Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T17:00:21.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeschylus, Eumenides 174–8

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

N. Georgantzoglou
N. Georgantzoglou
Affiliation:
University of Athens
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The difficulty in this antistrophe is found mainly in its last line and is caused by ⋯κε⋯νου which, as it stands, does not make sense and is also unmetrical (⌣––, instead of the required –⌣–, cf. the last line [172] of the strophe). It is noticeable on the other hand that the basic meaning of the antistrophe is not really affected by omitting †⋯κε⋯νου†, and it looks as though the scholia did not pay any attention to it in commenting (on ἕτερον ⋯ν κάρᾳ) as follows: .

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , May 1996 , pp. 288 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a judgement in Hades of sins committed in life cf. Suppl. 228–31,414–16; Pi. 0.2. 56ff.; Ar. Ra. 145ff.; PI. R. 33Od–331b, Phd. 113d ff., Grg. 523a ff.

2 It could have been a consequence of such considerations that we have conjectures like Wakefield, Hartung, Weil, Zakas ( Wecklein). Two other conjectures seem to intend someone related to the Erinyes (Hades?): Scholefield, Newman, whereas a different line of thought is (Sauppe, Wecklein). Many other conjectures are listed in Wecklein's edition (Berlin, 1885).

3 was certainly not written by Aeschylus. The only question is whether the corruption is due to the misreading of a similar word or words or to the intrusion of an explanatory gloss. Ether seems possible.

4 West, M.L., Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart, 1990), p. 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 If Aeschylus actually wrote , which is an intelligent conjecture, could have been a gloss on it. However, I should suggest that could well be elucidatory not of the missing word(s), as scholars seem to take for granted, but of the expression else of the word . Then , originally written in a margin, entered the text later as a correction for the word(s) now lost.