and palaeographically at least it is not probable. 1356 τη s MtXXoDs is the reading quoted by Trypho (7rtpl τρόπων), M S S ( F V 3 ) τη s μίλλούσηί. Cp. E u r . I.T. 905 τό K\UVÒV όμμα

τη% Σωτηρίας.

1 3 5 7 R e a d πίδοι

with H e r m a n n for πίδον.

1362

M S S KTtivovTts, for which Canter Ttivovrts (rightly). 1364 Read κρατά (Casaubon) for Kpárei. 1368 Another case of metathesis of consonants: μνθονσθαι for θυμοΰσθαί ( E . A . J . Ahrens). 1375 Read τημονήί (Auratus; for πημονην, and άρκΰστατ' (Elmsley) for άρκνστατον ( M S S ) . 1378 Heath's VÍÍKI]s for νίκη: is plausible, and is adopted both by Headlam and by S m y t h ; but Mazon retains the reading of the manuscripts. 1381 W e must read the present άμύνίσθαι (Victorius; instead of the aorist άμύνασθαι ( M S S ) . 1383 Ν has the correct reading νίριστιχίζω (V3 -ων F -στοιχίζων). 1384 Read t h e genitive οίμω~γμάτων

( E l m s l e y ) for M S S οίμάτγμασιν.

1385 ff.

vtKpoÎ

are past σωτηρία. Norwood thinks Clytemnestra's language is but a dreadful jest. Headlam regards it as meant seriously (the subterranean Zeus). So Enget

•69 ·

AGAMEMNON and Verrall. Cp. 1235 θύονσαν Άιδον μητίρα, 'raging unnatural mother.' 1387 Διόί is Enger's happy emendation of M S S αϊδου. 1391 f. διοσδότφ yávti is Porson's certain correction of 5i¿$ vórt^yáv ti. 1396 τωδ' (Tyrwhitt) should be read for τίδ', I think, though Mazon retains the M S S reading. Cp. Cho. 224, where τω 6i was mistaken for τάδ(. Also Ag. 1414. 1401-1500 1408 Read pvrâs with Stanley for pvaas, and oppevov with Abresch for όρώμίνον (FV3), and όρώμίνον (Ν). But Tyrrell thinks that "pvcas should not be re1410 Seidler's άποττολυ for curoXts placed by a word so common as pvrâs. is plausible. 1411 Blomfield's όβριμον for όμβριμον should not be rejected. 1414 τόδ' should be changed to τφδ' (I. Voss). See on 1396. 1418 άημάτων Canter for ri λημμάτων. 1419 χρην Porson for χρή. 1430 τύμματι (I. Voss) is better than M S S τύμμα. 1434-37 Placed before 1431-33 by Wilamowitz. Pohlenz objects: "aber dabei wird die wirksame Gegenüberstellung von Aigisthos (1436-37) und Agamemnon (1438) auseinandergerissen." He prefers a lacuna before 1431: "Vergeblich suchst du mich zu schrecken." 1435 Read ίμηs (Porson) for «μα*. 1437 σμικρά Blomfield for μικρά. Allinson (CP 1910) suggests alyis for άσ-jrís. 1443 Pauw's ΐσοτριβήί is a certain correction of M S S ίστοτριβής. 1447 ταραφώνημα (Casaubon) for παροψόνημα. It is not likely that Aeschylus means a trivial extra morsel, as some understand, but 'seasoning,' 'sauce,' 'relish' (ήδνσμα και ίρτυμα της ίμής ά>αλλιάσίω$). Cp. Petron. Satyr. 24 belle eras in promulside libidinis militabit. Similarly ταροψίί (Ar. Fr. 226) of 'adultery.' 1459 Wilamowitz rightly brackets 6è and changes riXeiav to rt\tav. 1460 ¡7 ris (Schütz) is better than MSS F/RIS. 1468 Read TPTRÍTVTIS with Canter for ¿ μ ι T Í T T U Í , and διφυίοισι with Hermann for διφυέίσι. 1470 < r' > after κράτος Herwerden (rightly). 1471 καρδιόδηκτον Abresch for καρδία δηκτόν. 1473 Stanley's change of σταθίίs to the feminine is unnecessary. 1475 τρι,τάχυντον (Bamberger) is a certain correction of τριιτάχνιον. 1501-1600 1507 τώΐ πως Auratus for τω, τω. 1510 Conradt conjectures όττ at the end of the verse (Canter). 1673 Add (Auratus) to fill out the verse (and to end the play). This emendation is accepted by editors generally. Agar, however, would add réXos ('you and I will make the final settlement'), and he cites Τ 369. The cause of the omission, Agar thinks, was a desire on the part of the copyist to economize space and labor: "he thought it sufficient to write ríXos once only at the end of the play."

•75·

CHOEPHORI The Agamemnon is a drama of crime, the Choephori a drama of revenge. When we have read the first play of the trilogy and taken up the second and third we feel that there is a falling off in power-—the Agamemnon is so great that it seems to suck the life and verdure from the others. But there is an echo; the thunder dies away; and in the Eumenides the storm-cloud lifts. Orestes is resolved to do the deed, even if the oracle be false. The Delphic command chimes with his grief. He is not, like Hamlet, prompted to his revenge by heaven and hell, but by Apollo and his own feelings; he needs no visitation to whet his almost blunted purpose. The real action does not begin until the play is half over: the drama is a lyric interlude followed by a swift dénouement. In their entrance song the chorus sing of the blood that will not out, and announce their mission. They call for justice, urge vengeance, and keep the deed to be done before the eyes of all. Electra has only a secondary part, but that part is of great dramatic importance. There are some touches of extraordinary poetic beauty. Her excitement over the lock of hair and her womanly reserve are finely portrayed; and her passionate sisterly love finds beautiful expression in her wish that the tress had a kindly voice. The eloquent outburst which Orestes cannot control, when the recognition is assured, is truly dramatic. On this scene and Euripides' sharp criticism of it see Wilamowitz's commentary. There are 1076 verses in the play, but we do not see the plot unfolded until we come to verse 560. An elaborate preparation has been made for the work of vengeance; then the action is swift and decisive; the only delay is where Clytemnestra begs for mercy. When Kilissa appears on the scene, the audience recognizes her at once—from her traditional garb of nurse. She is the homeliest character in Aeschylus. Her grotesque but •76-

CHOEPHORI

natural inconsecutiveness of speech is in effective contrast with the tragedy that impends, relieves the tension just before the crisis; her illiterate babble about Orestes' babyhood adds just the touch of nature needed when the avenger is about to exact the price of blood. The avenger's mother is the same Clytemnestra we saw in the Agamemnon. The delineation is slight; but she exhibits the same characteristics as in the great portrait of the first play. Even her defense—of posting with such speed to incestuous sheets—is in keeping with her unflinching shamelessness, though this striving to make an ugly deed look fair is rather coarse to modern feeling. In this encounter between mother and son the dramatic interest of the trilogy reaches its highest point. Unlike Hamlet (in his persistence in performing the task imposed) Orestes needs no occasions to spur on his dull revenge, no examples gross as earth to exhort him: he is constant to his purpose. Only when his mother bares her breast and bids him have regard (like Hecuba in her piteous words to Hector in the Iliad) does he weaken—"on this bosom didst thou rest in sleep, from these nipples suck the mother's milk"—but a word from Pylades reminds him of his duty and steels his heart with firmer resolve. The chorus sing an ode of exultation that justice has been done, and the slayer bids the servants unfold the embroidered web, witness of the vilest stroke ever presented to human eyes. The end of the play—where Orestes' justification for his deed is interrupted by spasms of his approaching madness, while memory still holds a seat in his distracted brain—furnishes a scene which gives scope to one of the poet's most peculiar powers, suggesting as it does with marvelous effect the approach of some unforeseen horror begot of nothing but vain fantasy,— Streaked with his mother's blood, but striving hard To tell the story ere his reason goes.

No other poet could have depicted the prophetic frenzy of Cassandra so vividly, nor the transports of grief mingled with terror and the wild despair of the maiden condemned to wanderings wide by the machinations of the vengeful Hera, nor the gradual approach and later ravings of the maniac Orestes. As the Furies

•77·

CHOEPHORI

drive him forth, the chorus sing of the storms that have beaten against the royal house at Argos, and the play ends in painful uncertainty. From his mother's gaping wounds arose Her haughty spirit, and with angry yell Shriek'd to the daughters of the ancient night "Seize on this parricide, this son of guilt, And with implacable revenge pursue him." 1-100

1-5 Supplied by Canter from Ar. Ran. 1126 ff., 1138, and 1152 f.—ίποτττίύων is a real present. Scores of examples of present participles are incorrectly explained as futures, πατρώα is objective. Aristophanes' roguishness consists in separating the participle from σωτήρ ytvov.—On the pre-Aeschylean form of the myth see Robert, "Bild und Lied," 1881, 149 ff. Hermes is just the god that should be mentioned here. Graves were often dedicated to him. πατρφ' ίποπτΐύων goes with Έ . χθόνιος, "the steward of powers that are thy sire's" (Farnell, CQ 4.183). This is in accord with the popular religion. Hermes was not lord of the lower region in his own right, but only as the minister and messenger of Zeùs χθόνιος. The 0eòs πατρώος of Orestes is Zeus. 6 f. Supplied by Stanley from schol. Pind. P. 4.145. 8 f. Supplied by Dindorf from schol. Eur. Ale. 768. 15 μΐΐλίγματα (Casaubon) for -μασιν. 22 eßav (Dindorf), ίβην (Robertello), ίβη (G). 24 φοινίοis άμιτγμοίς (Stanley) for φοινισσαμ\τγμοϊς. 26 διοιγμοΐσι (MSS), δ' ίυγμόΐσι (Canter). 28 αλγ«σι (MSS), -σιν (Et. Gen. 403.47). 29 προστίρνω στολμω (Blass) is a certain correction of ιτροσστέΚνοι (ρ over λ in m) στολμοί. This is a case of forefeeling; the voix intérieure was saying στοΧμοί during the act of writing προστίρνω. 32 Lachmann's δά is better than MSS γαρ. Tucker reads ye. Mazon reads yàp, but omits φοιβος (after Blass). Verrall defends Φοίβος, which Smyth also keeps. Tyrrell declares that it should be replaced by φόβος, whereas Farnell affirms that 287 and 928 guarantee the truth of φόβος, "and the dream interpreters knew that the dream came from Hades, therefore it did not come from Φοίβος." 37 Porson inserted re after κριταί. 38 Read (λακον with Turnebus for βλάχο?. 42 χάριν (Elmsley) άχαριν (MSS). 45 ¿άλλα (Stanley) for μιΧλέΐ. 47 Read sec. aor inf. with Stanley instead of ίκβαΚλβιν. 48 Canter's correction λύτρον (for λι¡ypóv) is accepted by all editors. Read πΐδοι with Dindorf for πίδω. 55 άδάματον (Hermann), -αντον (MSS). 56 tpptvós (Victorius), ¡ppérn (MSS, o mistaken for e, as often). 61 δίκας (Turnebus) for δίκαν. Tucker changes τους to τοις and ßpbei to ßapei, and άκρατος to -αντος. Cossatini (Rivista 42.297) would read ροπό. δ' ίπισκοτΰ Δίκας I ταχύ α τοις μίν tv φάίΐ | τά δ' ¿ν μίτα ιχμίφ σκότου | pkvti χρονίζοντας αχη I τους δ' ακραντος ΐχίΐ νΰζ. Headlam translates: "But the scale of Justice visiteth sinners either in the light of day, or else in twilight teems with wrath deferred, or else they are immerged in utter night." Smyth renders άκραντος

•78-

CHOEPHORI νύξ "ineffectual night"; Mazon, "la nuit même n'apporte pas de sanction." The verses refer wholly to retribution in this life. The punishment is all the more severe because it has been so long deferred. 64 χρονίζοντος (Dindorf) for -ovT. 66 Read ίκτοθίνθ' (Schütz) for MSS ίκτοθίν. 67 Accent διαρρύδαν, not -âv. 69 < δ ' > (Schütz). Change άτη to &τα. 71 Another case of θ being mistaken for o (read θιγόντι with Stephanus for οϊ-γοντι). 73 Corrupt. Possibly βαίνοντα was originally προβαίνοντα (Bamberger). Change χαιρομνση to χ«ρο- (Porson). 74 Another example of θ being mistaken for o. Read ιθυσαν (Musgrave) instead of ίουσαν. Scaliger emended âταν to μάτην. 77 Insert ^ ' X C o n i n g t o n ) . 78-80 Read βίφ. φρίνων (H. L. Ahrens) for φΐρομίνων. Wilamowitz τρίτον βÎq. (from schol.). Conradt would delete only the second δίκαια, retain άταρχάς, and insert pt before φΐρομίνωv. 84 Change ταχνουμίνην to the nominative (Turnebus). 87 H. L. Ahrens' τί φω; for τύφω δέ should not be rejected. 94 ίσθΧ' (Bamberger, Elmsley) is a necessary correction of ίστ'. 95 Stanley yt for re. 97 The aorist (τγχίασα (Dindorf) should be read for the present participle of the MSS. 101-200

109 Hartung's κώνά for σΐμνά is plausible, but not necessarily correct. 120 Read Xéyeis (Weil) for λέγω. 124 Hermann supplies , Klausen at the beginning.—Read the masculine piyiare (Stanley) for μεγίστη. 126 Stanley's δωμάτων is more likely to be correct than H. L. Ahrens' αιμάτων (for δ' ομμάτων). 131 Wilamowitz says: "φί\ον mit Όρίστην verbunden ist ein ganz schales Flickwort: das verlangt ein praedicatives nomen."; and he is right. But I am inclined to think he is wrong in accepting Schneidewin's emendation ¡pais τ' άναψον 'tv. It does not accord with what follows. Mazon prints in his text the emendation of Blass: ώ$ ίνάξωμΐν for MSS TWS άνάξομίν, which is fully as grievous an error. Tucker considers the text sound as we have it. But his defense does not seem very convincing. There have been numerous attempts made to restore the original. My own suggestion was ίτοίκτιρόν τ' (μι φΐΚον τ Όρίστην ττΰσμ' άναψον tv δόμοις. This seems to harmonize with the succeeding verses better than any reading yet proposed—and it is certainly sound palaeographically (Sprachfehler). The orphans have been sold (.τζκραμΐνοι) by their mother for Aegisthus (άντη\λάξατο). Cp. Plato, Rep. 371 C, Leg. 915 D, Dem. 6.10. The verb άλώμίθα is used by Electra because they are Ttrpapivoi. The outcasts have wandered enough; they want to return home and abide there; and Electra, in order to bring her wishes to fulfillment, implores her father to send Orestes as a πείσμα to make their ship fast when they arrive at the haven after their troubles on the tempest-tossed sea. In the same manner Medea seeks a safe refuge from the storm in King Aegeus of Athens: άναψόμΐσθα τρυμνήτην κάλων (Eur. Med. 770), otros yàp άνηρ Χιμην τίφανται. Orestes similarly φανήσίται Χιμήν (she

• 79 '

CHOEPHORI hopes) and to him she will fasten the πίίσμα, the πρυμνητην κάλων. Cast out upon the stormy sea of life, she desires to put in to the shore, find a safe haven, and throw ashore the hawser for fastening the ship firmly to land at the stern: βούΧΐται χάσμα. ßoXtiv και προσσχίίν και νΐωΧκήσai (Stobaeus 3.21). Now what are πείσματα? They are πρυμνήσια, i.e., σχοινιά oís έκ της πρύμνη! δΐσμέίται ή vavs πρός r f j yjj (E.M. 693.7). Cp. o 498 πρυμνησι' ίδησαν, ι 136 ού χρίώ πίίσματός ίστιν ου re πρυμνήσι' ά ν άψα ι, χ 465 πίΐσμα ίξάψας, Anth. Ρ. 12.159, Eur. H.FA78 ως άνημμίίvoi κάλως | πρυμνησίοισι βίον ίχοιτ' ΐύδαίμονα, Tro. 812, Aesch. Suppl. 765 ff. The σωτηρία of Electra depends upon πέίσμα, not upon φως, in spite of the fact that σωτηρία and φως are often synonymous in poetic language. But here the image is that of ship and sea. The outcast maiden says: ναίω βασιλικών ίκ δωμάτων (Eur. El. 306), and now she and her brother desire to καθιίναι 6τ/κυραν 'tv δόμοισι (661). This can be effected only by the return of her brother; he is the only anchor of her house: 5s μόνον οίκων ay κυρ' άμών (Eur. Hec. 80). The scribe who made the error knew that Electra was saying "pity me," but he did not understand πΐίσμ', which, indeed, may not have been written distinctly, or may have lost its final letter, in which case it would appear as πίΐσ, i.e., πω s (ti is often mistaken for οι and ω). It seemed to the copyist that the poet desired to express the idea "bring him back," or "to be king" (άνάξομΐν). Cp. Eur. Med. 107, where both the best manuscript and the scholiast read άνάξίΐ, the others ανάψει. But -άψομΐν is a very common future ending, and in πεισμαναψονίν there are so many labials that it is very difficult not to say -αναψομεν, especially if one speaks rapidly. Furthermore, πως stands right below in the next line and the eye of the scribe may have rested upon it for a moment. This ireos, too, seemed to fit in with άνάξομΐν. In neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles does Electra call her brother φίλος, except where a predicate noun is demanded by the context as here. The nurse calls him φί\ον Όρίστην (749), but to the loving sister he is more than that: he is always φί\τάτου βροτών πάντων Όρίστην (Soph. El. 903). Cp. 808, 1126, Aesch. Cho. 193. This reading of Blass, Mazon and a host of editors (άνάξωμΐν) presents many difficulties. I mention here only one: the parallelism with ΐποίκτιρον demands an imperative·, and this imperative is secured by my proposed correction: ίποίκτιρον . . . άναψον. 132 πικραμένοι is Casaubon's certain correction for π^πρα^μίνοι. 136 f. Read φείτγων with Robortello for φά^ίΐν and μέγα for μίτα. 144 δίκη Scaliger for δίκην. 145 f. Dindorf would excise both verses. Sidgwick says they are probably spurious, because "there is very little in them." I think, on the contrary, that there is a great deal in them. Electra wishes to make a clear distinction between her ίύχάς and her άράς. The former are good, the latter bad. Hence she places the κακαϊ άραί 'tv μ έ σ ω , that is after her long ίύχή (seventeen verses) and before her entreaty so that she may close with ΐύχαί and not with άραί. Mazon cuts the Gordian knot by printing —υ—υ— at the end of verse 145 and by simply referring in his critical note to verse 146. Schütz, Blass, Sidgwick, and Weil consider the passage emended by simply writing καλής άράς. But that would be, indeed, a strange kind of άρά. True, we find in Herodotus άρή = ίύχή, but ·8θ·

CHOEPHORI never in tragedy. Moreover, the context demands καλαί, not κακαί, and so Tucker prints, setting off τη s κακής by a comma. In my opinion, this is incorrect. I would alter rrjs to Ktis (τήν immediately below is responsible for the error). The scribe mistook àpàs for àpâs (as genitive after μέσω), and very naturally wrote rrjs κακής to agree with it. The preceding dentals —ταΰτ'. . . τίθημι made the change from κιjs to TTJS exceedingly easy (Sprachfehler, assimilation) . The first word ταΰτ' gives the content of the supplication TOUS κτανόνταζ άντικατθανέίν. The ίύχαί are for herself, the άραί for her foes: ήμΐν eûxàs τάσδί, roîs δ' ivaVTLOÍS λέγω (142), hence KÚVOLS in 146 (=TOÎS ivavriois èiraρωμίνη, not roîs μβΧομίνοις rtKtîv Xéyouaa, as Wilamowitz interprets). Cp. Lys. 12.10 roîs τταισίν 'ειταρώμίνος, Eur. Ph. 67 àpàs άραται ταισίν, Ale. 714, Med. 607 àpàs τυράννοις ài'οσίους άρωμίνη (=àpàs κακάί λέγουσα). For the distinction made between (ύχή and άρά compare Plato, 2 Alcib. 143 Β αυτός αύτω τά βίλτιστα (ύξασθαι, άλλ' ού τά κάκιστα, τοΰτο μίν yàp cos αΚηθώί κατάρφ Tifi άλλ' ούκ ΐύχή δμοιον αν άη, Soph. Ant. 427 f. ê/c δ' àpàs καιcas ή paro τοΐσι Toùpyov έξίΐργασμίίΌ«. 155 ayos (Victorius from schol.) for άλγο$. 156 atßas ω (Turnebus) for σφάσω. 159 Change ίώ T'IS to ϊτω Tis with Bothe. . 161 M S S σκυθιτατ' (with ης over ι), Robertello Σκυθικά τ'. 163 Probably ξίφη (Pauw, from schol.) instead of M S S βίλη. 164 Read yaτòτoυs (Turnebus) for àirò του. 166 Separate άνορχάται thus: αν όρχίίται. 172 Change KtLptro to κάραιτο (Turnebus). 180 και την should be χαίτην (Victorius). 197 Wellauer conjectured σάφ' ην η (MSS σαφηνη), which Mazon accepts. Palaeographically, nothing could be better, for mistakes of this kind were constantly made; but I prefer Paley's 'σαφηνίΐ, which is better Greek. 201-300 224 This verse has given trouble to all editors. Mazon adopts Weil's conjecture: τάδί λέγω at Tpovvveiruv. Tucker substitutes δήτ' for τάδ', which is very unlikely; but he is right in asserting that we are justified in looking for the error in τάδί alone. Porson's ταΰτ and Askew's τόνδ' are also inadmissible. Wilamowitz reads τάδ' έγώ at προυννίπω. I agree with Tucker in thinking that the seat of corruption is τάδ', but instead of reading δήτ', I would separate τά from Sé and read: cos οντ' Ορίστην τω δ' έγώ at προυννίπω; The trajection of the interrogative accounts for the corruption: τω carried δέ along with it and τω ¿>e naturally coalesced to form τάδί. This seems much more plausible than any of the score of conjectures proposed. Cp. Callias, Fr. 11 (Kock I, p. 696) του s ΜίΚανθίου τω γνώσομαι ; Nor is there any need of changing προυννίπω to προαΐννίπω, for it means 'to speak out,' 'to make a definite acknowledgment,' hence, 'address,' 'greet': "by what [token] shall I accost thee as Orestes?" And forthwith Orestes proffers the proof: ακΐφαι τομή τροσθάσα βόστρυχον ιδού δ' ύφασμα τοΰτο.

τριχό$.

225 Read ουν (Turnebus) for νυν. 230 f. τομή (Turnebus) for τό μή.— σΰμμίτρον (Pauw) for συμμέτρου.—Dindorf's τώμω for M S S τω σω is unneces• 8l ·

CHOEPHORI sary. 232 ήδί (Turnebus), tís Si (MSS). 233 Read μη 'xxXayßs (Turnebus) for μήκτλαγιή. 245 Stanley's σοι for μοι is unnecessary. 246 Read τρα-γμάτων with Robortello. The Ionic form is out of place here. 247 yivvav (Turnebus) for ytvvaviv. 250 ivrt\tis (Pauw) for tvTtki]!. 251 Read θήραν τατρψαν (Robertello from schol.), MSS θηρα ττατρωα. 252 Χ«7ω (Aid.) for έγώ. 270 Read κάξορθιάζων (Turnebus) for κάξορθριάζων. 278 Lobeck's μηνίματα for MSS μίιλίγματα is plausible, if not certain. The schol. explains correctly, if the reading of M is accepted: at κολάσΐί! yàp των άδικούντων μίιλίγματά ίίσι των αδικηθίντων. Conradt would change ros &' αίνων νόσου! to τάσδ' άνω νόσου!. Cp. 382. 279 Hermann δ' αίνων νόσου! for δί νωννόσου!. 282 Read the infinitive instead of tiravTtWti (So Et. Mag. 530.51). 283 Auratus τ' ίφώνα for τ« φωνίί. 291 κράτηpo! (Robertello) for κρατίρόΐ. 294 < δ' > (Hermann) before ούτί. 296 J. U. Powell suggests [ά] παμφθάρτω. 301-400 301 Abresch rightly separates irpòs (adverb) from mtÇti. 319 Read άντίμοιρον (Erfundt) for ίσοτίμοιρον. 334 toi σ' (Schütz) for roîj, and ατιτύμβιος (Hermann) for ΐπιτυμβιδίοΐ!. 344 Read κομίσΐΐίν (Porson) for κόμιζα. 349 Insert tv (τ' tv KtKtWou, Wellauer). 350 αίω (H. L. Ahrens) for αίωνα. 352 For διαποντιουτα! read -τίου yâs (Turnebus). 360 ήσθ' (Abresch) for ην (σover ν). 361 πιπλάντων (Heath) ίοτπψπ\άντων. 362 πίίσιβροτόν (Pauw) for πισίμβροτόν. 364 Read τίίχίσι (one σ). 365 MSS 4λλων, Stanley &λλω (rightly). 366 Read infinitive τίθάφθαι with Tafel (MSS τίθαψαι). 370 πρόσω (one σ, Hermann). 374 φωνέΪ!· δύνασαι (Hermann) for φωνέί • ό δυνάσαι. 377 Conradt would read yt ykv^Tai for 7«7Portus. 713 M S S δί, Bamberger rt.—For ξυνΐμπόρουί read the singular (Hermann). 715 νκιυθννου (Turnebus) for «τ-, 718 The future βον\α>σύμ(θα (Stephanus) is necessary. 726 Έρμη ν (Turnebus) for ίρμήα. 734 Read the dative (with Pauw) instead of TOVS Çtvovs. 742 tutîvos (Robortello) for tutlvov. 751 κάκ (Portus) for η. 760 Read with Robortello τροφάτ for στροφίύί. 764 Blomfield corrected τωνδί . . . λότγων to τόνδ( . . . \oyov. But τωνδί . . . λόγον is better. So Mazon and Tucker. 768 ei (Turnebus), ή (MSS). 772 τάχιστα -γηθούσχι (Pauw) for τάχιστ àyaθούστι. 773 KWTTÒS (Blomfield, from v. 1. schol. Β on O 207) for κρυπτός. —όρθονται Xóyos (Musgrave from Eustathius and schol. Β on O 207) for M S S όρθούσχι φρίνΐ. Verses 770-74 have given scholars much trouble, chiefly because there are so many words or phrases which are ambiguous in meaning, or in reference, like certain passages I have discussed in the Revue de Philologie, e.g., Soph. O.T. 198 f. (RPh Oct. 1930) and Eur. Med. 215 f. (Ibid. Oct. 1932). For an exhaustive study of the Aeschylean passage see MacLaren's article in Class. Phil. 27.4, pp. 353-92. If we read -γαθούσυ before σίβοι (Lachmann). 526 àvàpxtrov (Wieseler), ίναρκτον (Μ), άνάρηκτον (FV3), άνάρκίτον (Ν). 529 iravri (Pauw) for απαντι. 536 τάμφιΧος' (Hermann) for πασι φίΧος. 548 δόμων (Härtung) for δωμάτων. 550 ¿κών δ' (Wieseler) foré« τώνδ'. 552 < δ' > ( Abresch). 553 τταρβάταν (Hermann), πίρβάδαν (FV3N). 554 áyovra (Ο. Müller) for τα. 558 < t v > (Abresch). 559 δ ι σ π α λ ά re (Turnebus) for διισιταλίΐται. 562 Χαταδνόν (Musgrave) for λίπαδνον. 565 άκΧαυτος (Dindorf) for άκλαυστος.— φστοί (Porson) for άιστος. 566 KartipyaBov (Porson) for Kartpyadov. 573 Read τονσδ' with Weil (Μ τόνδ', other M S S and schol. τώνδ'). 576 νόμω 580 τον (Turnebus) for τοΰδί. 598 M S S (Erfurdt, Burges) for δόμων. πίμψΐΐ schol. for πίμιτίΐ (rightly). 599 νυν (Schütz) for νυν.—νίτησθι (Veitch) instead of M S S πίπίΐσθι. 601-700 603 Read the dative φόνφ with Schütz ( M S S φόνον). 607 Wpeψ' âv (Blassì, Wpeptv (MSS). 612 δίκαιοι' (Auratus) for δικαίως. 615 δ' ov (Canter) for δ' ων. 618 Hermann rightly reads κέΧίύσαι for M S S KtXtvati. 631 Read viv (Porson) for μιν. 653 πίδοι for ττίδω. 679 Assign to Apollo with Karsten. 684 Canter's δικαστών for δ' ίκάστων (M; is probably correct. C. M. Raphael's δέκ' αστών (CR 64) is at least palaeographically plausible. Verrall suggested that there were ten jurymen. His δικαστών is to be rejected. 692 Read το' τ' (Grotiust for τόδ' and όμως (Turnebus) for 'όμως. 693 Loss of a consonant. Rend *ιτιχρο,ίνόντο)ν (Wakefield) for -κ&ινόντ&ν. 701-800 710 Read accusative αίδουμίνους (Canter) instead of dative. 713 κάγω-ye (Porson) for κάγώ τ« (κάγώγί Robortello). 716 Metathesis of letters: read νίμων (Hermann) for μίνων. 748 Assign to Apollo with Victorius. 755 yaias (Dindorf) for και y ης. 785 Χ(ΐχην (Bothe) for Χιχην. 787 Read ßaXtl with Turnebus for ßaXtiv. 789 ytXωμaι (Tyrwhitt) for ytvωμαι.

•93·

EUMENI

DES

790 Read δύσοισθ' αιταθον with Hermann for MSS δύσοιστα ιτολίτακ ίταθον. 794 πίθίσθΐ (Turnebus) for πάθίσθί. 798 χρήσα% (Turnebus) for ό*θήσαΐ (M.)

801-900 800 f. Corrupt. M gives ΰμ«$ δέ re rfîSe y f j βαρύν κότον σκήψησθβ μη θυμοΰσθί. Elmsley corrected: σκήψητε. Weil's text on the whole is the best: ißtis S¿ μη θνμονσθΐ μηδϊ rfjSe y f j | βαρύν κότον σκήψητΐ. Mazon, however, reads ύμίΐς δ' ί re rfjSe y f j βαρύν κότον. 802 MSS δαιμόνων gives no satisfactory sense, and Wakefield's conjecture ιτλΐυμόνων is certainly not a happy one. 825 Read κτίσηrt for MSS στήσητί with Linwood. 827 δώμα TOS (Casaubon) for δωμάτων. 830 Read ίπη χθονί (Burges) for «ri χθόνα. 834 τησδ' ¡ÉT' (Hermann) for τήσδί τ'. 838 Read γά$ with Hermann for yâv. 839 Transpose άτ'κτον φευ with Weil. 842 M has ύπόδεται here, but υποδύεται in antistrophe (υ simply omitted). < r i s > (Hermann). Transpose wXevpàs ôôvvas with Hermann. 849 Mazon's καίτοι crû μέν ye is plausible. M gives καίτοι μίν συ, FV3N καίτοι ye μην σύ. Smyth adopts Wakefield's conjecture καΐ τω μίν with Abresch's < el >. 857 'όσων (Pauw), δσην. 860 For άοίνουs read the dative with Robortello. 861 μήτ' (Dindorf) for μηδ'. 862 ίδρυση "Αρη (Stephanus) for MSS ίδρύση κάρα.—οΰ τ$.ν Wellauer for οΰτ' âv. 890 τησδε γαμόρφ (Dobree) for τηδε y' άμοιρου. 895 εύθενειν (Scaliger) for εύσθεveîv. 901-1000 907 βοτων (Stanley) for βροτων. 910 εύσεβούντων (Headlam) for δυσσεβούντων may be right. It is accepted by Smyth, rejected by Mazon. 915 Editors rightly retain άστύνικον, 'this victorious city,' as against Kirchhoff's unpoetic and unnecessary change to αντόνικον 925 Pauw's έξαμβρυσαι for έξαμβρόσαι (Μ, εξαμυρόσαι FV3N) is accepted by most editors, but not by Wilamowitz, who marks the word as corrupt. As he observes, the aorist of this verb (,βρύω) does not occur. He adds: "conicerem ίξομβρησαι, si de glossa Phot. Suid. άνομβρουσαι constaret; άν- et ίξομβρέίν enim ante LXX nondum comparuit." I suggest έξαμβ ράσαι. The bright sunshine will cause to gush forth ιτάσαί τύχας όνησίμου% yaías έπισσύτους. Cp. 906, and Ag. 887 κλαυμάτων ¿πίσσντοι παγαί. In other words, blessings will be showered on mankind, like the spray dashed upon a rock. Cp. Ap. Rhod. 2.48.33 άποβράσσω. Sophocles and Aristophanes use the word of winnowing grain. 944 Read γα with Dobree for άγαν. 946 ν (τφάντ', if he so desired. Of course Hermes (coming down from Olympus) stepped upon Pieria (ΐίκρίην bcißis, e 50). If we consider ίττομανής in the light of other compounds in -μανή%, we must, I think, conclude that the epithet does not refer to size (τόν μ*γά\ωτ μαινόμίνον), although 'horse' is used in all languages to designate something unusually large, e.g., 'horse-radish.' So ßovs in Greek. Besides, as Jebb says, the idea of wild abundance would naturally be blended with that of the horses frisking or galloping in freedom on the plain. Heath's change to ίτπόνομον and M. Schmidt's to όπλομανη seem wholly unnecessary. 167-71 Ajax, I think, is here represented as the eagle. It is his foes that are the vultures. The clamors of the Greeks are contrasted with the silence which would ensue if the hero should suddenly appear from his tent. The eagle suffers little birds to sing, And is not careful what they mean thereby, Knowing that with the shadow of his wings He can at pleasure stint their melody. 1 —Titus

Andronicus

The léxica inform us that aíyinriós occurs often in the poets from Homer down; but it appears only four times in the Iliad and twice in the Odyssey; in the later poets not at all, except in Aesch. Ag. 49: τρόπον alyvrtûv. In prose it is seldom found, and in Herodotus 3.76.3 the scholiast explains it as equivalent to yvirûv, where alyvriós is not the pursuer, but the pursued! I propose the followIn ing as a probable correction of the text: μίγάλαι yinrûv for yJtyav alyvriôv. uncials Λ needs but a stroke to convert it into N, and in minuscules Xacym^u might well have been mistaken for vaiyinriov. If we superimpose one above the other, we can see how easily 'a great vulture' might have been mistaken for 'great flocks of vultures' : . μνγαλαιγιητων μύγαναιγνιτιον To the copyist the clause seemed to stop at &yi\ai, and as νκοόάσαντκ required an object, the change to μ(τγαν aiyvrióv was but natural. Moreover, πτηνών of itself does not indicate that the άγέΧαι are flocks of birds: they might be bats, griffins, sphinxes, serpents, horses, words, arrows, or what not. But the best proof of the correctness of my emendation lies in the fact that it restores the meter; we have now a long syllable before the diaeresis, and are not forced to resort to the crafty devices of scholars: (Toup), 11

am indebted to Mr. H. Richards of Oxford for this example. • I05·

AJAX (Brunck). 50 νψν is not the ethical dative. Cp. Hdt. 6.9 obò't σφι... r à ίδια 'ίμτακρήοίται. 56 αΰτοκτονοΰντί (Hermann, Erfurdt) -KTtvowrt and -Krevovvrts (MSS). 70 Könnecke (WKPh 1916, 642 ff.) takes exception to the commonly received interpretation of ήδίοχ ('in einer für mich erfreulichen Weise'). He says ήδίωτ with a verb means only 'gern.' But the traditional explanation is correct—the ye and the emphatic ίμου show that clearly enough. So Masqueray: lu ne ferais aucun plaisir. 71 ότοία (ree.), όιτοΐα (LA). Pearson follows LA (Masqueray, and editors generally, ree.). But ΐσθ' όττοΐά σοι δοκίί in Attic Greek can mean only 'know what seems good to thee,' whereas the meaning here is unquestionably 'be what thou wilt,' i.e., 'act as thou wilt,' 'show the character thou thinkst it best to show under the circumstances.' Cp. Ph. 1049, 1271, El. 1024, O.T. 435, Eur. Hipp. 1022. Masqueray gives the sense in Agis à ta guise. But Mekler accents (mola, and Vollgraff renders: "sed tu scias quae tibi placea n t " (i.e., fac quod vis), adding "simplex solutio, sed quam nusquam inveni." Pearson has recently taken up the cugdels again in defense of this interpretation (CQ 22, 179) : "it is difficult to believe that Ϊσθ' inroía σοι δοκίί is Greek at all." I find it much easier to believe that this is good Greek than to believe that Sophocles put into Antigone's mouth a sentiment like "scias quae tibi placeant," for she would fall out of her rôle: she is not petulant, but tender, noble. ' By their deeds shall ye know them." Ismene, by what she does, will show what she is (ϊσθ' ότοία), whereas ϊσθ' ¿nroîâ σοι δοκΰ, while it may be (grammatically) good Greek, sounds very like nonsense {"know what seems"). But Pearson thinks it is more "forcible" here for Antigone to say 'Be as wise as you please,' than 'Be what you will.' "Gefühl ist alles," says Goethe. As for ότοία, see my note (in the second volume) on ol&s (ίμ' iyú (Eur. Hipp. 1022). 88 Könnecke interprets 'a hot heart in a desperate situation' (WKPh 1915). So far as bei is concerned, the translation might stand, but both the context and the meaning of ψυχρό* is against it. Vollgraff, too, takes exception to the usual explanations: "A commentatoribus hodiernis non recte exphcatur: 'Dein Blick erhitzt sich um ein frostig Wahngebild' (Boeckh). Nec melius Jebb, 'Thou has a hot heart for chilling deeds.' Contra recte Leeuwenius: 'Steeds onverzetlijk, nog in t'voorportaal des doods,' " and he bids us note Ismene's answer: "vel nunc in horrendo discrimine pectus tibi fervet, ut semper." Masqueray, it • II7 ·

ΑΝΤΙ

GON E

seems to me, renders well the thought: Tu as le coeur enflammé pour ce qui glace d'effroi. Ismene means that her sister is eager to do a deed that with its icy horror will chill the soul. 94 Vollgraff translates: "utpote mortuo invisa traderis Δίΐφ." Cp. El. 1040, Eur. FT. 422, Tro. 185, τροστιΒίναι Iradere in Hec. 368, I. A. 540, Suppl. 948, Ph. 964. Cp. also τροστιβίναι τινί γυναίκα. Könnecke thinks that the key to an understanding of the meaning of τροσκάσχι is to be found in δίκη: 'Dann wird man mit Recht von dir sagen, dass du als Feindin den Toten bekämpfst." The auditor, he says, is prepared for this connotation of the verb by ίχθρά. Antigone uses the word with direct reference to κάσομαι in 76, "aber sie benützt zugleich die Kraft des Verbums, den Doppelsinn auszudrücken, zu einem bitteren Wortspiel." I think the order of the words, as well as the context, is decidedly against both of these interpretations. The audience heard the verse, did not see it on the printed page; and they would certainly have taken ίχθρά τροσκάσ^ with τω θανόντι. So Masqueray (with the same word order) : tu seras odieuse au morí auprès duquel lu seras couchée, et ce sera justice.

The Two Burials The question was raised by Dr. Rouse whether Ismene shared with Antigone in the burial of their brother. He suggested that only on this assumption can the two burials be accounted for. Did Ismene precede her sister and, without her knowledge, perform the rites due the dead? In verse 536 she declares: δίδρακα το (ipyov, and she adds cautiously dirt ρ ήδ' ομορροθΰ, for she does not wish to acknowledge it without her sister's approval. And this brings up another question: what does άλλ' ουκ in' ίρρήτοα ye roîs ίμοϊς λόγο« in verse 556 mean? Does it refer to κατθανύν, as it is generally interpreted, to ζην, or to something Ismene still desires to say? Antigone, of course, understands: "you did not make that choice without my protest." But a hidden meaning—left for the audience to divine—might be: "if you understood, you would not treat me thus, you would not say t'ÍXov ζην." In verse 544 she pleads with her sister to let her share her death, τον θανόντα θ' áyvíoaí, and she asserts vehemently: και μην ίση νφν tariv η 'ξαμαρτία. Her regard for the dead is not less, but for a living Antigone more (82 and 85). Possibly Ismene went straight to the field after her first conversation with Antigone and performed the act which the watchman described as having been done by someone in haste. Would Antigone have acted thus, if she had been the doer of the deed? The light strewing of dust in haste is more likely to have been the work of one who wished to keep it hid. And this is precisely what Ismene had urged upon Antigone. Antigone says to her sister: οΐμοι, καταύδα (86). So this first burial seems like the work of the erstwhile shrinking Ismene rather than that of the fearless Antigone. If she actually performed the act, she must have come to the corpse when the watchmen were more careless, had gone away to windward that the stench might not reach their nostrils. After Creon's terrible threats, the situation, of course, was different. Then they were urging one another to vigilance—when Antigone appears. But a whirlwind raises a cloud of dust that fills the plain and so Antigone reaches the body without being seen. The dramatic purpose • 118 ·

ANTIGONE of representing this confusion in the sky is to permit Antigone to get to the body without being noticed, and so be caught in the act. Sentinels had already been posted (217). But Antigone would not have sought to slip by them. Ismene, in her devotion to her sister, is at the last moment capable of showing equally heroic bravery. As Dr. Rouse says, many a weak woman has done a similar act for her child in a frenzy of devotion. Creon declares that he had just seen Ismene Χυσσώσαν ούδ' ίτήβολον φρινων. Unquestionably she became frantic when she realized to what danger Antigone had exposed herself; but this does not preclude the possibility of attributing her madness also to a realization of her own peril after the reaction had set in, after the tremendous nervous strain she was under when actually performing the act of 'burying' her brother's body. Why should Sophocles protray a different Ismene in the Oedipus Coloneus? There she is depicted as brave, strong, unselfish. Her grief is genuine: ώ δισσά πατρόί και κασιγνήτης (μοί | ηδιστα ττροσφωνήματα.. There she is willing to die with her father, as here with her sister. One may cite the Creon of the Antigone and the Creon of the Oedipus Coloneus and declare that they are different. I do not think so. It is a development, not a difference. The same is true of Oedipus in the two dramas in which he appears. As Goethe said, you can never predict what kind of man a given boy will develop into, but if you know the man as well as the boy, you can always see, looking back over his career, how such a boy became such a man. This subject of the two burials is still being discussed. See the articles by Adams and by Meiklejohn in the Classical Review, 1931 and 1932. I am far from affirming that Dr. Rouse's theory is to be accepted. I merely refer to it again as deserving, perhaps, a little more attention than it has received. Masqueray does not mention it, though he discerns certain difficulties that have not been solved: "elle [l'infraction de la loi] a été commise dans les dernières heures de la nuit. Mais comment Antigone a-t-elle bien pu s'y prendre, puisqu'elle n'a quitté Ismene, V.99, que lorsqu'il faisait jour?" Sophocles seems to have been guilty of a dramatic error in not accounting clearly for both burials. What seems to be an insuperable objection to the supposition that Ismene performed the first burial is the guard's statements regarding Antigone's actions when she appears the second time (426-28, in which however, we may see only the watchman's interpretation of Antigone's actions). It is well also to keep in mind that Ismene does not declare explicitly that she did the deed (ίδρασα), for she uses the

perfect: δΐδρακα, (Imp ήδ' όμορροθΛ (536). This means simply Ί am guilty if

she consents.' Cp. 443, where Antigone says φημί δρασαι. See note on 536.

Ismene is doubtless straining a point, comes near telling a falsehood; but she knows that Antigone will understand her, if the king does not: she wants to share the guilt with her sister, if it is now not too late. 101-200

106 ίκβάντα φωτά (Schütz) for φωτά. βάντα is the simplest remedy. Masqueray adopts Hermann's "Apyodtv , while Pearson merely marks the passage corrupt. Emendations are numerous. 110 3s (Scaliger) for 6v. •119·

ANTIGONE 112 Lacuna indicated by Erfurdt. The schol. probably read frraytv. Nauck suggested < f¡ya.ya> • ίχθρίη S' >. Masqueray says that Nauck supplied « Î « κ i', and this he adopts. Pearson does not attempt to guess the missing words. 117 φονώσαισιν (Boeckh and Bothe, cp. schol.), φονία,ισιν (MSS), φοινίαισιν (ree.). 122 < τ « > (Triclinius). 130 wreporXías (Vauvilliers), -arrías (MSS). Pearson prefers inrtpàirras (nom. sing.). The dazzling glamor of gold provokes the jealousy of heaven. Cp. Aesch. Ag. 770, Eur. H.F. 774. 134 àvTtrinrq. (Marcianus 468, Porson), ·τα, -xws, or -TOS other MSS and schol. Masqueray is the only editor, so far as I have seen, who interprets τανταΚωθίίς correctly (as it seems to me), 'nouveau Tantale.' Jebb's "swung-down" is impossible. We want a more violent term, something like 'hurled down,' not the swing of a gently descending scale-pan. Even τανταΚίξίσθαι (schol.) will not do. Tantalus was a Titan; his overthrow was a catastrophe of nature (personified). Like Atlas he supported the heavens (schol. Eur. Or. 981 f.). Likewise the gigantic Argive, Capaneus, was overthrown—and at the very moment when he boasted he would accomplish his purpose. 145 Vollgraff thinks we should read σύσανπ, inasmuch as Χίτγχην ίστάναι (in the sense of καθίίναι.) is not used. 150 f. Masqueray interprets La guerre est finie, oubliez-la. So most editors. But Vollgraff says: "Qui 4* το\ίμων significare sumunt post bella aut insulsam constructionem aut perversam sententiam nanciscuntur." « goes with θίσθαι—or the whole sentence. See my article in the Rev. de phil. 1930, p. 312. Cp. to 485. 154 Βάκχιοί (Bothe) for -tíos. 156 νΤΰ—missing (indicated by Erfurdt). 172 r\rrytvTts, the regular Attic passive, the active being νατά£αντιs. Cp. Lys. 4.15 τόπρον ίιτλή-γην η ¿πάταξα; But there is another (archaic) aorist which scholars are wont to consider as a perfect (Ar. At. 1350). So Tolkiehn (BPhW 1908) : "Sehr eigentümlich ist die Annahme Harrys dass τ ί τ λ ^ γ π ein redupliziertes Präsens oder ein redupliziertes Aorist sei." But the perfect tense would not be in place in this passage (even if the form existed) ; ιτοτλήγυ smacks of the court; it is the old legal form. So in English, archaic formulae are used by lawyers sometimes in ordinary conversations, as e.g., 'proven' for 'proved.' After reading Tolkiehn's criticism I looked up Kock's note: "nicht Perfect, sondern Conjunctly des epischen Aoristus." See my article on the Perfect Subjunctive, Optative and Imperative in Greek (TAPA 1907) and "Some Grammatical Myths" (CR 1905). 170-90 Quoted by Dem. 19.247. 180 ¡τγκλ-όσ as (Elmsley), -κλίίσas (MSS). 198 Read ΏόΚυνύκην (L), not ΙΙοΧυκίκτ) (Dindorf). 201-300 203 ίκκίκήρυκται (Musgrave), -ρνχθαι LA (ree.). 208 Read τιμήν (MSS), not τιμή (Pallis, Linwood). 213 τον y' (Erfurdt), ττον τ (MSS). 217 y' (Brunck), τ' (MSS). 223 Assigned by Brunck to the watchman. 225 ίπιστάσΐΐj > < Kivr/afis (ίφίστασθαι = consistere, (τίστασίί = tnsti/io, whence atlentio animi, consideratio, deliberano). The schol. renders by ΐνστάσας, obiectiones. So Boeckh: "denn vieler Sorg' Anstände fand ich unterwegs." Vollgraff remarks: "Sed hodie satis graece seimus, ut affirmare possimus • 120 ·

ANTIGONE erurrkatis n u s q u a m idem esse quod ivariatis." H e objects t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given b y nearly all editors: 'multas expertus s u m moras p r o p t e r curas (vel cogitationes) meas.' H e r m a n n is saner: 'φροντίδων ίτιστάσ(ΐ* = moras quas cogitationes nuntii passae e r a n t . ' M a s q u e r a y renders: Maintes fois je me suis arrêté pour réfléchir. 223 f . Some consider τό μηδίν = nihil boni. T h i s is impossible. Vollgraff has the curious idea t h a t Kti . . . il-tpû m e a n s 'etiamsi m o r t e m m e a m effabor.' M a s q u e r a y has the correct conception of t h e passage: 241 f. Vollgraff would et bien que je ne dirai rien, je parlerai quand même. p u n c t u a t e tv yt στοχάξη KTÌ. B u t his a r g u m e n t s are far from convincing. Pearson r e m a r k s (CQ 22) t h a t στιχίζη seems t o deserve preference as against στοχίζχι or στοχάξ-η. Cp. Aesch. Ag. 1383 πριστιχίζω.—σημανων Didymus (cp. schol. Ai. 1225), -αίνων Ρ Oxy. 875 a n d LA. 263 μη eiStvai ( E r f u r d t ) , τό μη tlôkvai ( M S S ) . 265 P l a t t compares Ver. Aen. 11.787, Ar. Lys. 133, D e m . 54.40, T h e o p h r . Fr. 3.8 δώ και οί διά τον rvpòs βαδίζοντα τpòs τοΐs άλλ ο « oís ΐΓαρασκίυάζονται και τοΟτό φασι δραν. 269 R e a d ôs ( M S S ) , n o t δ (Nauck). 274 νικώ means Ί a m victor,' hence t h e imperfect ivUa here signifies came to prevail. 278 Xo added b y Triclinius. 301-400 318 Read (Plutarch, Mor. 509 C, a n d ree.) not Sai (LA). 321 y' (Reiske), for δ' (LA). 322 y e must be t a k e n with apyvpw. I t does not m e a n 'yes,' as some editors i n t e r p r e t . 339 Read ΙΧΧομίνων (L 1 margin) for ταλλομίνων (A) and άπλομίνων (L). 341 Read κουφονόων (Brunck) for -νιων (Al 1 ). 351 L reads ?£ίται, t h e other M S S a l e r a i , άξίτ', É£ercu, «fer', a n d t h e scholiast t i t r a i (with & written above t). M a s q u e r a y accepts B r u n c k ' s c o n j e c t u r e ίητάξίται, Pearson emends to υταξίμίν, J e b b reads όχμάζΐται (Schoene's conjecture), Bellermann proposes t ö i f e r a i , Schütz ίφίξίται, Jacob ¿xXiferai, and Campbell υφ'ίΚκίται. "Αλλοι άλλα άλλω$. All these conjectures h a v e their origin in t h e preconceived opinion t h a t t h e v e r b Sophocles used has something t o do with 'leading under the yoke.' B u t possibly t h e poet intended t o say 'will procure for himself' ias an ally, as an additional aid, èir-). If so, he h a s reverted to t h e past and is thinking of w h a t m a n will accomplish. U p t o this point present tenses have been used, it is t r u e — χ ω ρ ί ΐ , íyti, κρα,τά.—but t h e next verb is aorist (kòiδάξατο), a n d this is followed b y a present ( t p x t r a i ) , t h e n a f u t u r e (if m y conjecture is correct); a n d the s t r o p h e ends with a perfect (ξνμτϊφρασται). Observe the succession of IT'S (CTT or). If «R- dropped out, Çuywv became firyóe (necessarily). So αίθρια for ύταίθρια in 356. Moreover, t h e verb here has probably lost its first syllable in A a n d its second in L (ίξΐται a n d άξ(ται). I find a similar error in Aesch. Eum. 267, where M reads ίχνάνασ' a n d F V 3 N ίσχάνασ', a having dropped o u t in one manuscript a n d ν in t h e others, a n d in successive syllables. I t is even possible t h a t the second syllable was originally αυ (¿παύξ(ται), a n d from this present arose t h e f u t u r e s of o u r M S S . Cp. E u r . Med. 107, where τάχ' âv αΟ£οι (probably) became avanti (cp. Htpp. 172). Vollgraff accepts B r u n c k ' s ίητάξίται. B u t I t h i n k έττά£ίται gives better sense; a n d it is nearer t h e reading of t h e m a n u s c r i p t s : t h e copier m i g h t •121 ·

ANTIGONE well have thought he had written r after e and before a, since he had just written τ twice. And Vollgraff, too, is right, I think, when he declares that the future is permissible here: "Plerique commentatores tempus futurum hinc alienum esse arbitrantur, licet futurum non minus bene quam praesens in eiusmodi sententiis usurpetur. Cp. Ar. Ran. 98, Eg. 1376." The Greeks shifted quickly from tense to tense in a way that would not be tolerated in modern French or English. Pearson, however, demurs. In his defense of ίηταξίμίν (CQ 22), his own conjecture, he remarks: "Brunck's ύτάξιται, otherwise attractive, is condemned by the tense," and he asserts that an explanatory infinitive is very much better than a finite verb. I do not think so. But his remark on Jebb's firyων (as being certainly wrong) should make us hesitate before accepting it: "The series of lyric dactyls cannot possibly end with a long syllable." Michelangeli proposed inrqyaytT' (BFC 26). 354 φθί-γμα is 'utterance,' not 'speech.' 356 νταίθρΐΐα. (Brunck), αίθρια (MSS). 367 Vollgraff says: "sed in voce rαρύρων misere haeremus." Jebb accepts Reiske's ytpaipuv (which means just the opposite of what the context demands). Pearson's statement that "by general admission ταρύρων is a vox nihili" is hardly true. He suggests ιπραίνων (CQ 1917, 61). I think no alteration of the text is necessary. The chorus can express themselves freely, for Creon has reentered the palace. Taccone (RF 1923) says: "ma appunto nel presente caso specifico, non avendo intrecciato le leggi umane con le divine, non avendo tenuto il debito conto e delle une e delle altre, ha compiuto [Creon] azione che porterà certo a quella catastrofe che avverrà più tardi nel dramma." Five editors retain ταρύρων (Wex, Campbell, Tournier, Masqueray, and apparently Murray, in his translation) ; but some of these do not seem to have understood the passage, and others do not seem to have discerned the covert allusion to Creon. 395 καθηρίθν (anon.) for -(νρίθη (LA). Cp. 385, 401, 406. 401-500 404 ΐδών (Brunck), ϊδον (LA ree.), tlôov (ree). 411 What does ίπτηνίμοί mean? I think Masqueray's "exposés au tent" is wrong. Pearson says that editors do not seem to have cleared their own minds (CQ 22). Blaydes renders "to leeward," or "sheltered from the wind." He suggests προσηνίμοι. The schol. explains ¿ίντι virò τόν ανιμον (below the wind) οΰκ ίναντίον τον άνίμου (windward) άλλ' ίστραμμίνοι àwò τον vtupov. Pearson agrees: "The simple meaning is that they selected a spot to leeward of the corpse for the reason given in 412" Rackham (CQ 23, 60) says "Pace Dr. Pearson I submit that Campbell is right in saying that the guards 'selected a point of observation on the leeside of one of the (surrounding) hillocks, and to the windward of the corpse, which they would have in view.' Campbell and Rackham are right, for this is what any sensible guard would do—seek a position from which he could keep an eye on the corpse (after τα 6eiv' tKtiva), that is, άκρων ¿κ iráyων, and at the same time not receive in his nostrils the stench from the decomposing corpse (hence with the wind at his back and blowing toward the dead body), and also sheltered from the wind himself, that is, not upon but below the summit of the • 122 ·

ANTIGONE hillock. T h e implication in ιητηνίμοι

is n o t 'exposed to' b u t 'protected from

the

wind.' Pearson seems to mean by "to leeward of the corpse" what Campbell and Rackham mean by " t o windward of the corpse." All understand t h a t the wind is blowing away from the guards toward the corpse, "for the reason given in 412," as Pearson himself says. Compare what Boswell says about Dr. Johnson's definition of the words in his dictionary: "Windward and Leeward, though directly of opposite meaning, are defined identically the same way." Garrick's epigram, And Johnson, well arm'd like a hero of yore, Has beat forty French, and will beat forty more, correctly describes the great Englishman—but the forty French were more accurate. 414 Bonitz's conjecture άφαδήσοι, accepted by Jebb, Pearson, and others, is not probable. The error of the schol. on 204 is entirely different in kind. &

(Hermann). 952 oXßos (Erfurdt), όμβρο$ ( M S S and schol.). 966 Kva.via.tv στ ¿X άδω ν (Blaydes), -ίων irtXáytwv ir (τρων (LA), (-y ίων A). 967 (Boeckh). 975 άραχθίντων (Seidler), άραχθίν tyxtuv (MSS). 984 θυΐλλακτιν (Dindorf), -yciv (MSS). 994 L reads vavκ\ηρΜ, which Blaydes, Jebb, and Masqueray change to the imperfect. This is wholly unnecessary. Teiresias does not mean aussi as-tu dirigi, but 'jusqu'ici tu diriges' (depuis ce temps-là). See Gildersleeve, Classical Greek Syntax 202. 999 öä s with both participle and substantive unexpressed is doubtful Greek. Nor does £uvàrrtrov Χίτγοισιν seem to be a fitting prelude to ïe' οΰκίτ' ÒKVÌÌV καιροί, àXX' ífr/ων ακμή, especially when taken in connection with what Orestes says in the next breath: ωσπρ yàp ί π τ ο ί tirytvys ... ορθόν oís ιστησιν, ώσαύτω$ Si σύ | ήμά$ τ' òrpùvtis καύτόί tv πρώτοι* δηλήσαιτο. In Homer there are fifty-one examples of &τίρχ(σθαι. When Zeus approaches the gods, he has no attention of assailing them (ούδί TIS ίτλη μίίναι ίτ(ρχόμίνον). A beggar does not approach one to attack him (Theogn. 278). Sometimes that which approaches is a foe and his object is, of course, an attack (M 136, Ν 472, Ψ 234. Χ 250, 0 406), but the 'attack' is merely implied ( ι 224, a 199, ρ 170). «τι ψάτιν tiμι (O.T. 494) may be translated 'assail'; but to censure a person is not to destroy him. Cp. Eur. I.A. 349, Andr. 688. Even a arparás ίτιών is not necessarily a force that annihilates. Cp. Soph. Fr. 684 > (Bothe). 959 tu Ισθ' is correct. Cp. Ph. 732. Meineke reads ϊξισθ', Porson σάψ Ισθ', Härtung κάτισθ'. 971 f. The M S S give •καρόντα. Jebb translates "as they stand." Blaydes declares that he does not see the sense of the passage. Nauck and Tyrrell accept F. W. Schmidt's conjecture ytpovra. Pearson says that the interpretation of the earlier editors is pointless (if unemphatic), or it puts an undue strain on a simple word. So he emends τροδόντα: "the oracles have failed and Polybus has swept them away into the limbo of oblivion." Cp. Hdt. 7.187, Soph. Ai. 1266, Aesch. Cho. 269. Masqueray, retaining -καρόντα translates 'existants.' Pearson, I think, overemphasizes the difficulty of the participle here: it means simply 'all these (oracles) we have been talking about.' 980 ff. κίν όνάρασιν = "in dream as well as in real life." Sec Rose, CR 1914, 230. 993 ούχί (Brunck), ob (MSS). 1001-1100 1002 iyùi (Porson), ίγωγ' (LA). 1025 τνχών (Bothe), πκών (MSS); Heimsoeth κιχών. Cp. 1039. 1031 άγκάλαισι (Jebb), άγκάλαιι μ« (Kock), tv κακοΐί μί (A ree., Masqueray). Pearson adopts tv xtpoîv μί (M y p.). There are many emendations. 1078 αΰτη (Hermann), αυτή (MSS). 1088 The MSS give άπίίρων, which is generally interpreted 'ignorant.' But άτίίρων in this sense is not found elsewhere in the whole range of Greek literature. The new lexicon of Liddell and Scott cites this passage for απάρων = &irtipot, and adds as another example Fr. 266, while in the earlier edition this passage alone was cited. But FT. 266 consists of only one word, which leaves one completely àirtipuv of the context. If the word really means 'ignorant,' 'inexperienced,' why did Hesychius not quote Oedipus Tyrannusi The editors could only reply: that àirtipuv = âirtipos is proved by Fragment 266 and Fragment 266 by Oedipus Tyrannus 1089. Ellendt does not believe that Sophocles wrote, άπίρων • 1 5

7 '

OEDIPUS

TR

Y

ANNUS

in Fragment 266. But a lexicographer should be conservative, should preserve the text until it has been definitely shown that the text is wrong. Nevertheless, I am by no means convinced that áxtípuv in O.T. 1088 is the true reading, in spite of all that scholars and editors have written on the subject. Sheppard says: "the reading is uncertain . . . Mr. Harry's suggestion άτΐίρτγων is unsatisfactory: we ask why Cithaeron should think of trying to prevent such a consummation." Yet this is precisely what Cithaeron has succeeded in preventing —during all the long years from the time of the exposure of the babe down to the time when he became & τάσι «Xeieòs Οιδίπους καλούμίνος. The mountain has kept its secret so well that no one has been able (not even himself) to discover who was his mother, his father, his nurse, or of whom or of what he was born. Now the Thebans know, and Cithaeron will not prevent them longer from celebrating the fact—that she, Cithaeron, was mother, father, nurse, till in one : ουκ άπίίρξί« τάν αΰριον τανσί\ηνον μη ον σί yt καί ματίρ' Οίδίτου καΐ τροφό ν αΰξ(ΐν χορευόμινον irpòs ημών. Sheppard's translation of the passage is too free: it does not show us how he explains the construction ατάρων μή ob αΰξαν, except that he says he believes Jebb is right. If so, Οίδίτου must be changed to Οίδίτουν (a conjecture by Voelker), whereas a genitive seems to me to be required. Neither his mother, Τύχτ;, nor οί σιjyyevtîs Míjves, have revealed the secret of Oedipus' parenthood. Cp. 1082 Τύχη—τήί y à p τίφυκα μητρός. But now the morrow will see a glad celebration of his birthplace, for now it is known where he was born: the indefatigable months of the gods no longer hide the truth in darkness—such darkness as concealed Lindbergh, when he was hovering above Le Bourget (which prevented the Parisians from manifesting their joy and celebrating the arrival of the intrepid trans-Atlantic aerial traveler). Neither Thebans nor Parisians knew before ; else they had already celebrated the event which Cithaeron and the darkness did prevent. How are we to explain μη οΰ αύξαν, if we read άπειρων? With àxtipyuv in the text, the construction becomes regular, the image more picturesque, the grammar less grotesque. A vivid personification runs through the whole passage. The personal pronoun (σί y e) is placed at the very head of the infinitival clause because it is emphatic, and it should by no means be changed to σ' ίμί (Blaydes, Pearson). The poet means, in my opinion: "it is thou that we shall exalt in our song on the morrow," for σύ y' ησθ' &p' ή τροφοί καί μητηρ καΐ πατριώτης του ή μ ί τ ί ρ ο υ Οίδίτου. The phrase χορίύίσθαι irpos ημών is epexegetical of aö(et ν and is paratactic in construction, though hypotactic in thought ( = χορίυόμενο ν τ pòi ήμων). Assonance may have had something to do with the disappearance of the y in airtipywv (άπάρων ώ Κιθαιρών). Periphrases like άπΰργων ίση are frequent in this play (90, 126, 274, 708, 991, 1146). Cp. Ai. 1320, Eur. Hec. 1179, Xen. An. 7.6.36. Έμοί μίν ουν ταυ τα καί πάλαι ούτω καί νυν ίτι δοκέί, τψ δί.Σχΐτπάρδω καί άλλοΐί ϊσω$ άλλα.—Volgraff (Μ 1920, 366-88) feels the need of a subject to αΰξΐΐν: "vide ne legendum sit μη οΰ σ ίμί." But with the change I have indicated the difficulty vanishes. 1092 Read ματίρ' (Dindorf), μητίρ' (MSS). 1099 τάν (Heimsoeth) for των.—άρα (Heath) for άρα. 1100 Read τατρόί τέΚασθέίσ' (Lachmann) for τροστΐΚασθίίσ' (-eίσα) of the MSS. —σί y' ίύνάτ€ΐρά Tis (Arndt), σί ye (σί TIS Α) θυγάτηρ (L ree.). · ι

5

8 ·

OEDIPUS

TRY

ANNUS

1101-1200 1106 s rtpiaXXa ιαχίων (LA). Α. Ε. Roche (CR 1915) would emend: δύρομαι yàp ώσττίρ Χαμ' ίάν χ toi ν. 1232 Read fiStßtv (Elmsley) for flötLßtv. 1279 Porson's χάλαγα θ' αίματοΰσσ' seems a certain correction of XaXáfijs αϊματοτ. 1280 f. Dindorf deletes. 1301-1400 1303 Read δύσταν' (Hermann) for δύστανοτ. 1311 Read tfáXov (MSS), not ΐξηΧω (ree.) nor ίξήΧΧου (Hermann). 1315 ίδάματον (Hermann), άδ&μαστον (MSS).— (Hermann). 1323 Readme (Erfurdt) forint. 1343 ßty' όΧίθριον (Erfurdt) for όΧίθριον ßtyav. 1348 Read μηδαμά yvûvai (Dobree) for μηδ' àvayvûvai. Hermann emends μηδί y' âv yvûvai. 1349 Read àypías (Triclinius) for άτ' áypías. 1350 νομάδ' (Elmsley) for νομάδος, and ίΧαβ' (Elmsley) for tXaßt μ'. 1360 aötos (Erfurdt) instead of âffXios (MSS). 1365 IT i (Hermann) for ίφυ. 1379 των need not be changed to θ' ων (Nauck). 1380 Herwerden deletes. 1401-1500 1401 MSS μίμνησθ' «ri (ree.) for μίμνησθ' &τι (LA). Jebb follows Elmsley in reading μίμνησθί τι. 1409 Nauck's μηδ' òpàv is not better than MSS μηδί δράν. 1414 ττιθΐσθί (Elmsley) for TtWtaOt. 1437 Meineke's θανοΰμαι is not an improvement on ψανοΰμαι (MSS). 1445 τ&ν (Dindorf) for τ' âv. 1460 ττροσθχι (Elmsley) for πρόσθν (MSS). 1469 τ&ν (Erfurdt) for τ S.v. 1477 MSS τταρο Οσα ν is certainly as good as Kvicala's icapos σην, for it means (the delight) 'that was always with you.' 1501-1600 1506 Dindorf reads tKytvtis, but surely MSS tyytvtis is just as good. 1513 Read içi (Dindorf) for àti. Moore (CQ 41,58) thinks that Dindorf's ίΰχισθ' ίμοί should be received ('pray for me,' like Ph. 1019). I do not think so. Pearson (CQ 41,175) considers the text sound in all three verses. 1517 Read

•159·

OEDIPUS

TR Y

ANNUS

ti μ ι (Brunck) for (Ιμί. 1526 L reads Sons ού ζήλψ τολιτων καΐ τύχαις èwL0\iruv. Probably δσπ$ was originally &ν ris (6s stands immediately above) which became δστα to conform to the cast of the sentence in the preceding verse (is. .. ην). After the change to 6στα the words où ftjXoî made no sense; then ζήλοι was mistaken for ζ ή \ ψ (to correspond to τΰχακ) and, to connect the two datives, rais became και. A glance at the conjectures shows that scholars have tried to find a verb corresponding to ηδ(ΐ.. .fjv (1925) : rfjs τύχης bcißktwtv (Härtung, Musgrave, Blaydes), f¡v brißXtruv (Nauck), τρωτοί trupXiyuv (Campbell), ου ris bc'tßkertv ( Jebb). But the present ξηλοι is thrown into the past by τύχαυ ίπφ\ίτων, a phrase added explicitly to inform us that it is ό xXtivòs Οίδίπουί alone to whom our attention is directed: "regarding solely the series of successful fortunes of Oedipus in the past, who does not envy him?" This, I think, is the meaning of trtßKtruv. Cp. Dinarchus 1.72 ff. ίτιβ\έψαπ Si bri την Θηβαίων πάλιν ... θαωρήσατΐ δή πάλιν καΐ bri rrjs τ)μ(τίραί τόλ«ωι. The chorus, speaking especially to the audience, the Athenians, bids them μίτγαν δλβον άτοβλέψαι (Fr. 535)—look au ay from everything else and concentrate their attention on the great prosperity of one—and then μηδίν' όλβίζίΐν. The spectators are asked to gaze upon the two states of the great king, Oedipus, 'that once trod the ways of glory and sounded all the depths of honour,' and now the same man so little of his great self, fallen indeed, never to hope again, all his glories and triumphs shrunk to this little measure: Χίύσσίτί ίξ 6σου 6λβου (Is 'όσον κλύδωνα ¿«tv^s συμφopâs ίληλυθΐν (1527). So Tecmessa says (Ajax 501 ff.): ΐδΐτί . . . οΐαs λατρίΐαί &νθ' όσου ζήλου τρίφη. For ζηλοΐ cp. Eur. Suppl. 178, Lys 2.181, Plato, Rep. 561 E, Dem. 19.259, 256. Oedipus, like Creon, fijXxoTÒs fi ν, but now—shipwrecked upon a kingdom. Masqueray adopts Hartung's conjecture, and translates: Cet homme tris puissant, quel est le citoyen qui ne regardait pas sans envie sa prospérité, which makes good sense, but does not account for the change in the first and last words of the verse.

• i6o ·

TRACHINI

AE

Nor did there need less than the burning pile Under the towering Trachis crags. To achieve his son's deliverance.

The Trachiniae is generally considered Sophocles' poorest play. It is a drama difficult for us moderns to appreciate at the true assessment of its worth: the very theme is one which does not appeal to us; and in the treatment of that theme there is an incongruity which does not seem to have been noticed by the poet himself. Nevertheless, in spite of many adverse criticisms, the Trachiniae is far from being an inferior tragedy. It shows, like the Philocteles, some traces of Euripidean influence. Deianeira's monologue, like the prologues of Euripides, makes for rapidity of action, gives the audience at the outset the information it should have to follow the play intelligently, without lingering too long to make the details clear in the action itself: the presuppositions of the case are set forth in the very beginning. But this monologue of Sophocles is not tedious, as are so many in Euripides' plays, Furthermore, the actors sing lyric verses (1005-43) while the chorus do nothing but listen. Later, in the Oedipus Coloneus, this encroachment of the actors on the prerogatives of the chorus becomes even more pronounced. The Trachiniae was written probably after the Heracles of Euripides: it contains expressions which bear a striking resemblance to those found in the poet's younger contemporary. Cp. Tr. 1101 with H.F. 1353. The endings of the two plays are also strikingly similar. If the Heracles was produced between 421 and 415, our play would come somewhere between 420 and 410. As Masqueray says, Heracles with his club is more archaic than Deianeira with her wool. But to us the domestic virtues of the humble wife are not inferior to, or less interesting than, the glorious deeds of a hero, even of the great Heracles. But the Greeks did not feel so. To them the glorious son of Zeus who • I6I •

TRACHINI

AE

purges the universe of all the monsters that cumber it, and even brings up the three-headed hound of Hell, is a far more important personage. I asked a friend once whether the Greeks did not consider woman lovely. His reply was: "They did not consider women at all, just brushed them aside as an infernal nuisance." Even Helen was, to him, " a hussy who messed up things." Deianeira, both in her character and in her way of thinking, is a contemporary of the poet. Her chief virtue is docility (a woman's highest female grace is silence) ; she acts but once with decision, without asking anyone's advice, and that is when, like Jocasta, she makes her exit (without a word to anyone) to commit suicide. When she is about to send the fatal gift-robe to her spouse, she becomes anxious, hesitant; she is quite ready to renounce her design: she cannot trust her own judgment and has to submit her plan to the decision of others. She has never been accustomed to reason out things for herself. But she is kind, tender; and when Iole appears she takes in the situation at a glance—her heart goes out to the misadventured girl in tender pity and a great desire to give her consolation. Being the spouse of Heracles "ne va pas sans difficulté." All our sympathy is for the forsaken wife; for Heracles we have only a passing interest. For Sophocles, however, he is the great Theban hero, the respresentative of all that is strong and generous in man's nature: he cannot think of his wife, for he has to exterminate monsters. Woman to the Greeks of a certain period counted for little; but the poets of the last part of the fifth century did study her (Euripides most of all) and Sophocles followed the current—he studied Deianeira, and he made, for us at least, an extremely interesting and attractive portrait, one of the few of its kind from that century. But this portrait of the period disappears, fades away, when Heracles enters; and we are transported at once to a far distant past, into the atmosphere of the primitive world, a world not unlike that of the Prometheus Unbound. In its original form the legend contained no Deianeira; to the Iliad and Odyssey she is unknown; in them Heracles' wife is Megara—and even she is mentioned but once. Heracles was a Dorian hero, and though the Homeric poems mention his exploits, they are not narrated. Deianeira's name appears first in • 162 ·

TRA

CHI

NI A E

the Melic poets. Neither she nor her spouse could give their names to the tragedy—Heracles appears only toward the end— because the action is not made subject to the will of any human being. For this reason the drama had to get its name from the chorus in spite of the fact that the chorus has only a subordinate part to play and their songs are of very small compass. 1-100 7 í r ' tv (Erfurdt), tv (L ree.), ivi (A ree.)· 11 A. Pallis (CQ 11,49) would change ivapyr¡s to ίνόρχηΐ (unnecessarily). 12 f. κύτΐΐ βούττρωρος (Strabo, Philostratus), τύτφ βοΰκρανοί (MSS). 53 τό σον is better than τόσον. The scholiast gives both. 66 Read ¡ptptiv with Valckenaer ( M S S ov βίον. If this is correct, τρίφίt should not be changed to στρίφίι. It is toil t h a t n u r t u r e s — τ ρ ί φ ί ι βροτοΰς (Eur. Hipp. 367). Possibly the poet has in mind the 'allotment' (assigned to Heracles at his birth) of a life full of toil. Cp. Eur. I.T. 914, 864, Suppl. 1086, H d t . 4.21 Χίξιν «χοντ«, η πρώτη των λαξίων. If the corruption lies in ΤΟΔΑΞΕΙ, I should say t h a t Δ was mistaken for A (naturally with τόδ' before and άξίΐ after it), and t h a t the phrase should be τό XàÇei βώτου τολΰπονον. Cp. Hdt. 9.43, Hes. Theog. 905 f., C.1.1.1444. and the Homeric κηρ fprtp λάχ« ytivößtvöv irtp. The hero is simply living the life of his Χάξι$, a life not of luxurious ease b u t of constant labor, which nurtures and develops him, as it does all mortals, a life as tempest-tossed as the sea. 120 Read with the scholiast άναμιτλάκητον ( M S S άμιτλάκητον). Hesychius quotes it as άπλάκητον. 130 Nauck's change of οίον to aUv is not necessary. 161 Read 6 τι (Musgrave) for ότι. 164 Read τρίμηνος with Wakefield for τρίμηνον, and ηνίκα (Dawes) for ηνίκ' av. 166 ff. Dobree deletes. 167 inπκδραμόντα is not improved by Wunder's conjecture ίηπρδραμόντα. 187 Brunck's του τόδ' for roOro δ' seems a certain correction. 188 Read ìrpòs iroWovi (Hermann) for M S S ττρόσπολοί. Cp. 194, 352, 371, 423. 196 f. Masqueray translates: Les curieux, chacun voulant être renseigné, ne le laissent pas partir, avant d'apprendre tout ce qu'Us veulent. But this does not • 163·

TR ACHINI

AE

account for the present active participle ποθοΰν, which the scholiast explains by simply saying that it is equivalent to χοθούμίvov. This is evidently impossible. Hermann interprets: 'quod plenum est desiderii (populum intellegit) unoquoque rem cognoscere cupiente.' Shilleto explains by oí ποθοΰντίς. This is also practically Linwood's view. But, as Jebb remarks, it is hardly conceivable that Sophocles should have used the abstract τό τ οθοΰν in the sense of ό τοθών Xetos. Blaydes thinks τό ποθούν may be accusative governed by μίθΰτο. But this verb (in the middle) takes the genitive; and the context shows that the object is Lichas. E. Thomas conjectures τό yàp ποθίίν'. Wecklein adopts Subkoff's emendation δ yàp πόθων ίκαστος ίκμαθίίν κυρίΐ. Wecklein himself suggested ην τα s τις ίκμαθίίν θίΧων, Hense τά y àρ ποθοΰμίν' όστις ίκμαθίίν 6t\ti, Blaydes à yàp π'&τονθ', F. W. Schmidt τα y dp φίλων, M. Schmidt όθούνίχ' ων ίκαστος ίκμαθίίν ôéXoi, Nauck τά yàp παρόνθ' ΐκαστος ίκμαθίίν πόθων. Nauck's emendation comes nearest to what I conceive to be the meaning of the passage, but it is inadmissible for palaeographical reasons alone. Ten years ago I published in the Classical Review what I thought was the true correction, and I have seen no reason to change my mind: ποθούν is not one word, but two, not a participle but a substantive and a conjunction: τόπαρά πόδ' ο δ y, which gives us the object (long sought for and greatly desired) of ίκμαθίίν ΘΆων. The copyist simply mistook ΠΑΡ for ΓΑΡ (Cp. 900 where Schroeder changes rap to yap) since it was the second word of the verse as well as of the sentence. Moreover, there was another yap right above, which he had just written. Furthermore, ovv gives us the connective required by the context. The scribe probably did not recognize the fact that the first foot was a tribrach (and the tribrach is a potent source of trouble in our manuscripts, as I have shown elsewhere in many passages) and when παρ became yap. the last vowel of the preposition naturally dropped out. Finally, the pronunciation of ποδουν was practically identical with ποθούν—at least it was very easy for the voix intérieure of the copyist to dictate to him ποθούν. This becomes apparent as soon as one hears a Modern Greek read the verse aloud. Unquestionably δ became th as in 'though' in a very early period. The messenger is declaring to Deianeira that the people crowded around Heracles eager to get the news "hot from the wire," as we should say today. Cp. Ph. 838 παρά πόδα κράτος άρνυται, Plato, Soph. 242 Α μή ποτί δια ταυ τά σοι μαντικός ('ναι ¿όξω, παρά πόδα μίταβαλών. Sophocles himself seems to be fond of such expressions as τά παρά πόδα, πρός ποσί, tv ποσί (res praesenles ei instantes), e.g., Ant. 1327 τάν ποσ'ιν κακά, Ο.Τ. 130 τό πρός ποσί σκοπίΐν ( = τό παρά πόδα). Even the genitive is used sometimes with παρά, and also the dative, e.g., Pind. P. 3.60 τό πάρ ποδός, Hesych. παρά τοΐs ποσί, Plato, Theaet. 174A τά δί ίμπροσθίν αύτοΰ και παρά πόδας . . . πίρι των παρά πόδας και των ÍV όφθαΧμόίς, Rep. 432D προ ποδών, Pind. Ο. 1.118 πάρ ποδί, Lucían, Bis Accus. 34 προ τοΐν ποδοιν, Nigr. 7, Xen. An. 4.6.9, Pindar, P. 8.32 τό 'tv ποσί, Eur. Ale. 739 τούν ποσίν yàp ο'ιστίον (where yàp comes after the whole phrase), Hdt. 3.79 τόν tv ποσί γινόμίνον, Sext. Emp. 361, Polyb. 8.11.2, Hesych. παρά πόδας· ίύθΐως, eyyWtv, Quint. Smyrn. 6.63 νίκη δί πΐλίΐ παρά ποσσίν. Cp. 6.432. Sometimes, as we have already seen, the connecting particle is pushed

• 164 ·

Τ RACHINI

ΑΕ

forward to the third or fourth place; but y&p after the article appears frequently in Sophocles at t h e beginning of a verse, and this may have influenced the scribe in writing τό yàp. Cp. 695, 714, El. 4,528, O.T. 598, 671, 1082, O.C. 1617, Ai. 964. So also r í yap, ά yap, τ oí yap, ού yip, jj yà.p, ti yàp. Hence one can readily see how a copyist might mistake rorap for τσγαρ. Cp. Aesch. Cho. 224, where the interrogative τω is thrust forward to the seventh syllable (as olv here to the sixth), and carrying &t along with it, caused the scribe to write r&Se. The tribrach too (employed to mark the breathless haste of the speaker) helped to confuse the copier. A little further on we find a dactyl (àyopq.) in a similar dramatic situation in the first foot. Sophocles is not so fond of resolution in the first foot as Euripides. I have found only seventy examples, excluding proper names. If we bar such words as Τòrtpa, πσδαπόν, irÓTtpov, r i TOT«, this number is reduced to sixty, and most of these are found in passages in which there is a great deal of excitement. The Trachiniae does not have a single tribrach in the first foot of the trimeter—except vÓTtpov (342, 862). There are two anapaests, but no dactyls, as in Euripides. In the Ajax there is only one (1172). The Oedipus Coloneus has only όνομα (265, 306), the Ajax irtòia (863); b u t three anapests in O.C.: vSaros (481), υδάτων (1599), ίκ(τ(ΰομΐν (1327), and ποδαιτόν (1160). The Philoctetes, on the other hand, shows twenty-six examples; but seventeen of these occur between verses 740 and 999, where Philoctetes' emotion makes him speak in a manner similar to Lichas in Trachiniae 196. Cp. Eur. Ion. 1288 άλλ' tytvüßtaOa, where the indignant youth declares emphatically t h a t he was the son of Apollo.1 See my article forthcoming in the Revue de philologie. 201-300 205 Read άνολολυξάτω with Burges, not -Xúferai with Elmsley (-λύξίτί and -are MSS).—δόμο% (Burges), δόμοα (MSS). 209 Ά τ ό λ λ ω (Dindorf), ΆτόΧΚωνα (MSS). Cp. O.C. 1091. 222 ίδ' (Dindorf), tôt 15' (MSS). 226 Read φρουραν (Musgrave) for φρουρά.. 233 'Ηρακλή (Dindorf) for -ta. Cp. 476. 256 Read ά γ χ ι σ τ η ρ α (LA ree.), not αύτδχΐίρα (Nauck) nor άριστηρα (Musgrave). 267 I prefer Hermann's (Erfurdt). 1125 Read ytXq. μου (MSS), not tyyt\çi (Jebb). xtpl (Turnebus) for χ α pi 1130 i\tivòv (Brunck), ÌKÌUVÒV (MSS). 1134 άλλου δ' tv (Hermann) for άλλ' tv. Bergk conjectured άλλ' altv. Read μίταλλαγρ (MSS), not μ(τ' άγκάλαΐί (Cavallin). 1139 ούδίίί (Arndt) for Όδυσσίύς (MSS). Dindorf reads ώ Ζ tv, Campbell oíros. 1140 τα μίν ίνδικ' attv (Arndt) for το μίν tu δίκαιον. 1144 τώνδ' (Gernhard) τοΰδ' (MSS). 1153 f. "Porson saw that άνίδην must go with ϊρπίτί," says Jebb. That is true; but no commentator, in my opinion, has seen exactly what Sophocles intended to say in the whole passgae. Jebb changed δδί to δ and ίρύκίτα ι to άρ' ονκίτ ι, Porson χώρος to χω\ός, Wecklein δδί to 6n. But the reading of the manuscripts is correct : δδί (which refers to Philoctetes himself, not to the region), ΐρύκίται is also sound. It was not these words that caused the confusion in the mind of the scribe, but χώρος which, if altered to χωρίς, makes the whule sentence clear: άλλ'

ÍLV&IJV

— Mí χωρ is kpùxeraι

ιροβητόί ούκίθ' νμΐιτ— ϊρΐÀÀ.

Philoctetes will henceforth hold aloof, and the wild animals in the upland pastures may roam freely again, and not dread his unerring arrows. For χωρίς (which could easily have been mistaken for χώρος) compare 487, O.T. 1463, Eur. Fr. 580, 897, Hec. 980. The scholiast explains ίρύκίται by κατίχίται. This is • ΐ8θ·

PHILOCTETES correct, but in a different sense, I think, from what he intended, since his general explanation of the passage is íStíq. inrò των θηρών κατασχ(θήσ(ται. Hesychius also defines Ιρύκίμίν by κατίχαν (θ 206). Cp. Ψ 443, Ω 771, Theognis 1210, and especially 118 ff., where Homer is speaking of aiyes Hypiai- ού μίν yàp τάτοί άνθρωτων άτ f ρύ κ(ι ούδί μιν άσοιχνίΰσι κυνηγίται. So Μ 285 κύμα . . . μιν ίρύκίται. The clause 66t χωρίς ίρύκίται after άνίδην is epexegetical and parenthetical and so follows the adverb naturally. Thus interpreted, it does not have the jerky abruptness of Wecklein's and Linwood's emendations, but leads on smoothly to îprtrt a t the end of the sentence; and the insertion of 6St. . . ύμϊν, between άνίδην and ipxtrt, in the choking utterance of the sufferer, is most dramatic. This correction χωρίς ίρύκίτai gives us also, I think, a clue to the correct interpretation of φιτγψ μ' ούκίτ' άτ' αύλίων above, for χωρίς ίρύκίται stands in opposition to xtXâr' (1150), which Jebb emends to τηδάτ', deleting the indispensable object μ' by converting μ' ούκίτ' to μηκίτ. In this change, however, he is followed neither by Pearson nor by Masqueray. Canter reads tXSr". So also Erfurdt and Heimsoeth. Seyffert alters ipvyq. to an impossible infinitive of purpose (ipvyeïv). See note on O.T. 198. Wecklein substitutes τλάζ'tad' for τeXSr', and Nauck proposes φίύξίσθ'. Hermann comes nearest to the truth, so far as the meaning of the passage is concerned, but he failed to see that άτ' αύλίων could not refer to the grotto. Wherever αΰλιον is used of the cave, it is in the singular (19, 954, 1087). Nor can the context of the passage justify such an interpretation. Jebb rightly understands αύλίων to refer to the lairs of the wild animals. When πέλάζαν is transitive, the place to which is either clearly implied or (most frequently) expressed. The phrase ού ireXare means "you will not draw me iyyús ( > (Heath). 1169 φίλτατί, axis (Heath), φί\τατ' ϊσχα (L ree.), ίτίσχκ (A). 1176 Read τοντ' (MSS), not rodò' (Elmsley, Jebb). 1187 κακώς (Hermann), καλάκ (MSS). 1189 μηδί (Dawes), μήτί (MSS). 1190 κάκιστων δυσσφίστατ', ω (Dawes), κάκιστων δυσσφίστάτων (MSS), κάκιστα δυσσφίστάτων (Toup). 1192 I think άλλ' αυτόν was originally ίντομai σ'. Most editors change αυτόν to ίασον. Pearson accepts Wunder's ία νιν. Masqueray ίασον (London, i, 1722). Musgrave emended to άλλ' eTfov. These do not seem to me convincing. If αυτόν is an error for αντομ, the following syllables awe became (Ισί, since the sentence lacked a verb. Consequently, I would read άλλ' άντομαί at—χάτ(pois yovai κακαί. Not only does the verse now harmonize with the next, but the whole scene becomes more dramatic. 1197 Xtiiawfls (Pierson), λύσ^ΐ (MSS). 1199 βαιά (Musgrave) for/3íaia (LA ree.). 1201-1300 1209 f. Read συ δ' ων (Dindorf) for συ δί (L). —σως (Scaliger) for σων (L). Dindorf reads συ δ' ων σώί. 1212 Read with MSS rapili, not ripa with Schneidewin. 1220 του δΐοντοί (Reiske), του θίλοντοs (LA), το0 aOtvovTOS (Musgrave). —& δ' trUovpos (Hermann), ούδ' bri Kodpos (L), ούδ' tri κόροί (A) 1225 Read φαν§ (MSS), not φ(η (Nauck), nor φΰναί τιν' (Blaydes). 1230 Read tpipov (A), not φίρων (L ree.). 1231 Possibly ιτοδί μόχθοι instead of τολύμοχθοί; τολύ μόχθοι (Hermann), roxi μόχθος (Schneidewin). 1233 Read tftióvos . . . και φόνοι (Faehse) for φόνοι... και φθόνοί. 1235 κατάμΐμττον (A1 ree.) for -τ(μττον (LA). 1244 Read irai (A ree.) for aire (L). 1248 δ' ίννυχιάν (Lachmann), not δέ νυχιαν (LA). Cp. schol. 1259 irívos (Scaliger), irovos (LA¡. Cp. Eur. El. 305. 1297 ούδ' ípyov (Hermann), οΰτ' ίρτγου (MSS). 1301-1400 1310 τ" (Reiske), y' (MSS). 1313 δορυσσουτ (Reisig), δορΰσσου$ (MSS). 1351 ούτάν (Brunck), οΰτ' &v (MSS). 1361 &>σπίρ (Reiske), ώσχίρ (MSS). Cp. Ai. 1117. 1373 Jebb accepts the emendation of Turnebus ipt'a¡/tis for the manuscript reading ipti Tis. So Pearson and Masqueray. Tournier conjectured os] Ktipti τ (Ισέλθών \ήιον, Φ 204 λ 578, β 312 tKtiptrt τολλά και ίσθλά | κτήματ'. Soph. Ai. 55, Thuc. 1.64.2, Hdt. 6.99; 8.32 όκοσα 5¿ ίτίσχον πάντα 'eKtον (Kuhnhardt), φαινόμενα!. (MSS). 1689-92 Assigned to Ismene by Turnebus. 1694 Masqueray follows Wilamowitz in reading rò 0eoD καλώ? φ ί ρ α ν χρη. Elmsley and Hermann delete (Härtung). 1698 Read μηίαμά (Brunck) for μηδαμ§ (or-»;). — φί\ον Brunck) for τό φίλον.

•193·

OEDIPUS

COLONEUS 1701-1800

1703 We should read ytpuv (MSS), not y' ίχών (Pearson). There are many emendations. 1705 Read is (MSS), not ώι (Wilamowitz). 1710 Read δάκρυο? (Reisig), not Sáxpvov (L), nor baxpbov (A). 1712 τόσον (Arndt), τοσόνδ' and τό σόν ò' (MSS). 1716 f. The phrase α Wis ώδ' ίρημοί ¡.ropos was recognized as an interpolation by Lachmann. Cp. 1735. 1718 Read έταμμέρα σί τ' (Hermann) for ewißtvti σί τ' (-fis IT' in A). 1719 < r d $ > (Hermann). 1733 bravâpiÇov (Elmsley) for ίνάριξον (LA ree.), and ίξίνάριξον (Laur. xxxi). 1739 f. Read ατίφυ^ί. AN. τί; το σφων μη rirvtiv κακω$ (Hermann) for iruptin/tTov | σφωιν τό μη τírvtiv (MSS). 1741 brtp ιOtis (Graser), ìnctpvoM MSS. 1744 Read treîx« (Wunder) for «reí. 1749 τίν ίτι μ« (Hermann), τι μί MSS. 1751 f. Assigned to chorus in MSS. Corrected by Heath. 1752 vv£ άτόκίιται (Martin), ξυνατόκίΐται (MSS). Jebb and Masqueray follow Reisig in reading ξύν' άτ&καται. 1758 Read κ«ΐσ' ίστί μο\έίν (Brunck) for Ktìa μοΧίΊν (deleted by Bothe, Jebb, Masqueray). 1764 Read καλώΐ (MSS), not κακών (Hermann). 1773 όκόσ' &v (Porson), &σ' fix and δσα &v (MSS). 177 6où ôtî (Hermann), ob yàp Stî (MSS). 1777 μη&' (Elmsley), μήτ' (MSS). 1778 The reading of A (θρήνον) is better than t h a t of L (θρήνων). Cp. 1751.

• 194·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AESCHYLUS COLLECTIVE EDITIONS

Aldine, 1518. Robortelli, 1552. Turnebus, 1552. The preceding three contain only those parts found in the Medicean MSS. The edition of Vettori (Victorius) was the first in which was printed the entire Agamemnon (with notes by the printer, H. Stephanus). Canter, 1580. Stanley, 1663. Pauw, 1745. Foulis Press, 1746. Schütz, 1782-94 (1809-21, 5 vols.; 1800, 1827, 2 vols.). La Porte du Theil, 1794. Porson, 1794 (1795, 1806). Bothe, 1805 (1830). Butler, 1809-16. Weise, 1812. Schäfer, 1817 (1827). Schütz, 1823. Wellauer, 1823-30. Boissonade, 1825. Dindorf, W„ 1827-69 (several editions). Scholefield, 1828 (1830). Doukas, 1839. Peile, 1839. Dindorf, Oxford, 1841-51 (3 vols.). Ahrens, E.A.I. (Didot), 1842 (1877). Hermann, G„ Berlin, 1852 (2 vols.); 2d ed., 1859 (Crit. ed.). Härtung, 1852-55. Merkel, Oxford, 1871 (transcript of Medicean MS). Paley, London, 1847 (with Latin notes), 1855; 4th ed., 1879 ; 5th ed., 1889 (with English notes). Kirchhoff, Berlin, 1880. (Crit. ed.). Weil, H., 1884, Teubner (text only), Leipzig, last ed., 1907. VitelliWecklein, Berlin, 1885-93. (Crit. ed. with schol. of M, 2 vols.). WeckleinZomarides, Athens, Leipzig, 1891-1910 (with notes in Modern Greek). Campbell, L„ London, 1898. Sidgwick, Α., Oxford, 1899 (1902). WilamowitzMoellendorff, 1914. Smyth, H. W„ Loeb Library, 1922 (Vol. I), 1926 (Vol. II). Mazon, P., Collection Budé, 1920 (Vol. I), 1925 (Vol. II). Blumenthal, 1924. Hoernle, Choric Songs from Persae, Septem, and Prometheus, with a Translation in English Rhythm, 1925. EDITIONS OF SINGLE PLAYS

Supplices: Burges, 1821. Haupt, C. G., 1829. Grenouille, 1832. Paley. 1844 (1883), includes the Choephori. Schwerdt, 1858. Kruse, 1861. Oberdick, 1869. Tucker 1889 (with prose translation). Wecklein, 1902 (with notes in German). Terzaghi, N., Milano, Palermo, 1921. Vürtheim, Amsterdam, 1928. Persae: Brunck, 1774. Blomfield, 1814. Lange and Pinzger, 1825. A. N., Paris, 1830 (1860,1878). Haupt, C. G„ 1830 (1839). Lécluse, 1837. Schneider, G. C. W„ 1837. Paley, 1847 (1880). Meineke, 1853. Teuffel, 1866 (1875). Merkel, 1869. Schiller, 1869. Oberdick, 1876. Prickard, 1879 (1907). Weil, H., 1879 (1884, 1889). Teuffel-Wecklein, 1886 (4th ed., 1901). Conradt, 1888. Weil, 1899. Inama, 1901. Jurenka, 1902. Sidgwick, 1903. Haydon (with notes); Crooke (prose translation); Warlow (literal translation.) Prometheus: Auratus, 1548. Garbitius, 1559. Stephanus, H., 1567. Benenatus, 1575. Gesner, 1763. Morell, 1767. Brunck, 1779. Lange, 1781 (1826). Schütz, 1781. Blomfield, 1812. Haupt, C. G., 1826. Anon. (Maire-Nyon),

•197·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

1829. Lebas, 1829. Bothe, 1830. Burges, 1831. Griffiths, 1834. Schneider, 1834. Vendel-Heyl, 1835. Woolsey, 1837 (1877). Minckwitz, 1839. Schumann, 1843 (Greek and German). Stiévenant, 1845 (1865). Paley, 1846. Richmond, 1846. Donaldson, 1851. Meineke, 1853. Davies, 1862 (1879). Dindorf, 1866. Schmidt, L., 1870. Watson, 1870. Wecklein, 1871 (3d ed., 1893). Guignant, 1874. Pinder, 1874. Prickard, 1878 (1907). Mather, 1883. Weil, 1884 (2d ed., 1906). Stephenson, 1885. Glazebrook, 1887 (1901). Plaistowe and Mason, 1887 (with prose translation). Wecklein (translated into English by Allen), 1891. Haines, 1896. Sikes and Willson, 1898. Rackham, 1899 (1903). Plaistowe and Mills, 1900. Laurence, 1901. Valgimighi, 1904. Case (with translation), 1905. Harry, 1905. Septem: Caselius, 1581. Morell (printer), 1585. Burton, 1758 (Burgess, 1779). Brunck, 1774 (1779). Blomfield, 1812. Schwenck, 1818. Prieur, 1822. Trollope, 1825. Haupt, C. G., 1828. Lefranc, 1828. Schneider, 1834. Griffiths 1835. Vendel-Heyl, 1835. Pillon, 1840. Paley, 1847. Ritschl, 1853 (1875). Davies, J., 1864. Sachtleben, 1864. Alexanderson, 1868. Schoell, 1875. Beer, 1877. Paley, 1878 (1883). Flagg, 1884 (1894). Verrall (with prose translation), 1887. Verrall and Bayfield, 1888. Plaistowe, 1897 (1900). Inama, V., Turin, 1902. Wecklein, 1902. Sidgwick, 1903. Tucker. 1908 (with prose translation). Oresleia: Paley, 1845. Franz, J., 1846. Wecklein, 1883 (1888). Heyse, 1884. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (text and German translation), Agamemnon, 1885; Das Opfer am Grabe, 1896; Die Versöhnung, 1898. Proctor and Kenyon, 1904. Zomarides-Wecklein, 1910 (with notes in Modern Greek). Agamemnon: Wolf, 1787. Blomfield, 1818. Lafontaine, 1822. Prieur, 1822. Tyrwhitt, 1822. Scholefield, 1830. Klausen, 1833. Haupt, C. G., 1837. Peile, 1839 (1844). Schneider, 1839. Feiton, 1847 (1869). Prieur, 1847. Conington (with verse translation), 1848. Enger, 1855. Karsten, 1855. Schneidewin, 1856. Enger-Gilbert, 1863. Keck, 1863. Klausen-Enger, 1863. Nägelsbach, 1863. Heusde, 1864. Davies (with verse translation), 1868. Weyrauch, 1868. Kennedy (with verse translation), 1878 (1882). Paley, 1880. Sidgwick, 1881 (1905). Schneidewin-Hense, 1883. Margoliouth, 1884. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1885. Blaydes, 1889. Verrall, 1889 (1904). Enger-Plüss, 1895. Reynaud (Lyons), 1901. Headlam-Pearson (with verse translations), 1910. Lawson (with verse translation), 1932. Choephori: Oxford, 1729. Foulis Press, 1774. Vollborth, 1776. Schwenck, 1819. Lafontaine, 1822. Blomfield, 1824. Vendel-Heyl, 1825 (1835). Klausen (Leipzig), 1835. Bamberger (Göttingen), 1840. Peile, 1840. Paley, 1844 (1883). De Jongh, 1856. Conington, 1857. Davies (with scholia), 1862. Sidgwick, 1884 (1900). Verrall (with prose translation), 1893. WilamowitzMoellendorff, 1896. Blaydes, Halle, 1899. Barnett, 1901. Tucker (with prose translation), 1901. Blass, 1906. Piovano, 1915 (first Italian ed.). Eumenides: Wakefield, 1794. Hermann, 1799. Schwenk, 1821. Burges, 1822. Rhally, 1829. Müller, K.O., 1833. Minckwitz, 1838. Scholefield, 1843. Lin• 198 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

wood, 1844. Schümann, 1845. Donaldson, 1848. Drake (with verse translation), 1853 (1870). Merkel, 1857. Paley, 1880. Da vies, 1885. Sidgwick, 1887 (1902). Blaydes, 1900. Barnett, 1901. Plaistowe (with prose translation), 1901. Blass, 1907. Verrall (with translation), 1908. Lange, T., Copenhagen, 1915. Ridley, 1922. Also Mill (text, notes, and translation). Ubaldi, P., Torino (illustrated). COLLECTIVE TRANSLATIONS

English verse: Potter, 1777 (1779). Blackie, 1850 (1906). Plumptre, 1868 (1872, 1901). Swanwick, 1873 (1890). Campbell, 1890. Morshead, 1881 (1908). Goldwin-Smith, 1893-1903 (all except Supplices). Way, 1906-8. English prose: Anonymous, Oxford 1822 (1843). Buckley, 1849 (1876). Paley, 1864 (1871). Campbell, 1893 (Oresteia). Headlam, W. and C.E.S., 1909 (all except Ag. and Prom.). Smyth, 1922 (Loeb). French prose: Mazon, 1921 and 1925 (Budé). Dutch prose: Boutens, 1921. German prose: Droysen, 1868. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, 1885. Todt, 1891. SINGLE PLAYS

Supplices: Headlam (prose). Kruse, Die Schutzflehenden (griechisch und deutsch), 1861. Giles (prose), 1839. Cookson, 1922. Murray (verse) 1930. Persae: Palin, 1829. Wood (prose), 1855. Staunton, 1873. Burgesdijk, L., Leiden, 1916. Cookson, 1922. Hausrath, Α., Jena, 1923. Leyhausen, W. (2d ed.). Feuchtwanger, L., München, 1916. Ridley, M., 1922 (text and translation). Also translations by Armstrong, Headlam, Plaistowe (prose), Bevan (verse), and Mongan. Prometheus: Potter, 1779. Anonymous, 1832. Edwards (prose), 1823. Medwin, 1832. Blackie, 1850. Barrett, Elizabeth (Mrs. Browning), 1833 (1868). Fox, 1835. Giles, 1839. Thoreau, 1843. Swayne, 1846. Mongan, 1848 (1881). Herbert, 1849. Clifford, 1852. Webster, 1866. Cayley, 1867. Long, 1870. Perkins (prose), 1870. Plumptre, 1873 (2d ed.). Campbell, 1890. Cooper, 1890. Earl of Carnarvon, 1892. Hailstone, 1892 (1902). Pember, 1895. Denman, 1896. Donner, Deutsch in den Versmassen der Urschrift, Stuttgart, 1854. Todt, Prag, 1891. More, 1899. Morshead, 1899. Bevan, 1902. Bouchier, 1903. Case. 1905. Whitelaw, 1907. Sarasin, P., Basel, 1913. Werkhaupt, G„ Leipzig, 1914. (Translated by M. C. Weir, New York, 1916). Burgersdijk, Leiden, 1916. Harman, 1920. Terzaghi, Palermo, 1921. Engelhardt, Dresden, 1922 (Suppl., Pers., Sept., Prom.). Cookson, 1922. Septem: Gurney, 1879. Mongan (prose), 1881. Bevan, 1912. Cookson, 1922. Translations also in the editions of Tucker and others. Agamemnon: Boyd, 1823 (prose). Symmons, 1824. Kennedy, 1829. Harford, 1931. Medwin, 1932. Fox, 1839. Sewell, 1846. Herbert, 1852. Peters, 1852. Blew, 1855. Nägelsbach, 1863. Milman, 1865. Dalton {Oresteia), 1869. Fitzgerald, 1876. Browning, 1877. Earl of Carnarvon, 1879. Kennedy, 1882.

•199·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

Cooper (Oresteia) 1890. Campbell (Oresteia) 1893. Warr (Or e sie io) 1900. Harman, 1904. Thring, 1904. Verrall, 1904. Goodwin (prose) 1906. Paton. 1907. Headlam. 1910. Piatt (prose) 1911. Werkhaupt, G., Leipzig, 1914. Boutens, Rotterdam, 1916 (2d ed.). Burgersdijk, Leiden, 1916. Davis, Oxford, 1919. Vollmoeller, K., München (Oresteia) 1919. Fauth, G., München. 1920 (Nachdichtung). Murray, G., London, 1920. Ellis, 1920. Tralow, Köln, 1920. Trevelyan, R. C. (Oresteia), Cambridge, 1920. Robinson, 1921. Cookson, G. M„ Oxford, 1922. Bruegel, F., Konstanz, 1923. Tosatto, C„ Padua, 1923 (literal translation of all the plays except the Prometheus). Hitchcock, C. H. (Oresteia), 1932. Choephori: Dalton, 1869. Verrall (prose), 1893. Warr (prose), 1900. Tucker (prose), 1901. Headlam (prose), and several anonymous (1848, 1880, 1888). Eumenides: Drake, 1853 (1870). Swayne, 1855. Dalton, 1869. Gumey (verse) 1873. Prowett, 1882. Verrall (prose and verse), 1885 (1906). Warr, 1900. Verrall (prose). Murray (verse). ARTICLES AND TREATISES ON THE PROMETHEUS

Observationes in Aesch. Prom, eiusdemque fabulae in germ, translatae specimen, Salzwedel, 1834. Reisig, C., Emendationes in Aeschyli Prometheum (reprinted in Ritschl's Opuscula I, pp. 378-93). Wieseler, F., Adversaria in Aeschyli Prometheum Vinctum, Göttingen, 1843. Schömann, G. F., Mantissa animadversionum ad Aeschyli Prometheum, 1845 (reprinted in Opuscula, III, pp. 8194). Kiehl, E. J., Aeschylea, Leyden, 1850. Wieseler, Zu Aeschylos' Prometheus, Ρ IX, pp. 716-22; idem, Schedae criticae in Aeschyli Prometheum, 186C. Reuter, De Promethei Septem Persarum fabularum codicibus recentioribus, Rostock, 1883. Nauck, Kritische Bemerkungen, Petersburg, 1885. Cobet, De locis quibusdam in Aeschyli Prometheo et scholiis antiquis ad hanc tragoediam Μ (Ν.S.), XIV, 121 ff. Flach, Hans, Zum Prometheus des Aeschylos, Jahrbücher für Phil., CXXIX, 827 ff. Hoffmann, NJP, 1885. Weil, H„ La Fable de Prométhée dans Eschyle, Ann. pour l'encouragement des études grecques, 1886, pp. 280-99; idem, Études sur le drame antique, ibid., pp. 61-92. Girard, P., Sur un passage interpolé du Prométhée d'Eschyle, REG, 1899, pp. 149-68. Weil, H., Études sur le drame antique REG, 1899, p. 254. (On the date of the play.) Navarre, O., De l'hypothèse d'un mannequin dans le Prométhée enchaîné d'Eschyle. (In favor of the lay-figure theory.) Croiset, M., Le Second Acteur chez Eschyle. (Opposed to the lay-figure theory.) Graf, Α., Prometeo nella poesia. Valgimighi, Eschilo, la trilogia di Prometeo, Bologna, 1904. Terzaghi, Prometeo, Contributo allo studio di un mito religioso ellenico, Florence, 1904. T H E TRILOGY

Schlegel, A. W., Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst, I, 164. Welcker, F. G., Die Aeschyleische Trilogie Prometheus und die Kabirenweihe zu Lemnos, Darmstadt, 1824; idem, Nachtrag zu der Schrift über die Aesch. Tril., Frankfurt a.M., 1826. Hermann, G., De Aeschyli Prometheo soluto, 1828 (reprinted • 200 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

in hie Opuscula IV). Schmidt, J.H.T., De Prometheo Vincto, Augsburg, 1831. Feuerbach, Α., De Prometheo Aeschyli Consilio atque indole, Nachgelassene Schriften, Brunswick, 1853. Caesar, J., Review of Schömann's Edition, Zeitschrift f . das Alterthum, 1854, p. 41. Kriigelstein, E., Pauca de Consilio Aeschyli in Promethei fabula componenda, Gotha, 1845. Hermann, De Prometheo Aeschyleo, Leipzig, 1845. Schömann, lieber den Prometheus des Aeschylos, Zeitschrift, f . das. Altertum, 1846, 111. Caesar, J., Reply to Schömann, ibid., 113, 899. Frensdorf, E„ Études sur Eschyle, Prométhée enchaîné, Brussels, 1846. Meister, J., Ueber den Prometheus des Aeschylus, Troppau, 1853. Carriere, M., Prometheus, Deutsches Museum, 1855, p. 14. Köchly, H., Ueber Aeschylos' Prometheus, Zürich, 1859. Vischer, W., Ueber die Prometheus-Tragödien des Aeschylos, Begrüssungsschrift an Welcker, Basel, 1859. Teuffei, W., Ueber des Aeschylos Prometheus und Orestie, Tübingen, 1861. Marcowitz, W., De Aeschyli Prometheo, Düsseldorf, 1865. Martin, J.H., La Prométhéide, étude sur la pensée et la structure de cette trilogie d'Eschyle, Paris, 1875. Frey, Κ., Aeschylus-Studien, SchafThausen, 1875. Seelman, F., De Prometheo Aeschyleo, Dessau, 1876. Kolisch, Α., Der Prometheus des Aeschylos nur zu verstehen aus der Eigentümlichkeit seiner Entstehung, Berlin, 1876. Patin, M., Études sur les tragiques grecs, 5thed„ Paris, 1877,1, 250-305. Lenzi, Α., Il mito del Prometeo di Eschilo, Spoleto, 1877. Muff, C.. Zwei Titanen, Prometheus und Faust, Halle, 1883. Kolisch, Α., Ueber den Prometheus des Aeschylos, Ρ 46,227 ff. ; idem. Wer löst die Fesseln des Prometheus? Zeitschrift f.d. Gymnasialwesen, XXXIII, 65 ff. Bellman, De Prometheo ternione Aeschyli, Breslau, 1839. Katterfeld, De Prometheo ternione Aeschyli, John's Jahrb. Suppl., XIX, 407-36. Locus

AND SCENIC REPRESENTATION OF THE PROMETHEUS

Meyer, P. J., Aeschyli Prometheus vinctus quo in loco agi videatur, Bonn, 1861. Lasaulx: Prometheus der Mythus und seine Bedeutung, Würzburg, 1843. Töpelmann, De Aeschyli ternione, 1829, and Bellman (on the same subject), 1839. Foss, B., De loco in quo Prometheus apud Aeschylum vinctus sit, Bonn, 1862. Müller, C.F., Die scenische Darstellung des Aeschyleischen Prometheus, Stade, 1871. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Die Bühne des Aeschylos, Hermes, 1886. Allen, F.D., Prometheus and the Caucasus, AJP, 1892, 51-61. Doerpfeld, W., Das griechische Theater, Athen, 1896, and Reisch, E. (in the same volume). Bethe, E., Prolegomena zur Geschichte des Theaters im Altertum, Leipzig, 1896. Müller, Α., Das attische Bühnenwesen, Gütersloh, 1902. Düntzer, Η. N., in Jahrbücher f. Philologie, 1891. See also Stanley, Schütz, Bothe, Porson, Heyne, Hermann, Foss, and Wecklein; Schneider, Woolsey, Paley, Weil, L. Schmidt, Bergk, and Bernhardy in the works already cited. T H E IO M Y T H

Hoche, E., Die Irren der Io, Aschaffenburg, 1835. Hermann, G., De erroribus Ionis Aeschyleae (in his 2d ed., pp. 152-65). Engelmann, R., De Ione commentario archaeologica, Halle, 1868, and Jahrbücher des kaiserlichen d. • 20I ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

archäolog. Instituts, XVIII, 37 ff. Forchhammer, P., Die Wanderungen der Io, Keil, 1881. Mellén. G., De lus fabula capita selecta, Upsala, 1901. Thomas, Essai sur la géographie astronomique du Prométhée d'Eschyle, Montpellier, 1850; idem, Les Fragments de la Prométhéide d'Eschyle, 1856. Hignard, Étude sur le mythe d'Io, 1868. Usener, RM, XXIII (1868), 697 ff. Overbeck, De Ione telluris non lunae deo, 1872. Siecke, Beiträge zur genaueren Kenntnis der Mondgottheit bei den Griechen, 1885. Meyer E., Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, I, 67 ff. (1892). FRAGMENTS

Meursius, 1619. Stanley, 1663. Pauw, 1745. Bothe, 1805 (1844). Butler, 1816. Schütz, 1821. Dindorf, 1830 (1869). Ahrens, 1842. Fragmenta tragicorum (Didot) Paris, 1846. Hermann, 1852 (1859). Härtung (1855). Nauck, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 1856 (1889,1926). Wecklein, 1893 (Berlin), 1896 (Athens), and 1910. Sidgwick, 1899 (1902). Hunt, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta papyracea, 1912. Smyth, Unlisted Fragments, AJP, 1920. Also editions of Ahrens, Vitelli-Wecklein, Wecklein-Zomarides, Smyth (Loeb). The most important fragments of Aeschylus are from the Danatds, Heliads, Heracltdae, Myrmidons, Niobe, Prometheus Unbound, Philoctetes, Phrygians. See also Walker, R.J., Observaciones acerca de los fragmentos de Esquilo, Buenos Aires, 1920; idem Addenda scenica (supplementary to Nauck's Fragmenta), 1923. SCHOLIA

Many of the later scholia are to be found in Dindorfs edition, Vol. Ill, 1851. See also Dindorf, Ph 20 and 21 (1863-64). Wecklein, 1885 (of M), Smyth, HSCP 32 (1921), Dähnhardt, Persae (1894); and Wilamowitz, Die Ueberlieferung der Aischylos-Scholien, Hermes, 1890, 161-70. LÉXICA

Beatson, Index graecitatis Aeschyleae, 1830. Wellauer, Lexicon Aeschyleum, 1830. Linwood, 1843. Dindorf, 1873-76 (with Supplement by L. Schmidt, 1876). A. Nauck, Tragicae dictionis index (1892). A very important work. RELIGION AND THEOLOGY

Blümner, H., Die Idee des Schicksals in den Tragödien des Aeschylos, Leipzig, 1814. Wagner, F. C., De Aeschyli fabula Prometheo, Marburg, 1824. Keck, H., Der theologische Charakter des Zeus in Aesch. Prometheus-Trilogie, Glückstadt, 1851. Schümann, G. F., Vindiciae Jovis Aeschyli, Opuscula III, 95-119; idem, ueber den Prometheus des Aeschylos, ibid., 120-39; Noch ein Wort über Aeschylos' Prometheus, Greifswald, 1859. Caesar, J., Der Prometheus des Aeschylos; zur Revision der Frage über seine theologische Bedeutung, Marburg, 1859. Dollinger, Heidenthum und Judenthum, Regensberg, 1859. Welcker, Grieschische Götterlehre, II, 246-78, Göttingen, 1859. Dronke, Die religiösen und sittlichen Vorstellungen des Aeschylos und Sophokles. Leipzig, 1861. Steusloff, B., Zeus und die Gottheit bei Aeschylos, Lissa, 1867. Schwarz, • 202 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF AESCH

YLUS

P., Die Darstellung des Zeus im Prometheus des Aeschylus, Salzwedel, 1875. Campbell, L., The Intention of Aeschylus in the Prometheus-Trilogy, Academy, 1877, No. 271, 43. Fischer, F.F.C., De Deo Aeschyleo, Amsterdam, 1892. Terzaghi, Prometeo, Contributo allo studio di un mito religioso Ellenico, Florence, 1904. Hayn, De rerum divinarum apud Aischylum. Thomson, The Religious Background of the Prometheus Vinctus, HSCP, 1920. Strittmater, The Range and Forms of Prayer in Aeschylus. Zielinski, The Religion of Ancient Greece [translated by Noyes] Oxford, 1926. (An important work for the study of Greek religion.) Pugsley, J.W., The Fate Motive and Its Echoes in the Oresteia, TAPA, 1929, 38-47. O N LOST PLAYS

Hermann, De Aesch. Myrmidonibus, Nereidibus; idem, De Aesch. Psychostasia; idem, De Aesch. Glaucis dissertatio. See Smyth's ed. (Loeb) Introd. pp. xxviii-xxxi. GRAMMAR

Dettweiler, Ueber den freieren Gebrauch der zusammengesetzten Adjektiven bei Aeschylus. Menge, Ueber den Gebrauch des Vocative bei Aeschylus. Genniges, De compositis Aesch. Naumann, De s particulae apud Aeschylum vi et usu, Leipzig, 1877. Tosatto, De praepositionum usu Aeschyleo. Berti, Anacoluti eschilei. Rend. d. Acad. d. Lincei, 1930. Havet, Enquêtes sur r t et hk dans les tragédies d'Eschyle étrangères à l'Orestie. RHETORIC

Lees, The Metaphor in Aeschylus (Studies in Honor of B. L. Gildersleeve). Rtiter, De metonymia abstractae notionis pro concreta apud Aesch. Aly, De Aeschyli copia verborum, 1904. Niedzballa, De copia verborum et elocutione Promethei, Breslau, 1913. Rappold, Die Gleichnisse bei Aischylos. COMPOSITION

Ritsehl, F., Der Parallelismus der sieben Redenpaaren in der Sieben gegen Theben des Aeschylus, Opuscula, I, pp. 300-64. Enger, De Aesch. Septem ad Thebas parodo. Molwe, Darlegung des inneren Ganges der Orestie. Muff, De Choro Persarum fabulae. Borchard, De Aeschyli Choephor. parodo. Maury, De Cantus in Aeschyleis tragoediis distributione, Paris, 1891. Morel, Die Parodos der Aischyleischen Septem, H, 1922. Sheppard, The Prelude of the Agamemnon, CR, 1922. Richards, Some Doubts as to the Performance of Trilogies or Tetralogies at Athens, JPh, 7.14. De la composition symétrique du dialogue dans les tragédies d'Eschyle, Journ. gen. de l'instr. pubi., 1860 (24-26. 186 ff.). Masqueray, De la symétrie dans les parties épisodiques de la tragédie grecque, Mélanges Weil, 288 ff. RHYTHMS AND M E T E R S

Seidler, De versibus dochmiacis tragicorum Graecorum, 1811 (1812). Hermann, Elementa doctrinae metricae, Leipzig, 1816; idem, Epitome doctrinae metricae, •203·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

1818 (4th ed. 1869). Rossbach-Westphal, Metrik der griechischen Dramatiker und Lyriker, 1854-65; Metrik der Griechen im Vereine mit den übrigen musischen Künsten, 1867-68; idem, Theorie der musischen Künste der Hellenen, 1885-89 (3 vols.). Nieberding, R., De anapaestorum apud Aeschylum et Sophoclem ratione anti-systematica, 1867. Christ, Metrik der Griechen und Römer, 1874 (1879). Gevaert, F. Α., Histoire et théorie de la musique de l'antiquité, Ghent, 1875 (1881). Zambaldi, F., Metrica greca e latina, Torino, 1882. Schmidt, J.H.H., Die Kunstformen der griechischen Poesie und ihre Bedeutung, Leipzig, 1886-92 (4 vol.). Gleditsch, H., Metrik der Griechen und Römer (in Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1885, 1890, 1901). Masqueray, P., Théorie des formes lyriques de la tragédies grecques, Paris, 1895; idem, Traité de métrique, 1899. (Also RPh, 1892, pp. 117-36, Les Systèmes anapestiques dans la tragédie grecque.) Smyth, H.W. Notes on the Anapaests of Aeschylus HSCP, 1896. Dottin, G., Les Composés syntactiques et la loi de Porson dans la trimètre iambique des tragiques grecs RPh, 1901, pp. 197-219. Goodell, T.D., Chapters on Greek Metric, New York, 1901. Solmsen, F., Untersuchungen zur griechischen Laut- und Verslehre, Strassburg, 1901. Weil, H., Études de littérature et de rythmique grecques, Paris, 1902. Christ, W., Grundfragen, der melischen Metrik der Griechen (in Abhandlungen der bayer. Akad. der Wiss., XXII, 2te Abteil., 213-324), München, 1902. Ebeling, R„ De tragicorum poetarum Graecorum canticis solutis, Halle, 1903. Schnieder, O., Vorarbeiten zur griechischen Versgeschichte, 1908; idem, Aeschyli cantica, Leipzig, 1907. Shorey, P., Choriambic Dimeter and the Rehabilitation of the Antispast TAPA, 1908. Petr, W., Ueber den kyklischen Dactylus und die Logaöden, Nezin, 1910. Mekler, S., Jahresbericht, 1910 (CXLVII, 94-335, from 1903-1907). Schrceder, 0., Cantica, iterum, Leipzig, 1916. Hoernle, E.S., Choric Songs (Pers., Sept., Prom.), 1925. SPECIAL POINTS AND PASSAGES

Gow, Α., Notes on the Agamemnon, CQ, 1914. Grégoire, H., Aesch. Eum. 506 ff., RPh, 1914. Bisoffi, G.L., Aesch. Ag. 1119-24, RF, 1915. Cossatini, Α., Note ad Eschilo, RF, 1914. Könnecke, O., Aesch. Ag. 467 ff., WKPh, 1915; idem, Ag. 1154, Cho. 893, BPhW, 1915; idem. Zu Aischylos, BPhW, 1915. Loschhorn, Kritische Bemerkungen zu Aischylos, 1915. Maas, Textkritisches zu Aeschylus, JPV, 1915; idem, Suppl. 397, WKPh 1915. Kunst, Textkritische Bemerkungen zu den Hiketiden, PhW, 1923. Brooks, E.J., Aesch. P.V. 354, CR, 1916. Sheppard, J.T., Notes on Aeschylus, Persae, PCPhS, 1916. Maas, P., Nochmals Aeschylus Supplices 397, WKPh, 1917. Mazon, P., Le Premier Vers des Choephores, REG, 1919. H. J., and C.B.H., On Porson's Emendation of Persae 321, JP, 1919. Lorimer, H.L., Note on Eumenides 41 f., CR, 1921. Platnauer, M., Eum. 1007, CR, 1921. Powell, J.U., Aeschylus, Cho. 296, CR, 1921. Appleton, R.B., Eum. 864., CR, 1919. Ammendola, G., Note e questioni di critica emendatica ad Aesch. Eum., RBP, 1922. Hirst, E., Aesch. Prom. 801, CR, 1922. Morel, W., Ag. 1246 ff and 1252, H, 1922. Süsskand, Α., Aisch. Hik., 341 f., PhW, 1922. Pearson, C., Ag. 10, CR, 1923. Raphael, • 204 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

C.M., Aesch. Eum. 684, CR, 34. CampbeU, A.Y., Septem 12 f., CR, 45 (also 45. 115-17 on Septem 10-20). Pasquale, G., Passi difficile nell' Agamemnone, SFC, n.s. 7 (1929), 225-33. Pearson, A.C., Aesch. Ag„ 1525 ff., CR, 1930. Groeneboom, P., Aeschylus Persae 8 ff. Donum natalicium Schrijnen, 1929. Thomson, G., Notes on Prometheus Vïnctus, CQ, 1929. MacLaren, M., jr., Cho. 770-74, CP XXVII, 353-92. Campbell, A.Y., Aesch. Ag. 1227-30, CQ, 1932. MISCELLANEOUS

Gilbert. W„ Zur Datirung der Supplices des Aeschylos, R.M., 1873, pp. 480-82. Porson, Adversaria, Cambridge, 1812. Franz, J., Die Didaskalie zu Aeschylos Septem contra Thebas, Berlin, 1848. Müller, C.O., Dissertations on the Eumenides of Aeschylus, 1853. Ribbeck, O., Qua Aeschylus arte in Prometheo fabula diverbia composuerit, Bern, 1859. Ludwig, Α., Zur Kritik des Aeschylos, 1860. Martin, E., De responsionibus diverbii apud Aeschylum, 1862. Prince, C., Études critiques et exégétiques sur les Perses d'Eschyle, Neuchatel, 1868. Westphal, R., Prolegomena zu Aeschylus' Tragoedien, Leipzig, 1869. Dindorf, De Aesch. codice mediceo eiusque apographis. Wecklein, Ν., Studien zu Aeschylus, Berlin, 1872; idem, Ueber die Technik und den Vortrag der Chorgesänge des Aeschylus, Leipzig, 1882. Beckmann, F., Bemerkungen zum Prolog und zur parodos des äschyleischen Agamemnon, Braunsberg, 1876. Humphreys, M.W., The Fourth Play in the Tetralogy, AJP, 1880. Campbell, L., Notes on the Agamemnon, AJP 1880. Fritzsche, De Aeschylo G. Hermanni, Rostock, 1880; idem, Miscellanea, 1882. Schmidt, F.W., Kritische Studien zu den griechischen Dramatikern, Berlin, 1886. Todt, B., Zur Erklärung und Kritik von Aeschylos' Schutzflehenden, Ρ 1889, pp. 20-56. Muff, De choro Persarum fabulae Aeschyleae, London, 1891. Roehlecke, Α., Septem adv. Thebas et Prometheum vinctum esse fabulas post Aeschylum correctas, Berlin, 1882. Weil, H„ Remarques sur Eschyle, RPh, 1881, pp. 65-84, and 1884, 11-32; idem, Des traces de remaniement dans les drames d'Eschyle, REG, 1888, pp. 7-26. Kroker, E„ Giebt es ein Porträt des Aischylos? BPhW, 1885, p. 898. Headlam, W., On Editing Aeschylus: a Criticism, 1892. Richter, P., Zur Dramaturgie des Aeschylos, Leipzig, 1892. Croiset, M., Le Second Acteur chez Eschyle, Mémoires de L'Acad. des inscript. 1893, pp. 193-215. Girard, P., De l'expression d'Eschyle, REG, 1894; idem De l'expression des masques dans les drames d'Eschyle, Paris, 1895. Franklin, S. B., Traces of Epic Influence in the Tragedies of Aeschylus, Baltimore, 1895. Wilamowitz, Ueber die Unechtheit des Schlusses der Sieben, Berlin, 1903. Newman, F., Comments on the Text of Aeschylus, London, 1891. Körte, Α., Mélanges Nicole, Geneva, 1905, pp. 289 ff. Du Mesnil, Α., Adnotationes ad Aeschyli Supplices, Frankfurt am Order, 1906. Wilhelm, Α., Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Vienna, 1906. Müller, G., De Aeschyli Supplicum tempore atque indole, Halle, 1908. Deckinger, H., Darstellung der persönlichen Motive bei Aischylos und Sophokles, Leipzig, 1911. Allen, J.T.,The Romantic Aeschylus, TAPA 1914; idem, The Orchestra-Terrace of the Greek Theater, Berkeley, Calif., 1922; Amatucci, L'Agamemnone di Eschilo al teatro greco di Siracusa,

•205·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

1914. Bock, M., De Aeschylo poeta orphico et Orpheo pythagorico, Jena, 1914. Arfelli, D., L'Agamemnone di Eschilo, Milano, 1914. Becker, H., Aeschylus in der griechischen Komödie, Glessen, 1914. Zum Felde, J., De Aeschyli Prometheo quaestiones, Göttingen, 1914. Felix-Faure-Goyau, L., Un Pressentiment paiën du Calvaire. Le Prométhée d'Eschyle, Correspondant, 1914. Grégoire, H., Notes de philologie grecque, RIB 1914. Helmreich, F., Der Chor im Drama des Aeschylus, Prog. Kempten, 1914-15, and 1916-17. Robert, C., Der Oxyrhynchos-Papyrus 213, H, 1914. Scheer, K., Studien zu den Dramen des Aeschylos, Teubner, 1914. Schliak, K„ Zu Aeschylus' Agamemnon und Choephoren JPV 1914. Wilamowitz, Aeschylos, Interpretationen, 1914. Bellessort, Les Perses d'Eschyle, 1915. Corssen, P., Der Schluss der Έττά, JPV, 1915. Engelhardt, O., Das Adler-Augurium im Agamemnon des Aeschylos, WKPh, 1915, and Süsskand, Α., ibid. Fuller, B.A.G., The Conflict of Moral Obligation in the Trilogy of Agamemnon, HThR, 1915. Richards, H., Varia, CR 1915. Gildersleeve, B.L., Notes on Aeschylus, AJP, 1915. Haines, C.R., Note on the Parallelism between the Prometheus Vinctus of Aeschylus and the Antigone of Sophocles, CR, 1915. Norwood, G., Notes on the Agamemnon, CQ, 1915. Sheppard, J.T., Notes on Aeschylus, Persae, CR, 1915. Piovano, G.Α., L'Orestiade e le Coefore di Eschilo, Rivista d'Italia, 1915. Croiset, M., Le Rôle d'Apollon dans les Eumenides d'Eschyle, REG, 1919; idem., CRAI, 1916. Sheppard, J.T., Notes on Aeschylus, Persae, PCPhS, 1916. Süsskand, Α., Chorpartie im Agamemnon des Aeschylos, WKPh, 1916; idem. Die Rolle der Kassandra im Agamemnon, WKPh, 1918; idem, Ein Abschnitt in der Rechtfertigungsrede der Klytaimnestra im Agamemnon, ibid.. 1917. Radermacher, Der neue Aeschylus, ZöG, 1916. Witkowski, S., Eine Strophe des Aeschyleischen Agamemnon, WS, 36; idem, Introd. and Notes to Prometheus (translated by J. Kasprowicz, Cracow, 1921); idem. Notes to Persae (translated by K. Kaszewski, 1921). Romagnoli, E., Il contenuto degli scoli laurenziani di Eschilo, Atti Instituto Veneto, 1917, idem, I personaggi di Eschilo, NRS, 1918. Spring, E., Quomodo Aeschylus in tragoediis suis res antecedentes exposuerit, Cambridge, Mass., 1917. Conradt, C., Zu von Wilamowitz' Aischylos-Ausgabe, WKPh, 1919. Kranz, W., Zwei Lieder des Agamemnon, Η, 1919; idem, Gott und Mensch im Drama des Aischylos, ZöG, 1920. Micalella M.A., Il delitto di Clitemnestra, NRS, 1919. Platt, Α., Aeschylea, JP, 1919. Radermacher, L., Bemerkungen zu Aeschylus' Eumeniden, WS, 1919. Süsskand, Α., Einführung in die Eumeniden des Aischylos, BPhW, 1919; idem, Einführung in die Hiketiden, ibid., 1920. Uhlmann, N., Zum Prometheus problem, ZöG, 1919. Zielinski, T., De Hercule tragico deque Heraclidarum tetralogia Aeschylea, Eos, 1921. Capo villa, J., ΦιΧολογικαί μίλέται (partly on Aeschylus), Cairo, 1921. Hoernle, E.S., The Problem of Agamemnon, Oxford, 1921; idem. Aeschylus, Notes on the Text, 1921; idem. The Recognition Scene in the Choephoroe, 1922. Körte, Α., Das Prometheus Problem, Ν JA, 1920. Lawson, J.C., Aeschylos, Agamemnon, CR, 1921. Muenscher, K„ Zu den Persern des Aischylos, Η., 1920. Roussel, P., Remarques sur les Suppliantes et le Prométhée d'Eschyle, RPh, 1920. Perdrizet, P., Le Témoinage d'Eschyle sur • 206 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

AESCHYLUS

le sac d'Athènes par lee Perses, REG, 1921. Piovano, G.A., Il coro dell Coefore, RF, 1921. Powell, J. U., On Aeschylus' Eumenides, CQ, XI, 141-45. Smyth, H.W., The Commentary on Aeschylus' Prometheus in the Codex Neapolitanus, HSCP, 1921. Cp. HSCP, XXXII (1921). Tursini, M., Sul pensiero religioso di Eschilo nelle Supplici e nell' Orestia, RIGI, 1921. Vittorini, S.. Eschilo, Siracusa, 1921. Calder, W.M., The Geography of the "Beacon" Passage in the Agamemnon, CR, 1922; idem. Two Notes on the Agamemnon (w. 494 f. and 1655), CR, 1922; idem, Notes on Agamemnon, 42 ff., 1923; on Agamemnon 444, 1923; a Galatian Inscription, 1923; and Aesch. Sept. 101, 1923. Havet, L„ Notes critiques sur Eschyle, RPh, 1922 (pp. 74-85) ; idem. La Semi-conjecture et les Suppliantes d'Eschyle, ibid. (pp. 115-148). Focke, F., Aeschylos' Hiketiden, NGG, 1922. Cataudella, Q., Il concepire Eschileo, Palermo, 1923. Terzaghi, Ν., L'irreligiosità del Prometeo de Eschilo, Mous., 1923; idem. Eschilo, Prometeo, 425 ff., BFC, XXII, 173-77. Becker, T.A., Aeschylus, Poet and Moralist, CJ, vol. XVII. Conroy, A. J., Some "cruces" of Aeschylus, Persae, CR, Vol. XXXI. Cavaignac, E„ Eschyle et Themistocle, RPh, Vol. XLV. Cooke, H.P., Notes on Some Lines in the Agamemnon, CR, Vol. XXXI. Deckinger, H., Die Darstellung der persönlichen Motive bei Aischylos. Klotz, O., Zu Aischylos' thebanischer Tetralogie, RM, Vol. LXXII. Hoernle, E.S., Notes on the Text of Aeschylus, 1921. Six, J., Le Décor d'Agatharcos pour les Sept d'Eschyle. Körte, Α., Das Prometheusproblem, NJ, XIV (1920), 201 ff. Smyth, Α., Notes on Aeschylus, CR, 1921. Ellis, R., On Some Passages of Aeschylus, JP, X 19. Verrall, On a Metrical Practice in Greek Tragedy, JP, XII, 23. Housman, A.E., The Agamemnon of Aeschylus, JP, XVI, 32, and Sophoclea, ibid., XX, 39. Ellis, R., On Some Fragments of Aeschylus, and on the Supplices, JP, XXI, 41. Piatt, Arthur, Notes on the Agamemnon, JP, XXXII, 63. Schmid, W., Untersuchungen zum gefesselten Prometheus, Stuttgart, 1929. Sheppard, Aeschylus and Sophocles, Their Work and Influence, 1927. Snell, B., Aischylos und das Handeln im Drama, Leipzig, 1928. Anderson, F. M. B., The Character of Clytemnestra in the Agamemnon, TAPA, 1929. Elisei, Α., Le Danaidi nelle "Supplici" di Eschilo, SFC, 1929. Flickinger. The Theater of Aeschylus, TAPA, 1930. Focke, F., Aischylos' Prometheus, Η, 1930. Pohlenz, Max, Die griechische Tragödie, Teubner, 1930. Pasquali, I codice inferiori della trilogia eschilea, 1930. Couch, Three Puns on the Root of τ(ρθω in the Persae, AJP, 1931. Fries, Zu Aesch. Ag. 1327 ff., PhW, 1931. Lesky, Die Orestie des Aischylos, H, 1931. Anderson, Character of Clytemnestra in the Choephoroe and the Eumenides of Aeschylus, AJP, 1932. Caesareo, De Eumenidum specie ab Aeschylo adumbrata (Eum. 322-99), RF 27. Morel, Bericht über die Literatur zu Aesch. aus den Jahren 1925-29, Jahrbücher über die Fortschritte der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 1932. Smertenko, C.M., The Politica! Sympathies of Aeschylus, JHS, 1932, pp. 233 ff. (Contains comments on the Eumenides.)

• 207 ·

SOPHOCLES COLLECTIVE EDITIONS

Aldus (ed. princeps), Venice, 1502. Junta, Florence, 2d ed., 1547. Turnebus, Paris, 1552-53. Stephanus, Paris, 1568. Canter, 1579. Johnson, 1745. Vauvilliers, 1781. Bothe, 1786. Musgrave, 1800. Erfurdt, Leipzig, 1802-11 (6 vols, plus one by Heller and Doederlein, 1825). Erfurdt and Hermann, 1809-25 (1830-86). Martin, 1822. Burney, 1824. Matthiae, 1825. Elmsley, 1825-27 (7 vols.). Schaefer, 1810 (1873). Neue, 1831. Hermann, Berlin, 1830-51 (7 vols.). Wunder, Leipzig (2 vols.), renewal by Wecklein (new Eng. ed., 1855). Dindorf, Oxford, 1832-49, with fragments (8 vols.), 3d ed., 1860; 6th ed. revised by Mekler, Leipzig, 1885 (1925). Brasse, Burges, and Valpy, 1838. Benloew-Ahrens, Didot, 1842. Mitchell, 1844. Schneider 1844 (2d ed.). Härtung, 1851. Brunck, 1858. Bergk, 1858. Blaydes, 1859. Tournier, Paris, 1868 (2d ed. 1877, Derousseaux 1886). Schmidt, M. 1871. Schneidewin, 1871 (1880-86). Wecklein 1876. Linwood, 4th ed. 1877. Campbell, Oxford, 1879-81. Burton (O.T., O.C., Ant.) 1879. Schneidewin-Nauck (7 vols.), Berlin, with many re-impressions, 1st ed., Aias (Nauck alone) 1849; new ed., Berlin, 1880-88. This edition was continued by Bruhn and Radermacher: Bruhn, Ant., 10th ed., 1904; O.T., 10th ed., 1897, 11th, 1910; El., 10th ed., 1913; Anhang, 1899 (Vol. VIII), Ph. (Radermacher), 10th ed., 1907; O.C., 9th ed., 1909. Dindorf-Mekler (Teubner). Jebb, Cambridge, 1883-96 (8 vols., critical notes, commentary and excellent translation, several editions). Tyrrell, 1897. Jebb-Pearson, Fragments, Cambridge, 1917 (3 vols.). Pearson, A.C., 1924. Masqueray (Collection Budê), Paris, Vol. I, 1922; Vol. II, 1924. Storr (Loeb Library), 1924 (2 vols.). Campbell and Abbott (with notes), Weise (text, Tauchnitz). EDITIONS OF SINGLE PLAYS

Ajax: Lobeck, Berlin, 3d ed., 1866. Seyffert, Berlin, 1866. Blaydes, 1875. Palmer, London, 1877. Paley, London, 1880. Wolff-Bellermann, Leipzig, 5th ed., 1899. Haydon, London, 1902. Bassi, Florence, 1914. Radermacher (10th ed. of Schneidewin-Nauck). Campbell and Abbott. Antigone: Wex, Leipzig, 1829 (1831). Boeckh (with German translation), Berlin, 1843 (1844). Donaldson (with verse translation), London, 1848. Jacobs, Berlin, 1849. Meineke, Berlin, 1861. Seyffert, Berlin, 1865. Schmidt, M., (with scholia of L), Jena, 1880. D'Ooge, Boston, 1884 (based on Wolff's ed.). Pallis, Athens, 1885 (critical notes in Modern Greek). Semitelos, Athens, 1887 (introduction, critical notes and commentary in Modern Greek). WolffBellermann, Leipzig, 6th ed., 1900. Bruhn (11th ed.). Bayfield, 1902. Schuck·2θ8·

BI BLIOGRAPH

Y OF

SOPHOCLES

burgh (abridgment of Jebb), 1902. Allerho ft and Hayes (with translation). Campbell and Abbott. Welle. Cesareo, Turin, 1914. Burgersdijk, Leiden, 1916. Deiter. 1916. Muff. 1917. Oedipus Tyrannus: Van Herwerden, 1851 (1866). Lobeck, 1866. Ritter, Leipzig, 1870. Kennedy, 1882 (idem, with notes by T.H. Steel, 1885). White, J. W., new ed., 1879. Earle, 1904. Wolff-Bellermann, 5th ed., 1908. Brandt, Leipzig, 1922. Festa, Rome, 1912. Georgin, Paris, 1917. Campbell and Abbott. Kennedy (with trans.). Electro: Blaydes, 1873. Jahn-Michaelis, Bonn, 3d ed., 1882 (excellent). WolffBellermann, Leipzig, 4th ed., 1893. Kaibel, 1896. Bayfield, 1901. Davies (with abridged commentary of Jebb), 1908. Papageorgiou, Athens, 1910. Boralevi, 1914. Nucciotti, 1926. Willem, Liege, 1922. Bayfield; Blaydes (with crit. notes); Campbell and Abbott; Davies (abridgment of Jebb); Thompson and Hayes. Trachtniae: Ioannes Apitzius, Halle, 1833. Pretor, Cambridge, 1877. Blaydes, London, 1871 (1878). Subkoff, Moscow, 1879. Mastella, 1914. Radermacher, 7th ed., 1915. Blaydes; Campbell and Abbott; Pretor; Davies (abridgment of Jebb), 1908. Philoctetes: Buttman, Berlin, 1822. Burges, London, 1833. Seyffert, Berlin, 1867. CavaUin, 1875. Paley, London, 1880 (Ph., El.. Tr„ At'.). Laurence; Schuckburgh (abridgment of Jebb), 1906; Blaydes; Campbell and Abbott. Oedipus Coloneus: Reisig, Jena, 1820. Elmsley, Leipzig, 1824. Meineke, Berlin, 1863. Palmer, Cambridge, 1880. Wecklein, Munich, 1880. Paley, Cambridge, 1881. Wolff-Bellermann, Leipzig, 1883. Schuckburgh (with abridged commentary of Jebb), 1904. Campbell and Abbott, 1886 (1899); Errandonea (Sofoclee, Edipo Rey; Edipo en Colono. Texto, traducción y notas), Madrid, 1930. COLLECTIVE TRANSLATIONS

The Oxford Translation (prose), 1882. Campbell. 1883. Whitelaw, 1883. Phillimore, London, 1902 (O.T., O.C., Ant.). Jebb (in his edition). Young, London, 1906 (1910). Müller, H. F., 1909 (in German). Plumptre, 1908, new ed., Boston, 1914. Way, 1909 (1917). Amelung, Jena, 1916 (O.T., O.C., Ant.). Bruch, new ed. by Müller (see BPhW 1914). Donner. Herzer (Ai., Ph., Ant.) 1912. Michelangeli, Bologna, (Ant. 1919, O.C. 1918, O.T. 1921, Ph. 1918, Tr. 1920), text, trans., and notes. Jordan, W., 1932 (in German). Antigone: Harry, 1911. Murray, 1911 (1917). Bellermann, 1913. DonnerMertens, 2 ed., 1917. Menge, Leipzig, 1921. Meyer-Benfey 1920 (Klassische Dramen, Halle). Oehler, München, 1916. Schmidt-Mancy, 1916. Stowasser (see ZöG, 118, 428). Valentin, 2d ed., Leipzig. 1914. Trevelyan, 1927. Bassi, Naples, 1914. Macnaghten, 1927. Ajax: Morshead, 1895. Trevelyan (verse), London, 1919 (1927). Mongan; Haydon; Broughton (lit. trans.).

• 209 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

Electro: Campbell, 1873. Morshead, 1895. Whitelaw, 1906. Alemany y Bolufer (text), and Garcia de la Huerta (in Spanish verse), Barcelona, 1913. Schwandke, Leipzig, 1914. Coleridge (literal translation); Hickie; Thompson and Hayes. Oedipus Tyrannus: Campbell, 1874. Morshead, 1885. Murray, 1911. Sheppard, Cambridge, 1920. Wilmowitz, Berlin, 1919. Wohlrab, Leipzig, 1914. Yeats (version for the modern stage), Dublin, 1928. Also translations by Mongan and by Nash. Trachiniae: Coleridge; Campbell; Prout (literal translation); Sharpley. Pkilocletes: Gavoty and Dureux, Paris, 1923. Pilch, Berlin, 1922. Wilamowitz. 1923. Mongan; Plaistowe; Chapman, J. J., Boston, 1928. Oedipus Coloneus: Mitchell, 1841; Coleridge; Balgarnie; Prout. FRAGMENTS

Ahrens, Didot, 1844. Bothe, Leipzig, 1846. Wagner, Warsaw, 1852. Nauck, 1856, Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1889. Diehl, Supplementum Sophocleum, Bonn, 1913. Weil, sur quelques fragments de Sophocle, REG, 1890, pp. 339-48. Wilamowitz. De tragicorum Graecorum fragmentie, Göttingen, 1893. Blaydes, Adversaria in tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, Halle, 1894. Van Herwerden, ad tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta, Mélanges Weil, 179-91. For Jebb-Pearson, see above. SCHOLIA

Nauck, De scholiis in Soph, tragoed. (in Papageorgiou's edition). Elmsley, (schol. L), 1826. Wolff, De Soph, scholiorum laurentian. var. lect., 1843. Papageorgiou, Τα σχόλια του 'levatoi; κωδικοί, Syllogos, XXVI, pp. 69-74; idem. Scholia in Soph. Tragoedias Vetera e Cod Laurent., 1888. LÉXICA

Ebeling, Grieschisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu Sophocles, 1869. Dindorf, Leipzig, 1870. Ellendt-Genthe, Lexicon Sophocleum, Berlin, 1867-72. ON THE

Ίχνωταί

Hunt, A. S„ The Oxyrhynchus Papyri IX, London, 1912. Robert, C., Aphoristische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles' Ίχνίυταί, Η, 1912, pp. 536-61; idem, Sophokles, Die Spurhünde frei übersetzt und ergänzt, Berlin, 1913. Wilamowitz, Die Spurhünde des Sophocles, Leipzig, 1913. Reinach, Revue bleue, July, 1912, and Revue de Paris, August, 1912. Terzaghi, translation (in Italian), con introduzione, testo e commento, Florence, 1913. Allègre, F., Les Limiers, REA, 1913, pp. 237-63. Masqueray, text and translation, Paris, 1924 (in Vol. II, Sophocle, Collection Budé). Köttgen, L., Quae ratio intercedat inter Indagatores fabulam Sophocleam et hymnum in Mercurium qui fertur homericus, Bonn, 1914. Maas, P., BPhW, 1912, pp. 1075-77. Bucherer, F., ibid., pp. • 2IO ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

1107 f., and 1913, pp. 577-80. Rossbach, O., ibid., 1912, pp. 1460 f. Schenkl, Η., 1913, 153-56. VoUgraff, M, 1914, 81-90, and 165-77. Lederer, F., Straubing, 1914 (übersetzt und ergänzt). Walker, R. J., London, 1919 (notes and translation). Muenscher, K., Zu Sophokles Ichneutae, RM, 1914. Wilamowitz. Die Spurhünde des Sophocles, Ν JA, 1913. Index Ίχνίνταί, Milano, 1915. Tudeer, T., De vocabulis quibus Sophocles in Ichneutis fabula eatyrica usus est, Ann. Ac. Scient. Fenn., 1916. Bethe, E., Die Ichneutai des Sophokles, Leipzig, 1919. Reinach, Th., Une Adaptation en vers des Ίχιχυταί de Sophocle, REG 1922. VoUgraff, W., Ad Sophoclis Indagatores, M 42; 43, 72; 45, 447. O N THE MANUSCRIPTS

Seyffert, Α., Quaestiones cri ti cae de codicibus Sophoclis recte aestimandis, Halle, 1863. Meifert, C., De Sophoclis Codicibus, Halle, 1891. Ders, De Soph. Electrae in cod. Laur. xxxii, 9 (1895). Thompson, E. M., and Jebb, R. C., Reproduction oí L (facsimile of Laurentianus) London, 1885. Vürtheim, Der Leidener Sophokles Palimpsest. See also introductions to the various editions of the plays. SPECIAL POINTS

Ajax: H. Otte, Wann hat Aias vor Schmerz gebrüllt, JPV, 1914. Pearson, A. C., on verses 961-73, CQ, 1922. Pohlenz, Die griechische Tragödie, 173-86. Masqueray, Vol. II, 1-11. Draheim, Scheinbare und wirkliche Einheit der Zeit im Aias, WkPh, 1915. Bergk, Gr. Lit. III, p. 382. Jebb's edition. Introduction. Hoadley, H., The Authenticity and Date of the Sophoclean Ajax Verses 1040-42, Lancaster, 1909 (the author attributes the verses to Iophon; his view is to be rejected. See BPhW, 1910,1177 ff.) Radermacher, L., Aias, pp. 431 ff., BPhW 1917. K. Kunst, Beiträge zum Verständniss des Sophokleischen Aias, WS, 12. Antigone: J. Wassmer, Beiträge zur Antigone—Erklärung, Lucerne, 1914. Zinsmeister, H., Die Anfangsverse von Sophocles' Antigone, Dilligen, 1913-14. Könnecke, O., Eine vielgedeutete Stelle der Antigone, WKPh, 1915; idem. Zur Antigone, WKPh, 1916. Draheim, H., Scheinbare und v/irkliche Einheit der Zeit in der Antigone des Sophokles, WKPh, 1915. Knapp, C., A Point of the Interpretation of the Antigone of Sophocles, AJP, 1916. Schroeder, O., Die beiden ersten Chorlieder der Antigone, JPV, 1916. Trenkel, P., Zur Beurteilung der Charaktere in Sophokles' Antigone, Bernburg, 1915. Nestle, W., Bemerkungen zu Sophocles' Antigone, WKPh, 1917. Murphy, J. J., The Problem of the Antigone: What Did Sophocles Write? CR, 1918. Löschhorn, Κ., Kleine kritische Bemerkungen zu Sophokles Antigone, BPhW, 1919. Meyer, P., Zu Sophokles Antigone 782, BPhW, 1920. VoUgraff, W., Ad Sophoclis Antigonam, M, 1920. Bolaffi, E., Di alcuni note del Vollgraff all' Antigone di Sofocle, RIGI, 1921. Heidel, W. Α., Two Sophoclean cruxes, CP, 1921 (Ant. 4; O.T. 44); ibid., Note on Antigone 1281. Kaiinka, E., Elektra und Antigone, NJA, 1922. Roussel, P., Les Fiançailles d'Haimon et d'Antigone, REG, 1922. Schroeder, O., Randbemerkungen zu Sophokles Antigone, Monat• 211 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

schrift für höhere Schulen, 1922. Taccone, Α., Sullo stasimo primo dell' Antigone Sofoclea, RF, 1923; idem, Sofocle Antigone 572, Mous 1923. Brackett, H. D., An Alleged Blemish in the Antigone of Sophocles, CJ, 12. De Witt, Ν. W., Character and Plot in the Antigone, CJ, 12. Laudien, Α., Zur Antigone des Sophokles, Lehpr. and Lehrg. 148 (1921). Lieger, P., Die Cantica in Sophokles' Antigone, metrisch analysiert. Michelangeli, L. Α., Emendamenti al testo dell' Antigone di Sofocle (351 and 851), BFC, Vol. XXII. Wagner, R„ Einige Beiträge zu Sophokles' Antigone, WKPh, 1918. Valla, D., Soph. Antig. 323, BFC, Vol. XXXVI (1929-30). Errandonea, I., Ueber Soph. Antigone 944-87, PhW, Vol. L (1930). Girard, J. L., Hégélianisme dans l'interprétation del' Antigone, Études sur la poésie grecque, pp. 147-89. Corrsen, P., Die Antigone des Sophokles, ihre théatralische und sittliche Wirkung, Berlin, 1898. Vlachos, N. P., The Subject of Sophocles' Antigone, Philadelphia, 1901. Wohlrab, Α., Aesthetische Erklärung von Sophokles Antigone, Berlin, 1903. (Cp. Schneider, G., BPhW 1905, pp. 113-16). Pischel, R., Zu Sophokles Antigone, 909-12, Η, 1893, pp. 465-68. Weil, H., Sur un morceau suspect de l'Antigone de Sophocle, REG, 1894, pp. 271-66, and Études sur l'antiquité grecque, 245-52. (Argument clear and conclusive.) Reiter, S., Die Abschiedsrede der Antigone, ZöG, 1898, pp. 961-80. Schmid, W., Probleme aus der Soph. Antigone. Zimmermann, Ant. 23 ff., PhW, 1931. Adams, S. G., Burial of Polyneices, CR, 1931. Oedipus Tyrannus: Schneidewin-Nauck-Bruhn, pp. 44 f. (on the date of the play; the traditional view in Bergk, Gr. Lit. 3, 422 ff.). Sudhaus, S., König Oedipus' Schuld, Kiel, 1913 (an important article. Cp. BPW, 1913, pp. 51321). Brack, W., Der Oedipe von Corneille und der von Voltaire verglichen mit dem Oedipus Rex des Sophokles, Marburg, 1914. Rose, H. J., A Note on Soph. Oed. Tyr. 980 ff., CR 1914. Walch, J. L., Άνάικη in de Oedipustragedie, Weekblad, Amsterdam, 1914. Draheim, H., Die zeitliche Einheit in Sophokles' König Oedipus, 1916. Roche, Α. E., Oed. Tyr. 1219, CR 1915. Sheppard, J. T., Notes on Sophocles, O.R., PCPhS, 1916 and 1918. Mader, L„ Die Komposition des König Oedipus. (See ZöG 1920). Ο. Α., Danielsson, On various passages in Ο.T. (in Swedish), Er 11. L.A. Michelangeli, O. R. 493 and 1463, BFC 26. Niedlich, J. Κ., Schuld und Tragik im König Oedipus, HG 27. Patin, Α., Die Exodos in König Oedipus. (See BPW 1914). Schott, H., WS 37. Whitelaw, Notes on Oed. Rex, Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 3.1 (1886). Postgate, J. P., Grammatical Annotations upon the Oed. Rex, ibid. Greene, W. C. The Murderers of Laius, TAPA 60 (1929). Carroll, J. P., Final Words in Oedipus' Tyrannus, CI. Bull. 1931. Mesk, Josef, Bericht über die Ermordung des Laios (O.T. 798-813), WS, 1931. Electro: Masqueray, P., On verses 1407-41, RPh, 1897, 91-98. Martin, Α., Les Jeux pythiques d'après l'Électre de Sophocle, Mélanges Weil, 273-81. Parmentier, L., Une Scène de l'Électre de Sophocle RPh, 333-54. Navarre, O., Sophocle imitateur d'Eschyle: les Choéphores et l'Électre, REA 1909,101-28. Stahl, J. M., Zu Sophokles Electra, RM 1915. Viljoen, H. G., Sophocles' Electra 1074 f., and 137 ff., CQ 1916. Parmentier, L., Notes sur l'Électre de •212

·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

Sophocle, RPh 1919. Annaratone, Α., Ad El. 610 f., 766 ff., 1253 ff., 1281 ff. RIGI 7. Wilamowitz, Die beiden Elektren, Hermes, 1883, 214-63. (Argues that Euripides' play is prior to Sophocles'.) Ribbeck, O., Zu Sophokles' und Euripides' Elektra, Leipziger Studien 8, 382 ff. (1885). (Opposes the view that Euripides' play is the earlier. Wilamowitz later abandoned his theory; but it was taken up again by Bruhn and defended in his edition, Berlin, 1912). In France the priority of Sophocles' play has always been maintained. Cp. Patin, Tragiques Grecs, Sophocle, 339 ff., Weil (in his edition of Eur. El.), Parmentier, Mélanges Weil, 333 ff. Linde, P., Sophokles' Elektra im Verhältniss zu der des Euripides, 1910. Meyer-Benfey, H., Die Elektra des Sophokles und ihre Erneuerung durch Hofmannsthal, Ν JA 1920. Michelangeli, L. Α., El. 21 f., and 1075, BFC 23. Ribezzo, F., La Tomba di Egisto nell' Elettra di Sofocle, RIGI 7. Stahl, J. M„ Zu Sophokles Electra, RM 1915. M. Koopmann. Die Bedeutung der Soph. Elektra für den Aufbau der Handlung, 1930 (Diss. Monacensis). Mallinckrodt, H. H„ Ad Soph. Electram 444-45, M 1930, 326 ff. Sheppard, J. T., Electra: a Defence of Sophocles, CR 41. Plüss, T., Aberglaube und Religion in Sophokles' Electra, Basel, 1900. Cp. Vahlen, Hermes, 1891, 352 ff., Kaibel, introd. to his ed., Plüss, Die Eröffnungs-Scene der Elektra; and Aberglaube und Religion in Sophocles' Electra, Basel, 1900. Trachiniae: Schreiner, R., Zur Würdigung der Trachiniae des Sophokles, Prog· Znaim, 1885-86. Zielinski, T., Excurse zu den Trachinierinnen, Ρ 1896, 491540 and 577-633. Wilamowitz, Herakles, 1, 343 ff. (Discussion of date.) Harry, J. E., Sofocle Trachinie 526, Il Mondo Classico, Luglio-Agosto 1931. Grégoire, H., Trachiniennes, RPh 1914. Strelli, R., Bemerkungen über das Verhältniss der Trachiniai des Sophokles zum Herakles des Euripides, Prog. St. Paul (Kärnten) 1913. Kranz, W., Aufbau und Gehalt der Trachinierinnen des Sophokles, Ph 1921. Stephany, Α., De Sophoclis Trachniiis quaestiones chronologicae, Münster, 1922. Cantarella, R., Alcune questioni sulle Trachinie di Sofocle, Ath. 1923. Pöschl, Κ., Die Trachinierinnen des Sophokles, ihre einheitliche Abfassung und Komposition, Prog. Staatsgymn. Iglau, 1912. Bronikowski, Animadversiones in Trachinias. Stahl, De vaticiniorum in Soph. Trachiniis vi et sententia. Perrotta, G., Sofocle, Le Donne di Trachis: traduzione, due saggi critici e un' analisi, Bari, 1930. Treves, Piero, Il divino delle Trachiniae, 1931. Philoctetes: Dämmert, Zur Kritik und Erklärung des Sophokleischen Philoktetes Prog. Rastadt, 1879. Zavadlal, Wodurch wird die Ueberlieferung dass Sophokles den Philoctetes im höchsten Greisenalter geschrieben im Stücke selbst bestätigt? Prog. Mitterburg, 1887. Milani, Il mito di Filottete nella letteratura classica e nell' arte figurata, Florence, 1879. Neumann, Die Entwickelung des Philoktet-Mythos mit besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Behandlung durch Sophokles, Prog. Coburg, 1893. O. A. Danielsson, Zu Soph. Philoctetes, Upeala, 1911. Wecklein, Ausführlicher Commentar zu Sophokles Philoktet, München. 1913. Zielinski, Th., Le Néoptolème de Sophocle, HR 1915. Herkenrath, R., Die Handlung in Sophokles Philoktet und ihr Bühnengott Herakles, Prog. Feldkirch, 1917. Ammendola, G., Nota a Sofocle (Ph. 830 f), RF 1919. •213·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

Buechner, W., Die psychologische Begründung im Philoktetes des Sophocles, Ν JA. Danielsson, Ο. Α., Zu Sophocles Philoktetes, Er 11. Wunderer, C., Zur Erklärung des griechischen Dramas in Prima (Sophokles' Philoktet), BBG 1915. Richards, H., Soph. Phil. 35, CR, 1923. Taccone, Α., Sofocle, Filoct. 1092, RF 1923. Oedipus Coloneus: Wilhelm, Α., Urkunden dramatischer Aufführungen in Athen, Wien, 1906. Lachmann, K., Ueber die Absicht und Zeit des sophokleischen Oedipus auf Kolonos, RM 1827,313-55 (also Kleine Schriften Vol. II, 1836). Scholl, Α., Die Ueberarbeitung des Soph. Oed. auf Kol. nachgewiesen an dem Wiedersprüchen in allen Handlungsmotiven, Ρ 1867, 385-445, and 577605. Boeckh, Α., De Sophoclis Oedipi Colonei tempore (two dissertations, 1825, 1826), Kleine Schriften Vol. IV, 228-44. Mayr, Ueber Tendenz und Abfassungszeit des Soph. Oed. auf Kol. Comm. phil. Monacensis, 1891, 160-76. Sachse, G., Der Oedipus auf Kolonos des Sophokles und seine ästhetische Beurteilung, Weidmann, 1914. Tursini, M„ Polinice nell' Edipo a Colono, A and R 1917. Freeman, Κ., The Dramatic Technique of the Oedipus Coloneus, CR 1923. Ammendola, G., Ad Soph. O. C. 1420, RIGI Vol. 1. Vielhauer, Κ., Euripides Heracliden und Sophokles Oedipus auf Kolonos. Wuest, P., Schicksal u n d C h a r a k t e r i m Oed. Col., Zeitschrift,

f . höh. lateinlose

Schul.,

Leipzig, No. 27. Seyffert, Kritische Bemerkungen zu Soph. Oed. 1863. T E X T U A L CRITICISM

Arndt, Quaestiones criticae, 1844; Kritische und exegetische Bermerkungen, 1854; Beiträge zur Kritik des Soph. Textes, 1862. Butcher, Fortnightly Rev., 1844. Badham, Miscellanea, 1855. Cobet, Variae Lectiones, 2d ed., 1873. Dobree, Adversaria, 1831. Doederlein, Minutiae Sophocleae, 1842-47. Emperius, Analecta critica, 1842. Heath, Notae sive Lectiones, 1762. Heimsoeth, Kritische Studien 1865; idem, Commentalo critica, 1866-74. Kvicala, Beiträge zur Kritik des Sophokles, Part IV, 1869. Otto, Quaestiones Soph. Criticae, 1868-76. Papageorgiou, Beiträge zur Erklärung des Sophokles, 1883. Porson, Adversaria, 1812. Purgold, Observationes criticae in Sophoclem, 1802. Reiske, Animadversiones ad Sophoclem, 1743. Schmidt, F. W., Kritische Studien, 1886. Herkenrath, E„ Zu einigen Stellen des Eur., Ar., und Soph., PhW, 1930. Mallinckrodt, H„ Ad Soph. El. 444 f., M 1930. Errandonea, I., Ueber Soph. Ant. 944-87, PhW 1930. Powell, J. E., Soph. Ai. 627 ff., CR 1932. Ders, Emendationes Sophocleae. CHORUS, RHYTHMS AND M E T E R S

Muff, Die chorische Technik des Sophokles, Halle, 1877. Hense, O., Besprechung von Ch. Muffs chorischer Technik des Soph., 1877; idem, Der Chor des Sophokles, Berlin, 1877. Reissenmayer, De choro Sophoclis. Gleditsch, Die Cantica der sophokleischen Tragödien nach ihrem rhythmischen Bau besprochen, Zweite Bearbeitung, Wien, 1883; idem, Die sophocleischen Strophen metrisch erklärt, 1883. Masqueray, Théorie des formes lyriques de la tragédie grecque, Paris, 1895. Schroeder, Sophoclis Cantica, Leipzig, 1907; Medita• 214 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

tionen zur griechischen Verskunst, Hermes, 1928; idem, Grundriss der griechischen Versgeschichte, Heidelberg, 1930. Falco, V., La tecnica corale di Sofocle, Naples, 1928. Errandonea, I., Sophoclei chori persona tragica, M 1922. Brambach, W., Metrische Studien zu Sophokles, Leipzig, 1869, and Halle, 1877; and Die sophokleischen Gesänge metrisch erklärt, 2d ed. 1881. MISCELLANEOUS

Vater, Die Aleaden (Beitr. zu Litteraturgeschichte des Dichters), 1835. Lindner, Α., Cothurnus Sophocleus, Berlin, 1860. Mohr, G., Observationes Sophocleae, Bonn, 1863. Passow, Α., Sophokleische Studien, Bremen, 1864. Stuerenburg, C., Quaestiones Soph., Berlin, 1864. Zippmann, Α., Atheteseon Sophoclearum specimen, Bonn, 1864. Walter, K., Emendationes in Sophoclis fabulis, 1877. Hense, O., Studien zu Sophokles, Leipzig, 1880. Schulz, H., Quae nova Sophocles protulerit nomina composita, 1882. Herwerden, Η., Lucubrationes Sophocleae, Utrecht, 1887. Wolterstorff, R., Sophoclis et Euripidis Electrae quo ordine sint compositae, Jena, 1891. Horton-Smith, L., Ars Tragica cum Shakespeare Comparata, 1896. Campbell, L., Paralipomena Sophoclea, 1907. Bursian-KroU Jahresbericht 1910, Vol. CXLVII, 231-71. (Works on Sophocles from 1903 to 1907). Steiger, Η., Warum schrieb Euripides seine Elektra, Ρ 1897, 561 ff. Cp. Wilamowitz, Hermes, 1899, p. 57 f. note. Reiter, S., Die Abschiedsrede der Antigone, ZöG. 1898, 961-80. Schroeder, F., De iteratis apud trágicos graecos, Diss. Argentorati, 1882. Masqueray, P., Théories des formes lyriques de la tragédie, pp. xiv and 226 ff. Rasch, J., Sophocles quid debeat Herodoto, Leipzig, 1912. Diehl, E., Supplementum Sophocleum, Bonn, 1913. Bain, C. W., The Demonstrative Pronoun in Sophocles, Baltimore, 1913. Berlovitsch, E., La Niobe de Sophocle (based on the tablet found at Pompeii in 1872 and some papyrus fragments), JMIR 1914. Calderini, Α., Intorno all' Euripilo di Sofocle, Paira, 1913. Chandler, A. R., Tragic Effect in Sophocles. (See Zeitschr. f. pädag. Psychologie, 1914). T. Hopfner, Die "triklinischen" Scholien zu Soph. Elektra, Prag-Neustadt, 1912-13. Kriegelsten, Α., Weist Sophokles in seiner Tragödie "Elektra" der Ananke einen Einfluss auf den Gang der Ereignisse zu? Prog. Prachatitz, 1913. Patin, Α., Aesthetisch-kritische Studien zu Sophokles (see RC 1914). Rademann, Α., Meletemata Sophoclea, Prog. 93 Gymn. Kottbus, 1914. Birt, T., Zu Sophokles, RM 1914. Radioff, S., Le Palamède et Nauplios de Sophocle, JMIR 1914. Rasch, J., Sophocles quid debeat Herodoto in rebus ad fabulas exomandas adhibitis, Teubner, 1913. Stahl, J. M., Zum Aias des Sophokles, RM 1914. Stephanides, M„ Theophrastus und Sophocles, BPhW 1914. Zielinski, Th., The Lost Tragedies of Sophocles (in Russian), I, Alas Aoupòs, HR 1913. Zvereva, E.. La Pandore de Sophocle, HR 1914. Lorenz, E., Oed. Col., Wien, 1915. Michael, B., Zu Tragicorum Graecorum fragmenta (Nauck»), WKPh 1915. Harrison, E., Ad Soph. Frag. Troil. 561 Ν (1916, PC, JHS). Richards, H„ Varia, CR 1915 (O.T. 814, Fr. 787). Siess, H„ Chronologische Untersuchungen zu den Tragödien des Sophocles (see IJ 1916). Sigg, Η., Die Aktionsart des Hauptspielers und der Nebenpersonen in den Sophokleischen •215·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

Dramen, dargestellt am Oidipus Tyrannus, Bern, 1916. Timofeeff, F., "Aleadae" et "Telephus" de Sophocle, HR 1915. Draheim, H„ Die Bestattung des Landesfeindes bei Sophokles, WPh 1916. Festa, Ν., Studi Sofoclei, A and R 1917. Girard, P., Au Tombeau d'Oedipe, CRAI 1917. Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Tycho von, Die dramatische Technik des Sophocles, Berlin, 1917. Grose, S. W., ηρισκίλήί (Ant. 474 ff.) CR 1918. Tolkiehn, J.. Schedae criticae, BPhW 1919 (El. 174, O.R. 86). Benzmann, Η., Die Dramen des Sophokles, Monatschrift Comen.-Gesellschaft, 1919. Ruprecht, K., Sophokles als κιθαριστής, Ρ 1920. Bell, Η. J., The Thyestes of Sophocles and an Egyptian scriptorium, AE 1921. Charitonides, C., Κριτικά και ίρμηνίυτίκά Διορθωτικά (li Σοφοκλία, Athena, 1921. Maas, E., Die Erigone des Sophokles Ph 1921. Platt, Α., Sophoclea, CQ 1921. Seebass, F., Hölderlins Söphokles-Ubertragungen im zeitgenössischen Urteil, Ρ 1921. Walker, R. J., Sophoclean fragments, London, 1921. Caramella, S., La vita dell' anima e la sua immortalità in Sofocle, L'Arduo, 1922. Eitrem, S., Varia NTF, 6, 157 ff.; idem, ibid. 1922 (El. 881 ff., Ant. 576 ff.). Gaar, E., Ein Stimmungsbild aus dem Leben des Sophokles. WB 1922. Milio, V., Nota Sofoclea, RIGI 1922. Post, C. R., The Dramatic Art of Sophocles as Revealed by the Fragments of the Lost Plays, HSPh, 1922. Ruprecht, Κ., Soph. fr. 787 (Ν'), Ρ 1922. Levi, D„ La psicologia dei personaggi Sofoclei e l'opportunità, A and R 1923. Blumenthal, Sophocles, Stuttgart, 1927. Bassett, S. E., An Ancient Case of "frightfulness," CW, 10. 49 f. Van Hook, L. R.. "Frightfulness" CW10. Bruhn, E., Zur dramatischen Technik des Sophokles, NJA 41. Deckinger, H., Die Darstellung der persönlichen Motive bei Sophokles. Derume, E., Sophocle éducateur du peuple athénien, Ν and V 1921. Festa, Ν., Di un giudizio di Sofocle sullo svolgimento dell' arte propria, RIGI 3. Fraenkel, E., Zur Form der αίνοι, RM 73. Schöll, Α., Sophokles, sein Leben and Wirken, Frankfurt a/M, 1872. Foucart, P., Le Poète Sophocle et l'oligarchie des Quatre-Cents, RPh 1893. Piazza, S., La politica in Sofocle, Padua, 1896. Zurborg, H., Sophokles und die Elegie, Hermes, 1876, 203-14. Gomperz, T., Herodote et Sophocle, Mélanges Weil, 1898. Müller, Α., Aesthetischer Kommentar zu den Tragödien des Sophokles, Paderborn, 1904 (2d ed., 1913). Allègre, F., Sophocle, Étude sur les ressorts dramatiques de son théâtre et la composition de ses tragédies, Lyon and Paris, 1905. Campbell, L., Le Point culminant dans la tragédie grecque, Mélanges Weil, 17-24. Pallis, Soph. Tr. 11, CQ 11. Papabasileiou, S. Α., Critiques et interprétations, ΑΘ 1915. Pagageorgiou, P. Ν., Τα σχόλια του Ίtvaíov κωδικοί του Σοφοκλέους και ό,ντφοΧη το0 καμίνου αυτών. Pearson, Α. C., Some Passages of Greek Tragedy, CQ 11; idem, Some Glosses on the Text of Sophocles, CQ 1919; idem, Sophoclea, CR 34. Peez, W., Oí τρόποι του Σοφοκλίουΐ. Platt, Α., Sophoclea, CQ 1915. Powell, J. U., Notes on Recent Discoveries, CQ 1915. Rizzo, G. E., Tiro, il bassorilievo di Medma e la tragedia di Sofocle. Robert, C., Chrysippos und Antigone. Schuebl, F., Die Landschaft auf der Bühne des 5 vorchr. Jahrhunderts, Prog. Franz-Joseph Gymn., Karlsbad, 1913. Scribner, H. S., The Treatment of Orestes in Greek Tragedy. Vogel, F., Sophoclea, JPhV 1914. Idem, Ad Oedipus Rex, M 1923. Wilamowitz, Lese•2l6 ·

BIBLIOGRAPHY

OF

SOPHOCLES

früchte, H 1919. Wirz, H., Text kritische Nachlese zur Antigone, Festschr. Blümner. G aar, E., Stimmungsbild aus dem Leben des Sophocles. Robert, C., Oedipus; Geschichte e. poet. Stoffs im griech. Altertum (2 vols.), Berlin, 1915. Emmert, E., Hölderlin und die griechische Tragödie, Weida i. Thür. 1928 (Freiburg Diss.). Herkenrath, E., Zu einigen Stellen des Eur. Ar. und Soph., PW 1930. Pearson, A. C., Sophoclea, CQ 1929 (87-95) and 1930 (154-63). Roussel, P., Une Trilogie de Sophocle: la "Téléphie," Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des inscr. et belles-lettres, 1930. Peterkin, L. D., The Creon of Sophocles, CP 1929, 263-73. Guarducci, M., Pandora. Un dramma satirico di Sofocle e un nuovo monumento vascolare, Mon. Antichi, R. Acad. Naz. dei Lincei, 1930 (cp M 1930). Morpurgo, Α., Le Trachinie di Sofocle, Atena e Roma, 1929, 87-115. Milio, V., Per la cronologia dell' Edipo Re, 1929. Gay, F. R., Studies in the Sophoclean Tradition, Chicago, 1927. Cooper, L., Arist. Rhet. 3.16.1417b (Haemon and Jocasta advising), AJP 1929, 170-80. Hoefer, U., Zu Sophokles, RM 1929. Nestle, W„ Die Struktur des Einganges in der attischen Tragödie, Stuttgart, 1930. Valla, D„ Soph. Antig. 323, BFC 36 (1929/30). Herkenrath, E„ Die Phineusdramen des Soph., PhW 1930. Morpurgo, Α., Le "Trachinie" di Sofocle e 1' "Ercole eteo" di Seneca, Atena e Roma, 1929. Webster, Τ. B„ Plot Construction in Sophocles, CR 1932. Walker, R. J., Sophoclean Fragments. Krichaufï, Q u a e s t i o n e s de imag. et translat. apud Soph. usu. Schmidt, F. W., De Ubertate orat. Sophoclis. Körte, Besprechung von T. von Wilamowitz-Möllendorff's dramatischer Technik des Sophokles. Wecklein, Ueber die dramatische Behandlung des Telephosmythus und über die Dramen Όστολάγοι, Κίβίροι, Σύνδίΐτνοί, München, 1909. Weinstock, Η., Sophokles, Leipzig (Teubner), 1931. (Disagrees with Wilamowitz in making Philoctetes instead of Neoptolemus the central figure.) Wolff, Sophokles, Ν J f. Wissenschaft und Jugendbildung, 1931. Templin, De fabulae Soph. O.C. tempore, Diss. Bonn, 1930.

•217.

INDICES

ENGLISH Accusing (verbs of), 153 Achilles, 99, 125, 127 Adams, 119 Adhaerescent ού, 123 Aegisthus, 146 Aesthetic sensibilities, xx Agamemnon, 49 ff. Agamemnon, 103, 140 Agar, 59, 61, 64 Ajax, 99 Alcestis, ix Allinson, 69 Anapaests, xx, 165 Animals, 180 Anticlimax (Ajax), 102; (Electro), 135 Antigone, xix, 114 fi., 123, 184 Antilochus, 177 Aorist subjv, 120 Aphrodite, ix Apollo, 88 Arachnaeus, 57 f. Arimaspi, 27 Aristarchus, 89 Aristophanes (Frogs), 42 Artemis, 140 Athena, 188 Atreus, 72 Bacchic rhythm, xx Bacon, xx Bajazet, 16 Bassi, 132 Beare, 136 Beaumont and Fletcher, 104 Ben Jonson, 109 Bevan, 33 Birds, 136; (as θήρα), i8o Bisoffi, 65

INDEX Blackie, 58 Black Prince, 99 Boast (Agamemnon's), 141 Boeckh, 120 Boileau, xxiii Bonitz, 123 Bornier, 1 1 2 Boswell, 123 Brodribb, 13 Brooks, 33 Browning, xxii Bryant, xi Burials (Ant.), 118 Busche, xi, 29 Cadmeans, 42 Calchas, 172 Calder, 56, 59 Calderón, 63, 104 Callimachus, 109 Campbell, A. Y., 43, 50, 67, 122 Campbell, L., 53. 55, 59 Capaneus, 191 Carducci, 52 Carnoy, 18, 20, 22 Casaubon, 56 Caspian, 25, 27 Change, 1 1 0 Chapman, 104, 172 Characters, 133, 135 Chaucer, xiii Chiasm, 153 Choephori, 76 ff. Chorus (Ajax), 100 Clytemnestra, 142 Cocteau, 114 Coleridge, 65 Combat (ofTheseus withThebans), 190

• 221 ·

ENGLISH

INDEX

Conditions (minatory), 123; (logical) 154 Conington, 58, 62, 83 Conradt, 11, 12, 70, 82, 84 Conspué, 133 Contempt, 133 Copula (omission of), 111 Coriolanus, 100, 101 Corpse (of Polyneices), 124 Corruptions, xiii Cossatini, 38, 63, 78 Creon, 119 Criticism, χ Dactyls, 165 Danaids, 4 Darayavahus, 20 Darius, 15 Dative, 186 Death, 127 f. Deianeira, 161, 168 Demosthenes, xii De Musset, 104 Denniston, 138, 140 Dindorf, 130 Dio Chrysostomos, 172 Dionysus, 42 Distinctions (of language), xxi Dittography, xii Dochmiac measures, xx Doctors' degrees, χ Dolphins, 180 Droysen, 23 Drummond of Hawthornden, 66 Eagle, 104 Earle, 34, 154 Economy (of words), 183 Electro, 134 ff., 142 Electra (affection of), 134 Ellis, 58 Elmsley, 151 Emendations, χ Emerson Club, xiii Epikaste, 148 Erinyes, 91, 142

Errors, xi, xii, xiv Eteocles, 42 f., 115, 185 Eumenidts, 88 f. Euripides, 172, 184 Eurysaces, ιοί Fate, 192 Feeling, 124; (for language), xx Fénélon, 172 'Fulfilment' (or 'end'?), 151 Future optative, 123 Garrick, 123 Gertrude of Denmark, 134 Gildersleeve, xiv, 131, 139 Giocondamente, 84 Goethe, 52, 117, 130 Goodwin, 56, 58 Gow, 50, 54, 58 Gozosamente,

84

Greek music, xxi Greek plays (presentation of), xxi Grégoire, χ Groeneboom, xviii, 29, 30 Grose, 126 Haemon, 132 Hamadan, 17 Hamlet, 135 Haplography, xii, 192 Harpagus, 71 Harrison, Fr., 52 Härtung, xvii, 31 Havet, 22, 44 Headlam, 10, 33, 50, 59, 63, 69, 70, 71. 73 Helen, 162 Heracles, 161 f., 172 Herder, 104 Hermeneutics, χ Herodotus, 71, 186 Hippolytus, vii Honoring the Gods, 186 Hooker, Richard, xv Hotspur, 42 Housman, 21, 64 • 222 ·

ENGLISH Hybristes, 25 Hypnos, 127 i. Hyporchema, 102 Hypothesis, xi Ida, 57 f. Io, 9, 24, 27 Irony, 147 Ismene, 118 Jacobs, 130 Jean Lahor, 104, 126 Jebb, xxi, 104, 106, 116, 117, 121, 123, 124, 126, 127, 132, 136, 141, 164, 166, 174, 177, 182 John of Gaunt, 101 Johnson, 123 Keats, 66 Kennedy, 56 Kilissa, 76 King Lear, 135 Kipling, xiv Kirchhoff, 90 K o c k , 90 Könnecke, 17, 59, 86, 116, 117

INDEX Margoliouth, 56, 61 Masefield, 114 Masqueray, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112, 115, 116, 117, 120, 121, 122, 126, 127, 130. 132. 139. 140. ' 4 1 . »43. 145. 149. 151. 160, 166, 174, 175, 177, 182, 185, 186, 188, 191, 192 Mavrogordato, 130 Mazon, 4, 18, 19, 20, 22, 26, 32, 34, 40, 43, 48, 58, 68, 70, 71, 79, 81, 90, 130 Meiklejohn, 119 Mekler, ix, xi, 127 Menelaus, 103 Metathesis, 93 Michelangeli, 121 Michel Angelo, ix Milton, 66, 177 Misdivision, xii Missiles, 141 Mnemosyne, xviii Modern Greek, 89 Molière, 35, 37 Mondo classico. II, 183 Months, 109, 127 Murphy, 129 Murray, xii, xv, xxi, 58, 65, 156

L a d y Macbeth, 52 Lairs, 181 Laodicea, 59 Laplace, x, xviii Lawson, 177, 179, 182 Leconte de Lisle, 104 Leeward, 123 Lehrs, 130 Lessing, x, 116 Liddell and Scott, 34, 58, 124, 151, 152. 157 Linforth, 126 Lorimer, 55, 67, 89 Ludwig, 89 Lysias, xx Lysippus, ix Maas, 9 Margaret Anglin, 134

Nabal, 101 Navarre, 25 Neoptolemus, 172 Nestle, xi New Testament, 106; (Authorized version), xvii Newton, xviii Night ( > < D a y ) , 150 ff. Nightingale, 65 ff., 184 f. Nodier, Charles, 59, 69 Norwood, 59, 69 Odysseus, 99, 172 Odyssey (Shaw's), xxii Oedipus (myth of), 148 Oedipus Coloneus, 194 ff. Oedipus Tyrannus, 115, 147 ff.; (at Harvard), 150

•223·

ENGLISH

INDEX Rose, 136 Rouse, 118 f.

Olive trees (sacred), 188 Oresteia, 88 Orestes, 77, 88, 89, 103, 135, 146 Othello, 135 Owl and nightingale, 66 Paley, xiv Parthenon (pediment), 188 Paul Bourget, 1 1 4 Pearson, 103, 108, 122, 136, 145, 150, >53 f - 157. «67. 177. 190. «9«. 192 Pelasgia, 37 Pérez Galdós, xi, xxiii Perfect subjunctive, 120 Persae, 14 ff. Petrarch, 28, 66 Phantoms, 145 f. Philocles, 148 Philocteles, 172 ff. Phoenissae, 184 f. Plato's Protagoras, 51 Piatt, 1 1 6 , 156 Pleonasm, 143 Pohlenz. 3, 25, 43, 48, 70 Polyneices, 1 0 1 , 1 1 5 , 185 Porson. 180 Poseidon, 188 Powell, n o Prometheus, xvii, xx, 23 ff. Psalms, 55 Pylades, 136 Questions with μη and άρα μή, 138 ff. Rabelais, xiii, xv Racine, 16 Rackham, 32, 122 Reinach, xxiii Réir a carcajadas, 108 Responsion (antistrophic), 181 Revue de philologie, 6, 10, 43 Rhythms, xx; lyric, xxi Richards, xi, 153 Robe (Deianeira's), 168 Robert, 78 Romeo and Juliet, 135

Salamis, 109 Samson Agonistes, 177 Scaliger, xi, xvi Schiller, 32 Schneidewin, 127 Schneidewin-Hense, 59, 60 Scholars (American), x; (English and German), xiv Semonides, 127 Septem, 66 Seyffert, 106 Shakespeare, 43, 46, 60, 107 Shaw (Odyssey of), xxii Sheep, 1 1 0 Shelley, 34, 66, 104 Sheppard, 154, 155, 158 Shirley, 35 Sidgwick, 55, 70 Sleep, 127 f. Smyth, 63, 64, 94 Sophocles, 99 ff., 103; (language of), «47 Spaniards, 89 Spanish, 108, 106; (phrases), xx Spenser, 17, 66 Spitting in the face, 132 Storr, 154 Sturtevant, 56 Style, xx Supplices, 3 Swanwick, 58 Syllable (loss of), 192 Taccone, 122, 127 Tantalus, 120 Tap-root, xi Taylor, 61 Tecmessa, 100, 102 Teiresias, 147 Tener en nada, 186 Tenses (shifting of), 121 Terzaghi, 10, 19, 20 Teucer, 102

• 224 ·

ENGLISH

INDEX

Theater of Sophocles, 149 Theognis, 186 Theseus, 190 Thomson, 25 Thucydides, x, 188 Time, 192 Tolkiehn, 120 Tongue, 166 Torch-race, 57 Trachiniae, 161 Traditional Electra, 135 Traditional Orestes, 135 Translations, xix ff. Transposition, 155 Tribrachs, 165 Trimeters, xix Tristan, 46 Trojan Women, xxi Tucker, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 45, 46, 47, 48, 74, 81, 83 Van Daele, 133 Vergil, 135

Verrall, 45, 47, 50, 58, 74 Vollgraff, 116, 118, 120, 121, 122 Vulgarity, 133 Vultures, 105 Viirtheim, 5 Webster, 115 Wecklein, x, xii, 89, i n , 181 Weil, xvi, 23, 81, 130 Weinstock, 148 Welcker, 26 Wilamowitz, ix, xvi, 4, 11, 12, 17, 18, 20, 22. 53, 63, 64, 65, 72, 73, 79, 81, 89. 90» 94» 166 Windward, 123 Women (of Greece), 162 Woodcock, 130 Years, 127 Yoke, 121 Zielinski, 166 Zola, 6

•225·

GREEK

INDEX ávwdtv, 71 à£trat, 121 áxcuáas, 170 άτάσα?, 170 άπ' αυΚίων, ι8ι άττύργων, 157 άτίΐροί, 157 ίττΐίρων, 157 άτλω$, ίο äiTOTTOj, 155 áxoreívei, 51 ά7ΓpÒUÒtlKTOS, 11 àiTTtpos, 55 άττύρων Ιίρων, 53 ipa μη, 138 άράΐ, 8ο Άριμασττούΐ, 27 άρ' ού, 138 άστρων ßiXos, xxii άτ(\ής, 179 áríp ÓTTjj, 116 άτ«ρπ«, 116 άτροπίης, χ aC, 61 airy at s, 54 αύδάσίΐν, 190 αϋλιον, ι8ι αύξαν, ¡58 αύξων άνω, 192 aùròs κα0' aùroD, 153 αυτών δ' αγώνων, ¡go αφίώήσοι, 123 άφίΐδης οϋ, 123 àfV, 151 allevai, 152 "Αφλοισβος, 27, 35 άφρασμόνως, 19 άχίίματα, g

άβατον, 28 άβροτον, 2 S άγάτη, I30 Άγβατάνων, ly áytXai, ios άίρθΐν, 70 Άtpías, 4 άίτοί, ¡06 άθαττοί νίκυs, 123 alyvTMs, 105 aWtpos, 180 αΐΧινον, ι io αΐσθησις, 125 αίωρήσασα, ¡go &κακ(, 20 ίκανθών, χίν άκηκόατί, xviii àicpaytis, 36 άκρας νυκτός, ιο8 άλιιτ', 140 άλίτλακτο$, log άλιώσίΐ, 188 αλόγιστα, 193 άμα, 56 αμαρ, 151 αμβλύ», 75 άναπάλλων, χίν άι'αριθμός, log άνδρακάί, y ι αν δωσίΐν, ¡go άνίδην, ι8ο ávtv φθόνου, 145 ávtv φόνου, 145 άνίΰφρον, 145 avoids, 145 àvrâctiv, 190 'Αντιγόνη, 125 άντομαί σ', igt • 226 ·

GREEK

INDEX

ßa\ßis, 143 βαλήν, 20 βάλΰν, 140 βασανίζων, 156 βαυξιι, 17 βφόντ, 89 βιβωντ', 8g ßios, 138 β\άττων, ι88 βλάτω, xi χ β\ίφαρον,

x a î s , xxii

διτ\άκ(σσιν, διωΧλύμην, δόμος, xiii δρόμος, xiii

δρωντ' (or ίδύντ'?),

154

δύίται, xiii δώματα, xiii δ ώ σ ε ι ς ( o r σ ώ σ ί υ ? ) , xiii ίασον,

xiii

191

èyypâtptis,

ßkepov, x v i i i βύσκημα, io, 138 ßpaßtbs, 18

«γκαλω«',

85 153

eyprr/opbs, 58 ¿ ¿ « t r a i , xiii tSpas,

yaßoüirg φρινί, 85

150

ίδώσομαι,

7 < λ ω μ α ι , xix

xiii

ί'ιδόμην, 18 (Ιδωλον, 146

ytpa ios, 188 y εραίρων, 122 yipœv, 20 Vñp