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 —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 ' 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 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 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.yavo

XO. Ipcas irarpolas riJa-Se yr}