Upon Aeschylus—I
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 o<s avreorr) Oeols be easier to omit before OC than 0?, that EVER since I began to study the phenomena is 0e6<s, which gives good rhythm and sense, of texts, I have felt sure that iraa-iv is an for 0eos os avriarrj 0eoTs is a peculiarly interpolation; for on the slightest warrant Greek manner of expression, as <£A.os <t>C\.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) 0t6<s, 92, 120. that take place is to study various readings ; The doubt will occur whether Typhon or the way to understand their reasons is to Typhoeus is properly described as 0eos. study scholia. This is the kind of thing Hesiod, who ought to know, had no such you find: Eur. Phoen. 685 <£i'A.a Aa/ian/p doubt : Theog. 824 Kpartpov Oeov, 871 his sons Oed] schol. irao-iv. Med. 1185 = 1196 irkyv are IK 6eo<j>w ytveq. Hesych. gives Tv<ptoevs : T(3 TiKovn Kapra SvarfiaOrjS iSeiv] schol. keiTru Bio's TIS yiyyev^s, and Aeschylus himself TO irao-i: and thus in Soph. O.T. 118 a late supposed so too: Theb. 497 £wourerov Se MS. gives 6vrj<TKov(Ti yap iraWes irXr/v ets TISJTOAC/XIOU. S eir' do-7Ti'8o)V Oeovs, 6 /xev yap But it was only the other day I discovered that TTvpirvoov Tv<j>utv e\ei, ... in the schol. on Blomfield p. 31 quotes from Porson a cloud which, TOUS 0eovs oik iv rais do-jria-i <f>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<t> 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(rar<ov h" orrov yvotrj oraTov £is v8u>p 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). irapf3a<riav WKVTTOIVOV aluiva o" « TpCrov fnivu This is very simple ; though it has occurred Gho. 595-6 ( = 586-7) to me that OTTOV yvoiiy was—it certainly iravroA./toys epomis wrawi o~vvv6fi.ovi ftporiov. might be—an interpolation, and iraxri 6iim insertions to correspond, in which case we 596 Schol. dXk' OIK ifiol... is rightly re- should have ferred by Kueck to wTri/oSdrav in 597 ' sleep- \tV<T(TWV 8e OTOTOV €tS vS(I>p 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 <y'> ifiovs aiOkovs Lucian i. 746 Hennot. 7 avepxerai Sxnrep i <jxwl TOV 'HpoxXca ev rfj OITJ; KaraicavOevTa y is habitually omitted, and after the letter Oebv yevecrOar Kal yap CKEIVOS aTrofiaktov C is particularly easy to omit. So in Eur. mrotrov avOpioireiov ci^e irapa TI}S /iijTpos Kai Hipp. 413 oTav yap ato-^pa TOICTIV io-OXoio-iv KaOapov re Kal OKrjpaTov (peptov TO Otiov dvor- SoKrj, r) Kapra Sotjei TOIS KaKots y etvai KaXa raTO es TOVS Ocovs 8uvKpwr)6ev m TOV TTUDOS. I find what I expected, ' jcaKois y AB, i. 402-405. omissum y in ceteris.' But where y« has 561 As at present advised, it appears to been used in the first clause, perhaps it is me that metre requires the following ar- less readily used in »the second : Soph. rangement : Ant. 66 tpep' OTTUK x^PK "• X"*PK> " </>'A.os, ehre, wov ei yap Si] T<£ y eyyevrj <pvo~ei Tis OXKOL}; a.KO<Tfia Opaf/a, Kapra rous eftu y£vovs TI'S i<f>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,<pl Xovrpa. xal \E^OSXerxes, who VEOS iu>v v«i ^povei 784, 746. o~bv vfxevaiovv 276-80 ...^y«s<Mp£o-0ai...; Arr.CAOC loraTi yaixunr ore Tav ofunrdTpiov OVSEV yap rjpKei ro£a... All the editions I ayayes 'Howav w « TT 10 o) v Sd/xapra KOWO- have seen put a full stop at 280, making it X.tKTpov. a statement. If it had been so, we should Exact correspondence would be given here have had <pep6/ieva: the infinitive shows it by ISvoi; ayayes 'Hciovav Sd/jLapra KoivoXeKTpov: is a question. This does not appear to have but that degree of exactness is not required been recognised. Thus the critics have been with a dactylic phrase; and it appears more troubled with Ar. Plut. 705 likely that cSvois (as Lachmann thought) is an explanatory interpolation, for the schol. TY. Aeyeis aypoiKOV apa o-v y tirai TOV 6eov; is •Ktfflwv Sa/xapra : ISvots Treffltov rrjv taofi.€vqv KA.