View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE
provided by ZENODO
The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR
Additional services for The Classical Review:
Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here
Upon Aeschylus—I
W. Headlam
The Classical Review / Volume 14 / Issue 02 / March 1900, pp 106 - 119 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00079440, Published online: 27 October 2009
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00079440
How to cite this article: W. Headlam (1900). Upon Aeschylus—I. The Classical Review, 14, pp 106-119 doi:10.1017/S0009840X00079440
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 142.104.240.194 on 15 Nov 2015 106 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
from Suidas is not improbable ; but it in no inclined to suspect that Tyrtaeus lived way supports the attribution to Tyrtaeus of neither in the seventh century, nor in the these lines, which Dr. Christ recognises as fifth, but in the sixth; a supposition, which, written ' in the spirit of' Callinus, an I think, may possibly meet some of Dr. admission pointing to their authenticity. Verrall's objections to the traditionary For it cannot be conceded that any of the view, and at the same time satisfy the other poems which he includes in this requirements of Mr. Macau's very able appreciation, that is, any of the undoubted argument in reply. poems of Tyrtaeus, are written 'in the But leaving Tyrtaeus, I would return, for spirit of Callinus'; they are written, a moment, to Callinus. Whether he actu- largely, in his words; his spirit, his inspira- ally invented Elegy, or adopted the form tion is exactly what they lack. from some earlier unknown1 poet or minstrel, Having sought to show how Tyrtaeus he wrote it in words which were part of the made his elegiacs, I have not ventured here vocabulary of his own native dialect. He to touch the question when he wrote them; was an original poet. His theme was his a question which has recently been raised own; and he said what he said out of the by Dr. Verrall in his interesting articles on fulness of his heart. Except the metre ' Tyrtaeus' in a form involving the recon- there was nothing artificial in the process. sideration of historical data, but not Of the majestic rhythm and all the music necessarily affecting the discussion of the of his lines when taken together, it has not literary relationship between Callinus and seemed needful to speak. On such a matter Tyrtaeus. argument is either superfluous or uncon- Whether Tyrtaeus lived twenty years or vincing. two hundred years after Callinus, his debt J. M. SCHULHOP. to him is the same. It may, perhaps, be 1 That is, of course, apart from the old claim, allowable to say that, as a result of fresh which requires separate discussion, of Archilochus to investigation of the date of Callinus, I am the fatherhood of Elegy as well as of Iambics.
UPON AESCHYLUS—I.
PROMETHEUS rmv foisted in. Now what is the likeliest word to have been omitted here? Nothing would 370 TVc/>(ova Oovpov ira/riv oC\.ois, the text-makers were as ready to insert /tovos /iovw, low io"a>, Koivbs «v KOIVOIS, o£i' d£«i)V Travres as modern printers to insert commas. and so on; e.g. in this play, 29 0«os OeS>v The way to learn the nature of corruptions yap..., 92 ola IT/JOS Otwv irdo-^o) 0t6w ytveq. Hesych. gives Tvutv e\ei, ... in the schol. on Blomfield p. 31 quotes from Porson a cloud which, TOUS 0eovs oik iv rais do-jria-i opovo~a>, of examples of this word inserted into texts. cod. M. omits ovs for the same reason that Thus if a word had dropped out after Oovpov, 0eos was omitted here. iraxriv was ready to their hand to patch the Exactly the same thing I believe took place metre with ; just as a well-known fragment in Soph. Philoct. 727 of Euripides appears thus in Apostol. XV 81 tv' 6 x<£AKaoTris avrjp C a~6 h* 5 KO.KIO~T£ wavTuw Otwv T€ KavOpunriov, rj Tr\d$«. 5rao"i 6ti irvpl $J fir] SiSaovce .... *Epa>9 being omitted and irdv- Oircts xnrep oO THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 107 The corresponding verses are 323 (Archilochian, Hephaest. 15).1 565-6 X.€V(rarp should be, as I have printed them, one aitl verse. Other verses where the division in the MSS. still remains to be corrected are Hermann was the first to eject irSo-i and Theb. 729-30 ( = 722-3) restore the omitted 6e6s, reading irA.d0ei Otbs Oeuo . . . (Oebs | irXdOei 0eois Schneidewin). irapf3ap giving—but not to me.' alel 599 TTOI fi.' ayovo~i <.\0ovbs> would seem the natural thing to write; and the OtTas {nrep 6 reason for the omission would be that the scribe was looking for the subject of mere glyconic metre. I confess that I iyovcri. prefer this, and it affords a reason for the choice of the word oraTov, to lengthen 8e. 778 rj SUOTTETSS av TOVS ifiovs aiOkovs Lucian i. 746 Hennot. 7 avepxerai Sxnrep i " >'A.os, ehre, wov ei yap Si] T<£ y eyyevrj afJL€p(wv apri^is; oih" eSep^ijs though there too it has a place prepared for it. 565 oXiyoBpavtav aKiicuv "uxoveipov a TO (fxarlov oXabv yevos c/A7T£7ro8io"/i£vov; ovirore 910 The schol. may be corrected from dvarmv Totv Atos apfiavlav irapt^lxttri schol. rec. /3ou\at'. PERSAE. Here I have altered the position of 6varS>v. In the concluding verses of the antistrophe 13 v£ov 8' avSpa /3av££t: since /3av£uv I eject ISVOLS and read iren-iOhv for iru$wv or means ' to growl at', latrare, I do not see 9J who can be referred to by VEOV avSpa except 575 TO8' exeivd & or' afn,v v«i ^povei 784, 746. o~bv vfxevaiovv 276-80 ...^y«sdyov. cot Sa/xapra KoivoXeKTpov. because they have all taken it to be a com- The rhythm is of that delightful lilting ment. In that case we should have had movement found in fragments of Cratinus, Xcyeis aypoixov (TOV) Otov without the verb. 239 airaXbv 8e o-icnj/xySpiov rj poSov fj Kpivov Similarly Ag. 545-51 Trap' ovs iOdtcti, 238 a.yavoXO. Ipcas irarpolas riJa-Se yr}foot KH. UXTT iv8a.Kpveiv y o/tjaacrii' \apas occurs in Cratin. fr. 256. 3, Ar. fr. 192. 1, viro. Eq. 371, 372, 442, 917, Nub. 1108, 1450, Ach. 1040. There is another example in Tragedy if the right reading in Theb. 842 550 KH. TToOovvra. Tiji'Se yijv orpaTov rav a&rovov fieXdyKpOKov XO. veicvooToXov OewpiSa dvaoreveiv. ' Do you mean that you longed for the army as Butler inferred from the schol. TTJV 8ia- as it longed for home?' 'So much that oft youcrav TOJIS veicpovs : certainly this gives a I sighed... ' "When it is seen that 551 is point which is lacking in the MS. vavo-roXov. the answer to a question (as Heath took it), But VCKVCTTOXQV is a possible form. it is plain that the natural supplement is y', The other variation, an anapaest (KVO.V(I>- ' Ay ',! which is besides most easily omitted. •n-iSes) beginning the second half of the line, This has been proposed by Herwerden al- is much less common; I have noted only ready, but as I have not seen his note, I do two examples: Ar. Eq. 921 ru>v SaXiW not know whether he takes rrjvSe yr/v, as I ajrapv(TT(.6v and Ran. 984 TIS TTJV K^OXTJV do, to be governed by iroOovvra. aTreSrjSoKev. It is possible, as I have observed before, that Aeschylus made one compound 561 7T€^OV^ O€ KCLL ^» of the whole, SSS ai 8' ofJLOTrrepoi vaes /xev ayayov, Troiroi 601 The normal form of sentence would vaes 8' diroiXecrav, TOTOI be The smallest alteration in v. 562 gives us tfiev ev, lXoit KaKuiv /j.kv o>s orav fipoTois liriXOrj, iravTa. Sei/AaiVeiv i\u, SiSvfioTTTepot Kuav<07ri8es orav 8" 6 Sai/Mov evpoy,. . . and this rings true to me. The Chorus are lamenting the disastrous naval ambitions of as Eur. Supp. 464 <£eB ev KaKoicnv ev ev . ... us is very common later; in v. 681, i^tyOiVTai TpttrxaX/xoi vaes ovaes Soph. O.T. 316, Eur. Hec. 1216, Med. 332, avaes—and ' the trireme carried two masts ' Ale. 739, fr. 25, 211, 218, 329, 333,536, (Dr. Warre in Diet. Ant. ii. p. 218). Since 637, 684, 739, 961, 1034, Ar. Plut. 782, ordinary vessels had but one, the epithet 802, Apollonid./r. 1 p. 825 Nauckj and we would be distinctive. have ev . . . . 1 interpolated ! The reason may simply have Eur. Or. 1122, Phoen. 1349, Gyd. 215, El. 666, been that <£eC <£eii had been omitted. Ar. Nub. 469. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. 109
816 KouSe;ra) THEB. icpjjvts airiafiriK , dXX' pov. If, as I suggest, it was Plut. Mor. 1090 c (quoting Eur./r. 971. 2) an epithet of 3>pav, that supplies at once a for aarrjp aire, oW/ioves, may have been what the annotator meant; e0eo~6' aeXirrov KOLKOV but it seems to me that if the line had been Sunrpeirov otov SeSopKev ara. contrasted with Ifij^ov, the antithesis would 1011 HE. TreTrXrjyixeO' oiai Si' auavos Tu^ai. have been pointed by a 8e, TOV egrjfiov (fi.ev) XO. •KiTrXruft.iO', ev8r]Xa yap. Xpovu> ($Xao"n)fwv aXSaivovra 8' aijuaros iroXvv. 1011, because of ireTrXrjyfieO' in the following line, was accidentally omitted, and is sup- 79 The Chorus hear and see—or rather, plied in the margin by m together with being in hysterical alarm, imagine that they another reading, yp. Sai/xovos Tu^at. This hear and see—the signs of an approaching I believe is right, the king re-echoing their army: exclamation in a most natural phrase; Pind. pel iroXiis oSe Ae'a>s wpo'Spo/xos iTTTroVas* 0. viii. 67; Med. 666 and I.T. 850 8ai>ovos aXOtpia. KOVIS /tie ir e i 6 e i (paveio- Tv\a TWOS, Hipp. 827 Tv\av Saip-ovtav, fr. 37 avavSos o-a<£r/s trvfios ayyeXos- Tas 8c Satju.ovo)!' Tvya.%, Rhes. 719 io> iu> Saifwvos eXe Se Tas J/ASS TTCSI" OTTXOKTVTT' (o TV\O- /3apcia. Further, TVX<" will appear to /3oa be the dative on comparison of Eur. H.F. Trorarai /3pefiei b* 1381 Hpaf /ua irXryycvrvs aOX.Ca> TV)(g, Ale. 417 d/xa^cTOU SiKav VSOLTOS oporvirov and 868 f$ape.ia £v/j,opa. TreTrXrjyiiefta, Aesch. tO> 10) ^£01 Eum. 512 £vfi.opa TCTV/XHEVOS, Ag. 1660 8at- povos XO^-V ^Sapeta SUO-TU^SS TrcTrXijyftevoi. If Oeai T opo/xevov KO.KOV this is so, what remains to be restored is y3oa virep something which does not affect the con- The MS. version and the scholia (which struction ; and I am led therefore to suppose are necessary here) mav best be seen in the original was Wecklein. The point I wish definitely to urge is that eXe is correct: ' I am persuaded TT€Tr\r}yn.e6', 018' oiSa, 8cu/xovos rvxq. of it by the dust rising to the sky 1 am ' We are stricken, I know it, I know, by a convinced by the thunder of hoofs upon the stroke of fate.' oI8a parenthetical is com- plain.' That is the main meaning of it mon, as Soph. Aj. 560, 938, O.C. 1615, fr. here ; it is a meaning which the dictionary 237, Eur. El. 683; and ot8' oI8a repeated will illustrate. But the suggestion of the occurs in Ar. Plut. 1080, Ran. 580, 584, word goes further, ' I am overborne, with Eq. 998, and in Soph. El. 846, Eur.^fc. 887, no room left for doubt or hope, my spirit is emotional passages that may be compared overcome.' That seems to be the sense in with ours. Supp. 794 where the Chorus are in a similar 1 Com. Frag, adesp. 353 Kock. condition. Hitherto, under their father's no THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. encouragement, they have borne up bravely ; re TTTfyais, £vv& T' 'l&firivov \eya>, but now that he has viewed the enemy and ' the founts of Dirce, and withal of Ismenus.' plainly told them so, they give .way to The rivers had a common source (Jebb Ant. piteous despair; ' There is no escape; my 103). For the adverbial £vvd cf. 0.0. 1752, heart is throbbing in agony, irarpbs O-KOTTOX Kowd Ant. 546; and for the use of Xeyu Se /*.' elW- oixofuu fj>6/3a..' At any rate that confirms the reading IXe. Track. 739 TOV avBpa rbv v : cf. Phoen. 1369. 206 firjK «riSoi/« TavS' axrrvSpOfiovfievav iroA.iv KO.1 OTpdrevfj.' 567 is perhaps an interpolation, and the aTTTOfLfVOV TTVpl SdttO. speech should begin KO\6V y a/covo-ai... See = 213 TOV dfi^avov Blaydes' collection on Ar. Av. 139. KO.K ^oXeTras Suos virepO' 6fn.fia.Tmv 620 ouK^dpch-ai KOI /caTcv^eTai T«xas>--- A 6p6di. o-ot £vfi.{ptv (corrected by Blomfield). ' Poly- would be nices prays that he may meet thee and die dirrofifvov irvpl §atu> yav by thy side if he may slay thee, or if thou — Kprqfi.vaft.tva.v vtKpeXav avopOoi escape with thy life, that he may at any or aTTTO/ievov irvpl Satm irvpyovs rate expel thee as his disfranchiser and = KpiffLvafievay vecpeXdv dvu>p6wrev. punish thee with banishment in the self- aTrrofjievov is not passive, but middle; the same fashion.' use however 4s so rare that the following 751 The necessary emendation , accusative may have been omitted on that which I lately published as my own, had account, and the antistrophic verse arranged been made before by Dindorf, vol. I. p. to correspond. xxvii., which I found out from the Thesavtrus s.v. reXetos, p. 1958. I had not failed to 257 TOIS 1To\l(T. From the numerous conjectures for v. 259 809 Since M had pvea-Oai at first, pvea-6' Wecklein adopts that of Abresch, oi8' dir' av would be a plausible correction ; but I 'Icrfuqvbv \eya> 'nor do I exclude Is menus.'think Dr. Verrall is very likely right in I have never been able to satisfy myself judging the passage to be a later inter- that dffoAeyoj in this sense is Greek of polation. Certainly the dialogue immed- Aeschylus at any3rate. ' Mirum in modum' iately preceding is spurious in its present says Blomfield 'hallucinantur interpretes, form. I do not however consider it to be qui djro et A.eya) coniunctim summit pro spurious altogether, but made up for greater diroXeyw, excipio, inaudito Tragicis verbo.' emotional effect out of an original speech of But what support can be found either for the messenger which ran as follows : ovS' aur 'lo-furfvov in the sense ' not excluding805 TTO'XIS o~eo-Ktv aifia yai tnr' d\\.ij\. dto*o"«> the wife says to her husband ' 0 son of my criSijpu) KTrj/naTiov uncle' [of my father's brother]. I am So much only, but certainly so much, ap- quoting from Burckhardt's Arabic [Cairene] pears to my judgment to be genuine Proverbs No. 620 ; what he says is entirely Aeschylus. corroborated by Lane and Burton. Now that is precisely the relationship between 981 schol. o~v Be ov fieroviroXv ovBt vorepov the parties in the Supplices, our Egyptian O avriKpws. play : irpiv irore XeKTpoiv £>v Oejus eipyci, €T£pi£a/A€voi ira.Tpa8ek(f>ciav rrjvB', 976 Si'uypa TpdraArcoy Trrj/idrmv schol. Si- aeKovTwv iirififjvai V. 37. vypa '. tjutvra Trr/fiara ^sd/^eva «ai iroAAa. I Here then we get some very pretty little ought not to have wavered in believing the problems, which will afford the ingenious original to have been Siepa (Hiemsoeth), as food for speculation. One or two points long ago I had independently inferred; may be remarked. The sons of Aegyptus because Siuypds and tfiv were the generally appear to be claiming this marriage as a accepted explanations of Bupos (see Thesaur. legal right. The question' is put in the or Ebeling Lex. Horn. s.v.). The epithet most practical manner by Pelasgus 392, ' If would suit well with my conjecture rpoiraia the sons of Aegyptus are your masters by (cf. Eur. EL 1174) if referred to the slain law of the land, as claiming to be the bodies of the combatants, ' trophies each of next of kin, who would care to contest their flesh and blood.' Siepa may have been right? You must plead according to the scanned as a dissyllable like Upd : and pos- laws of your own country that they have no sibly a mysterious gloss in Hesych. BeCpa: authority over you.' But the only answer S[t]ifjLoipa may be a mistaken explanation of that the women give is that they won't this place. hear of becoming subject to the mastery of It seems to me impossible that rpiiraXra males! As regards their motive, it is should be true, or rpi- in any form ; the plain that they dislike their cousins, and calamity was not triplex but duplex, and dread being forced into the position of their that is what the sisters harp upon con- bondslaves; but considering certain phrases tinually : StiraAra therefore might have been used of the relation which they shun, I am applied. unable to accept the view of those who see no more than a revolt of Hellenic liberty SUPPLICES. of action against Oriental or barbarian tyranny. These phrases are the following : Fifty daughters of Danaus fly oversea v. 8 avroyevfj yd/xov ao-efifj T 6vora£d/i£vcu, 37 from Egypt to avoid being forced into XeKrpwv &v Oifus elpyei, 237 ixOpwv ofiaifiwv marriage with their fifty cousins. This zeal fuaivovrwv -yepos with the same metaphor raises two questions : why do the men wish to of hawks and doves as in P.V., where we marry these women 1 and why do the women have 881 evyovo-a o~vyyevrj ydfwv avaj/uav, regard the prospect with such horror? The 884 OrjpevtrovTes ov Orjpa/ Oefus \tyas ; ' hate or unlawfulness?' their answer is again evasive, 'And who the first cousin; and cousins thus married l continue to call each other ' cousins' even would object to masters that they loved ?' after marriage, and not 'husband and It can hardly be that this obscurity is wife'; because the tie of first-cousinship is other than designed. We have traces, I universally regarded as more sacred than think, of an ancient conflict of ideas upon that of matrimony, which may be, and this question of legitimate degrees; and frequently is, dissolved at the momentary perhaps it was a question Aeschylus did not caprice of either party. Thus the man calls his wife in the house ' O daughter of 1 That OPOITO is the true text, and this the meaning my uncle' [of my father's brother] ; and of the line, is shown by the order of the words. 112 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. care to argue. We may remember that KVUTSS, pwos: though Hesych. gives Hypermestra took a different line. arofl-if (o-TOifiri Mus.) oi Se <£Xoios, The scholiast also is in the conspiracy to and pottos is a substantive. But I can see baffle us. Paley p. 4 remarks that he no reason why there should not have been a ' always evades this interpretation of ya.jj.av substantive \v£,a, which it will be seen acrefSij, TO /MJ 0e/us \ia> — ? Aii|ij — schol. A Aesch. Prom. 853' Weil); and j8A.ua> frhiois — of TO fir/ Oe/us v. 338 ^ V v ao~ef}ij T crKv^rfi' avrl TOV T>}S Kairpas) and ij/wljt or \f/S>t,a (Lob. Proll. 359, Com. Att. Kock I ' but in abhorrence of kindred and sinful 311). The diminutive kv£diaov is not open wedlock with the folly-prating sons of to suspicion, nor the adjective & Aegyptus.' (1064 ydfiov Aiymrroycvr}, P.V. 860 1064 (ftevyovara. avyyevrj ya.fi.ov, 884 ov 6r/pa a-' . . . It vopav with an accent erased over the last a is true that KajQitp was colloquially used in and the letters vka£ written in erasure similar phrases, KACUOVTO Ka6i£eiv ' to reduce (according to an examination of the MS. to tears' Xen. Cyr. iii. 2. 14, 15 (ter), which I made some years ago). In the Symp. 3. 11, Plat. Ion 535 E, cf. Theocr. i. margin is written yp. vgdvopav, and the 51 ; and in the passive Ar. Ach. 840 v schol. was written on this reading; v\a£d- KaOeSeiTai, fr. 620 olfwtpv udOov, Cratin. 277 vopav: yd.fi.ov \v£a-what follows, the herald breaks his sentence yopav: either, so far as I can judge, was off : cf. Ar. Thesm. 569 irpoo-Ov; fwvov, Kaym possible. kv£ayopav would imply \.v£i.sv£is, rufis, )8afts and the like. 643 rj f/,rjv iy as Tyfiepov aKvrq fSkiirnv But the compound >\v£,oypdXvapu>v inro TijsTepov Kovprf?. Ag. 1666 oAA' iym a' iv vare- fMvla.s- Kal ol 'IraXioMrai TOIIS <]>kva,poypaovv-paurw r//xepais /*erei/i' en. The error is most TOS \v£oypd\v£6s NetA.os vf3pi£ovra,s or o cr' ipaxras : cf; Bergk nomen nee f uit nee potuit esse'; which, if Poet. Lyr. iii p. 714. I understand him rightly, means that the compound is impossible, because there could 2 Lobeck Bhem. 277, Parall. 207. 8 Hesych. 'PiSfo : j8fa. ^ TOS T6$OV rdffis. be no such noun as \v£6s. If it existed, it 4 would probably be an adjective as /J-u^os, Anacr. fr. 87 Bergk: spelt Kvvaa in Herodas vii. 95. 1 Similarly in Hesych. s.v. xavxaxis ii p. 452 >v- s Kock is plainly mistaken in desiring to read X&KTtuva. is a mistake for AGAMEMNON. A might merely be doubled in pronunciation, as woAvAAiorosHom., /UOPOAAVKOS Arat. 1124; 49 rpoirov aiyinrujtv 01 r e/orayAois but the usual plan for metrical purposes or oEAy«ri iraiSav v for euphony was to substitute ij for o, as oSivovvTat 66, al/J.arr]V vvepSiBoiKfv A^atojc (MS. A corruption that resembles this is Cho. ) s, conjectured 967, where I am now convinced that Her- mann's restoration is correct: o' T' eKirayAois akyeo-i, TraiSiov on-dry A«x<»'W, raxp- Se iravreA^s xpovos apetyerai Ttpodvpa. Safidrmv . . . . , But the second dative produces an effect of 967 rvxg. 8' einrpocrunroKoCra TO irav awkwardness, and the shortening of AtxaiW Bpiojxevoi'; is another improbability. I believe we have s simply the corruption of a compound, to be S6 ir€7?> 2 From stems in • or i the formation may be flyxoToAexijs, fiowo-, KOIVO-, alvo-, haver, airapo-, called legitimate. In Soph. fr. 122. 1 (Hesych. ii. cv-, Imro-, opa-, yrj-, ^af/uu-. The formation 526) Timovrbv Kovpewv rfpeSy w6\et should perhaps be would first be vrraToXextwv, and in Epic the TIMH0YTON ti/fhSwrov or riiu6Bvrov KovptTov 'chosen as an honourable sacrifice.' It looks at any 1 Liddell and Seott s.v. itrrepos quote Pind. 0. x. rate like a compound such as Ifp60vros, xpuriSvros, 41 Klil Kfivos apovkla Sararos &\<&s tois that /itTotKoSo/ifTv was a word in late use. The depend on hvriaau. schol. had/icroucoi. NO. CXXI. VOL. XIV. I 114 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. M (in which there is a gloss d/covo-at after more highly than the other: with regard iSeiv) gives TUX<* 8' £vTrpoi. Kotrai. Theto the position of the stress, Greek is exactly meaning is ' presently when the palace has the opposite of English. In English been purged of the filth it now contains normally—as in the sentence I am writing— (cf. 955 ftkafiav iyxpovurOeurav), it will be the unemphatic words come first; they are ready for the entry of the rightful owner ; uttered in a monotone, and lead up to em- and those who have no right in it (juiroucot phasis upon the end ; in Greek the emphatic Sopwv) shall' fall again with a fate of fair are placed first, and the unemphatic follow aspect altogether in the mourners' eyes.' after. Agreeably to this, it is normal in Opeo/xai always means 'to wail,' and dpeo- English for the subject to precede the pre- fievoK here means the mourning party, the dicate—' the man is good'; but in Greek sympathisers with Orestes, the same that they said ayaObs q avr/p. are described in the meaning phrase 781 This principle I have found the surest 80s Tu^as ru^tiv Kvpitas TO. (ruxjipov' av1 p.0.10- key of all to understanding Greek ; it will jxivois iS«v ' grant O Zeus that fortune fail unlock at once the sentence now before us. out as it should for those who long to see All critics have assumed that X^/iouri Surcrovs decency restored.' To them the fall of the go together; then, seeing that 8uro-ovs is fieroiKOL will be a goodly sight. The dativeunsuitable, some have substituted other depends upon the adjective, as 734 yeXutv words, as Lobeck irurrovs, Dindorf wrows. KtvOova-' cV Ipyois Sia.1re7rpayp.evOK KOAv TOV avSpa TOVSC K c t - the pair of eagles with the pair of princes fievov (piXuii 6/tot. That illustrates is that the birds are royal warriors, but one what I take to be suggested by the curious KcXaivds and the other e£mnv apyas—in empovwn-oK o i r a.,—a picture of slain bodies common language fieXavaeros and irvyapyos lying low upon the ground. In Soph. (Arist. 6181" 18). These represent characters El. 1466, when a vision is suddenly dis- which correspond to those of Agamemnon closed before Aegisthus' eyes of what he and Menelaus. The taunt of spiritless- assumes to be the dead body of his ness 3 or KctKia so often aimed at Menelaus enemy Orestes, he utters, I am inclined to (largely based, one may suppose, on the lost think, a similar half-metaphorical expres- Epic and Lyric literature) seems to be hinted sion, a> Zev, SeSopKa 125 KcSvOS Sc (TTpa.TOpM.VTK IBatV SvO Suro-ol 'ATpeZSai is the common phrase, Xrjp.aan. h Eur. Hec. 506, 810, Soph. A3. 57, 947, and similarly 390, 960, PhUoct. 793, 1024, Ag. 43. It is a strange fact that the order of words in a Greek sentence has never clearly been 138-163 In considering this passage it is appreciated. I propose before long to illus- important to recognise that it is in the true trate it with examples and to point out oracular style; the most vivid representation some of its important applications; but Greek affords of the manner in which his since I am accustomed to rely upon it in inspired message was delivered by a prophet. It is proclaimed with a spiritual exaltation my reading and require to argue from it in 4 my criticisms, I will state it briefly here. in a loud and excited tone of voice, obscured Each clause or section of a clause in any in metaphorical and ambiguous language, language contains one part which is stressed and guarded by a limiting condition: 1 08 for ei had been suggested, I now see, by 8 Journal of Philology xxiii. p. 272 : add Quint, Dr. Verrall before I commended it a year ago : Dr. vi. 30-43. Wecklein had omitted it. 4 tx\ayiev 211, 07r6cAa7{«i'. 165. This is the ex- 2 Tyrwhitt's reading in place of ov, the phrase planation of other words, applied to the delivery of ivev Xpovta fitv aypti Hpid.ft.ov n-oA.ii/ 5.8c KcA.ev0os Then he proceeds (146) 'But though so Travra 8k iropyiov kindly 2 to all young wild creatures, yet con- KTrjvr) irpo yap (= ov 6appu> yap) is in this sense orparwOev OK via yap- iTritpOovos'ApTe/jus ayva 'l(oviK MSS. 178 'I can find none' the Chorus say 'to otov p.rf Kvctftday means p,6vov v\aKTeov fit] . . . . and ttiis is the saving clause which it appears from some amusing irXrjv Albs « TO fiarav curb come to find out from a /AOVTIS which will Opdo-a ppvmv win. 'mures' v, V rpo\anry.r In xi. 365 a farmer consults an astrologer on his prospects. ' If it rains Paley says ' oo-ris cannot be used of a enough' is the response ' and not too much, definite person,' and reads ovO' os TOIS and the furrows are not spoilt by frost, nor irapoiOev ty fieyas, ' neither he who to those young shoots crushed by hail, nor the crop of old was a god of power' which leads one devoured by deer, and nothing else un- to expect a different antithesis from os 8' favourable befalls from earth or air, I fore- iireLT' €<)>v. The natural opposition would tell you a good harvest—povvas 8el8i6i be ovO' os vvv. I am aware that OOTIS may ras d/cptSas.' be argued for, but probability is very much For oiKta yap CTTI0OVOS . . . Casaubon con- against it, and when we find the sentence jectured OI/CTO). The word is quite super- beginning with ouS' OOTIS, suspicion is con- fluous, yet here the chief stress of the sen- siderably increased. For what is certain is tence must be placed upon it. It would that ovS' ooris itdpoiBfv or ov8' os TOIS signify in Greek ' for it is out of compassion TrdpoiOev could only mean 'not even he that that Artemis is jealous . . .' The same was great aforetime,' the stress being on objection holds equally against OIKOI, which irdpoiOev. That is pointless here. The only other objections have been strong enough to plausible conjecture I have seen is oTS' Sorts discredit with most critics. The only way (Pauw). The reading I propose, because it you can translate it is to take it in apposi- proceeds by an unexpected path, will be tion to Kvo-C: ' for Artemis is wroth against somewhat startling at first sight; but it the house—her Father's winged hounds for appears to me to make a natural and sacrificing a poor hare . . .' Who does not effective sentence. For OYAOCTIC I feel that to be most awkward writing? merely write OYAOCTIC Besides, though the two eagles do of course in the prophet's mind symbolize the two ovXos TIS trdpoidev r/v /tcyas, Atreidae, it is by symbols that he speaks; Qd fipviav it is not the part of the soothsayer to be ' A violent one was great of old, swelling scholiast upon his own deliverance: aAAos pb> with boisterous puissance.' The metaphor 6 xprio-fJuaSos, oAAos 8e 6 ep/jLTjvevs. throughout is of a combat—rpuucTiJpos and What I take the seer to say is this : ' In irap.fi.dxtp, a word which it will be seen in course of time I see the fall of Priam's town the Theswurus was properly used of the —if only no jealousy from heaven dull the pancratiast. ovAos, the epithet applied by great embattled1 bit that should hold the Homer to Ares and Achilles, is eminently mouth of Troy—for I have misgivings; suitable to this turbulent swasher. Artemis is wroth against her Father's It cannot stand for an argument, but it winged hounds for sacrificing a poor timorous may be suggested not unfairly, that if hare with all her unborn young.' Artemis Aeschylus did use this word, he would have is both the befriender of young creatures 2 Perhaps -riaov rep fttppav , KoA.<£ $p6aouri and the patroness cf child-bed; there is Xexrois paAcpuf \t6vrctr, though one rather desider- reason therefore to apprehend that she may ates ttiippvv, KaXd, oia' ipaauri. That at any rate show resentment. should be the metre. KaA<£, the well-known epithet of Artemis, is nsed here after the usual custom, to is an epithet ' limiting' the metaphor. flatter and conciliate the goddess. I 2 *s|
116 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW.
recalled that celebrated saying of Xeno- Horn. O 101 r/ 8e yikaxTQ-cv \ukfxriv, ov 8e phanes (p. 35 Karsten) ovXos opoi, ovXos 8e fierwirov tTT ocf>pv(TL Kvavet)S TO TOV 8' eirurrpo(pov TS>V irplv aSokos ttvai ir€VK(bs a>s Kal TOIIS oSdvTas VT0>v iiriSuKvvuv, eis TOO-OVTOV ^8ij may be suggested, though such a position irtpiio-rrjKtv Kaxo/my^avias KOX iviSpas OK KOX TO. of words is rare even in Homer (A 186 TOV X&krj Kpuirreiv T&V i£ e7rtj3ot;X^s wpotrytkuJVTiov. "EiKTopi (JLVOOV eviorrcs). Yet in Bum,. 487 (asPlaut. Copt. 484 nemo ridet. scivi extemplo it stands) TOV *IS a/travr' cya) Orjcro) xpovov is rem de con/ecto geri. ne cqnem quidem tls TOV airavra %povov. inritatam voluit quisquam imitarier, saltern, si non adriderent, dentis ut restringerent. 702 'I\i' 8* K^SOS 6 6- 9 Schol. Plat. Fep. 337 A p. 926 ufa-ore O5J/ TO f 'Op-qpiKov, oOev Kal rj Tra.poip.ia., icrcos ippvt), /i^vis r/kcurev ' fnei8rjV xil^^>v y^wro Kal p.t\pi TOV mean ' drove to Troy'; while if 'IXto> is o-eo~i]p£va,i yiyvo/ievov o~rnM.ivu (cf. Thes. s.v. translated rightly ' for Troy,' r/kacrev must o-aipai). But, continues Aeschylus, OVK IO-TI mean, as always, 'drove away.' Besides, kaOiiv 6 jxjxaTa, their eyes bewray them. the K^SOS was not driven, or even brought, to Troy to take vengeance for the KTJSOS: 790 'At that time,' say the Chorus, what was brought there was the Grecian ' when you were marshalling an expedition army ; and it was then the Trojans found for the sake of Helen, I will freely confess that 'IXio> alirtiva. Ilapis ov ydfiov dkkd TIV' that you appeared in our sight ill-advised in arav &.ydyer evvouav elv. with opOibvv/JLov exactly as Soph. Ant. 1178 This is Dr. Verrall's interpretation (' a TOVTTOS k6ya, Horn, T 567 ot p' Curiously enough it so happened that this €TU/*o Kpaivovo-iv. Theb. 870 aktjOrj . . . was singled out by two of his critics for iireKpavtv. rejection on the face of it; which shows The same error was corrected by Reiske how hard it is for an unfamiliar view to Eur. Herael. 788, reading Stqvwev ekevOepw- win its way. Yet it need not have been o-ou. for Sirjkao-tv. altogether unfamiliar, for two critics had already given its correct meaning to Kop.itu>v 779 Weil reads and referred 6dpo-os iKovcnov to Helen. M. •n-oXXot 8e fiporSiv TO SoK£tv cvvoi Weil suggested 'Fortasse TI)S 0>/Xeias vel Trporiovm tale quid excidit, ut hoc dicat poeta: in place of eivoi. The very phrase is used feminae audaciam volwntariam (sponte enim by Lucian iii. 274 where he is reminding Helene adulterum secuta erat), i.e. feminam Samippus, who had wished to be a king, perfidam, virorum morte recuperare conans,' what the drawbacks of the position would illustrating KO/U£06vos irapa passages and adding Eur. Hupp. 275, made Tmv O-W6VT<0V Kal pMros K OpifLjxa Kal aKkrjpbv 6paxroCXV OV Sl^OppOTTOJS fKXTtjV avatScia.' This is perfectly correct; but ' having regarded me even in this raiment the example is a vocative : would such a laughed to scorn by foes and friends alike phrase be used in the third person 1 Yes, without distinction.' The form of phrase, where the meaning is sufficiently defined, which from its unfamiliarity has occasioned there is not the least objection : IX.fyx.ca (voca- a good deal of doubt and alteration, may be tive Horn. B 235, E 787) O 260 TO8 ' iX.iyXea illustrated by the proverbial sayings ippirw iravra. \c\enrrai. fivciSosTele s (Stob. Fl. 40. 8) 4>ikos TOIS 8r]fAOo-tois 12),^ crtfaaWuv o~vv i^6pdis Kal epei and d7rdA.oiTo Kal <£i'A.os crvv )(p 8' 'EAAaSos 8v(Tpu£iv (Macar. vii. 95). Bergk's reading in Pind. OVK cSwica/to'. Aesch. Theb. 526 TO yap viii. 74 TTOXX.OLS o~odi's (for cro6s) So/cei ire&" TTOXCCOS oV«8os...2<£iyya. Ar. Ach. 855 a^tpovmv f3iov Kopvaa-efiev op6of3ovkourt. fia\avaK Auo-wrrpaTos...XoXapyco)j/ ovetSos. Lycurg. p. would be just such another phrase, ' is 148. 25 TOVTOV.. .Tqv would have been ' our hated master,' cf. Seifiara Orjpwv, 6r/pS>va natural error, and to transpose fiera and S(iKtj, Qrjpeiov Sa/cos. (iltros (voc. Philoct. 991, fxdrrjv a ready expedient for making a J/ec/. 1312) Ag. 1411, ^ra%. 760 ayert TO /XIO-OS, construction ; but the MS., which throws Eur. _/r. 530. 4 KwrpiSos 8c /U'OTJ/A', 'Apicas the stress on i)(6pu>v, has a very obvious ATaXavn;, Hipp. 409, Eum. 73. Forms in meaning, ' laughed at now in Argos as before -/ia are commonly so used, as airaLoXtj/xa Gho. at Troy.' That. meaning would have been 1000, TOV ai/iu\i\iav /ACT', ixOptov oi Aj. 389, iravo-oov Kponqfia Aaeprov yovos y»". Sixpppoirtns viro. 827, noXuKpanjs 8e..., Aoyuv TI TranraKtifw. Kal KaKr) yXSxro-a Aeschrio (Ath. 335d). 1432 Kal ryvS' OLKOV€K bpKiwv ijxuiv difj.iv Finally, besides S> Opdcros in Andr. 261, we cannot be correct, for HKOVUS would mean have KpaTOOTa /A«V yap (ywrj) oi\ 6/XIA.IJTOV ' you hear, ' you have heard now'; it is tfpao-os (CCTTI) : so there need be no hesitation after the law has been recited that the about the use of the contemptuous neuter orator says aKovws . TOV vofiov, and the same here. The name has been already named, is the case invariably with aKovus or K\V«S. and a Greek audience would not experience Greek would be Kal TtjvS' aKovaov (Casaubon) the least difficulty in understanding what as Gho. 498, or axove y' (Herwerden), or as I was meant. Nothing can have been more suggest aKouo-17 y' or aKovara y (AKOYCIP), familiar to them than this view of Helen as as Eum. 306, Soph. Aj. 1141. a ground of discontentment both at home and in the camp. It was bad enough that J444 arifta 8' OVK p men's blood should be shed for a woman's 6 fikv yap ouros" y Se TOI . . . sake at all (Ag. 62, 455, cf. Supp. 486), KeiTat, iXrjru>p TOVO", ifiol 8' ejnjyayev especially when that woman was another's eivfjs irapoxj/rnvrj/xa T^ ^ ^^ wife (Ag. 455, Achilles in Horn. A 154, I The more I look at this, the less I like it. 327, 339); but for a woman who went off In the first place I never saw in genuine with her lover of her own accord (add Eur. Greek such an inexplicable collocation of Andr. 592 sqq.), this was indeed a thing U 2 genitives as ew>}s TJ}S C/X^S X^^S- ^ * allow intolerable. it, for the sake of argument, to pass; what can we suppose it means ? As a matter of 1 So I understand it; but this explanation does fact, almost every critic supposes something not appear to have occurred to editors. different. Paley gives some of the various 2 See the Asiatic view of this very matter as re- presented by Herodotus i. 4 ; when women were venge, Srj\a yap Sif OTI, OUT«(1 ^SQV\OVTO, OUK av carried off, it was folly to make exertions for re. 118 THE CLASSICAL KEVIEW.
interpretations that have been advanced, to lutely parallel. What the /tuuxos is in re- which those of Enger and Schneidewin may lation to the wife and husband, that, she be added, while Wecklein's Appendix will says, was Cassandra in relation to Aga- show numerous conjectures. The view which memnon and herself ; this woman was ewjs I think the most necessary to combat is that Trapotl/mvijfia rijs e/wjs, to the bed that be- which makes Clytemnestra say ' Cassandra longed by right to me. The phrase is not by her death has added to the enjoyment of the accusative and object to iirqyayev, but my bed.' How has she done it? Eevenge the nominative and subject of it—or better, may have added to Clytemnestra's enjoy- perhaps, it is in apposition to the previous ment of life generally; but how to the nominative 17 Se rot. And it follows that particular enjoyment she is supposed to the object must be xAxSiJv: name 1 I confess I am unable to perceive. If it were so, we should get a reasonable ari/xa 8' OVK iirpa£drriv construction by reading \\<&q 'triumph,' 6 /lev yap our 7T a Aristophanes (Ath. 368 c) ira.cra.is yvvatgiv41, Soph. A3. 1189. i£ evos ye TOV rpmrov axrirtp irapoi/»ls fioi^os The schol. has rr/v CK Trepiouo-ias rpix^v, eoTcevaoytevos. That, as he observes, ' ap- which Blomfield took to be an explanation prime hue facit'; ' nempe irapotj/is erat of Trapoij/tovrjfia merely. It must have in- cluded x^"^s> f°r °f tna'; word Tpvrj is ferculum delicatum, quod praeter solitos 2 cibos apponebant: gallice, entremets' But the grammarians' regular equivalent (see yet he missed the meaning, for he reads 2 e When I was studying scholia first, and reading with Musgrave \Xi^y. ^°> *^ phrase is those on Sophocles, I came upon rpvQav «al ivaffptv not only in the same direction, but abso- eo-flai (without a lemma) on 0. T. 1070, and turned at once to see whether the text was x\(eiv or xAiSac a! f v 1 This is the nearest equivalent of «S v *i±oiI found rairriv 8' eaT« v\ouerlip x P ' yivn- It is 1437, as in other places, e.g. Ag. 283, Cho. 770.—In against all probability that x^peiv should have been 1654 where she implores him to refrain from blood- the lemma; but of XAI6IN those are the proper shed, the appeal is by her love for him, & tpikrar' explanations: e.g. Pind. 0. x. 99 x*'*""''* s« fio\ri: avSpav; but that is a different thing from talking of schol. p. 256 curl •TOV Tpv.hni and a.vaiTTp€'j>op.ivr]. at the same time illustrate the sense of The form might also be v«piTpa<£«T£>vra, Cho. 137 ev. . . irovoun )(\iovovfia>os. Opvirrti: P.V. 1003 xAtSav eoucas TOIS irapovo-i 1573 To save space I will give at once 7rpdy/xa(Ti: schol. Tpvav, avUuOai. Soph. what I believe to have been the history of Track. 281 wrep^XiovTcs: schol. {nrepevrpv- our text : rjeXovcrrj. in such a case to look with hope, now reads (after Karsten) Ooivrp vapo\fra>vri(w. ri/o-8* evvrjs The Dext step was irav dirdxpiy 'poiy' : but xAxSij'v. But in his edition of 1861 he had been since irav airoxprj cannot be constructed upon the track that I have followed : ' Vul- together, wav was taken bo be a predicate; gata per breviloquentiam a graeco sermone and that necessitated a connecting particle non abhorrentem, bis cogitato 7rapovrj^.a,in the following clause: and so we get fortasse sic expediri potest, ut Agamemno KTedvwv re /xcpos /Saiov i\ov(rrj Trav, airo-xprj dicatur quam sibi adduxerit e£wjs Trapoxfriovrjfia,fi.oi 8'. . . The rhythm alone is enough to Cl ddi^ &' show that cannot be genuine; but to y p^^/ xJ confirm my view that this was supposed to It is unnecessary to dwell upon the objec- be the construction, cod. f has actually tion to the sentence this would make; but that punctuation, a comma after irav. I there alone is the suggestion to be found had long looked with suspicion upon airoxpr], that by eivfjs irapoercu, irptv synonym for explanatory pnrposes : Moeris TO iraXatbv a^os, veos *XaP' p. 262 OVK air-qpKei avrl TOU OVK oTre^pij, 'Apurroa.vris HoXviSa). But poetry uses veipei rpetperai may be, I think, a corruption apicai and compounds, verbs and adjectives, of a compound veipirpocj>eZrai, like TOV eirdpniov, Anon. (Suid. tendency of a copyist; thus we get in MSS. HaXa/^Sijs) eiij /wot /?, u> Urn-aice, a e y might wish to suggest £2™ x ^P ' ' lot her go'; but ov 8ia raird &e i/feyco on el/A i\6\j/oyos, orei no one ever saw that word so glossed; and xAieiv is the most appropriate word in this connexion: e.g. e/ioiye eijapKtl os . . . Pherecrat. 145. 17. Zra.fr. 986 irXorfry •x*'s«<»'«> P-V- 918 TWT SIO- dXX' ovv efioiye \ovToi rjv airo)(pu>v avqp. iv (4vTpv(p«'/>' W. HEADLAM.