Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:22:32.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ARISTOPHANES, ACHARNIANS 833

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2014

Michael D. Reeve
Michael D. Reeve*
Affiliation:
Pembroke College, Cambridge
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

in memory of Eric Handley

Dicaeopolis brushes the informer aside and closes his deal with the starving Megarian:

      ΔΙ. … λαβὲ ταυτὶ τὰ σκόροδα καὶ τοὺς ἅλας
      καὶ χαῖρε πόλλ’. ΜΕ. ἀλλ’ ἁμὶν οὐκ ἐπιχώριον.
      ΔΙ. πολυπραγμοσύνη νῦν ἐς κεϕαλὴν τράποιτ’ ἐμοί.   833
Even before Douglas Olson's thorough study of the tradition in his commentary on Acharnians (Oxford, 2002) it was clear that the oldest manuscript, R, has as much weight as the agreement of the others that editors report. In 833 it reads πολυπραγμοσύνη, the others –σύνης. A scholion runs λείπει (δὲ) τὸ ἕνεκα, (ἵνα ᾖ) ἕνεκα τῆς πολυπραγμοσύνης (‘because of is not expressed, [to make it] because of the meddling’), plainly written for a text that had –σύνης, which is also the lemma in one manuscript; the lemma in the other that has one is –σύνῃσιν. It has not been shown, however, either that this scholion is ancient or that its agreement with all the manuscripts but R overrides the testimony of R. As regards attestation, therefore, the tradition offers two readings of equal weight, or three if –σύνῃσιν is taken to be a relic of a text different from the one that prompted the scholion.

Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 2 , December 2014 , pp. 835 - 837
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

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 Wilson, N.G., Scholia in Aristophanem Ib (Groningen, 1975), 108Google Scholar. He correctly reports -σύνῃσιν, but it loses its iota subscript both in Olson's edition and in his own Oxford text (2007).

2 I am cutting a long story short. I also ignore the other variants in 832–3.

3 Willems, A., ‘Notes sur les Acharniens d'Aristophane’, BAB (1903), 617–51, at 639–40Google Scholar.

4 Enclitic νυν was printed by Brunck, R.F.P., Aristophanis comoediae ex optimis exemplaribus emendatae III (Strasbourg, 1783)Google Scholar, with the note ‘Male vulgo νῦν. Hic particula illa valet οὖν’. Editors ascribe it to Elmsley (Oxford, 1809), who cites Brunck elsewhere and was doubtless following him in this detail.

5 Page, D., ‘Some emendations in Aristophanes' Acharnians’, WS 69 (1956), 116–27Google Scholar, at 123–4.

6 Dover, K., ‘Notes on Aristophanes' Acharnians’, Maia 15 (1963), 6–25Google Scholar, at 19.

7 Wilson, N., Aristophanea: Studies on the Text of Aristophanes (Oxford, 2007), 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. His apparatus does not make it clear that Page gave πολυχαρμοσύνη νῦν to the Megarian. In a review of Aristophanea and the Oxford text, Tammaro, V., Eikasmos 21 (2010), 547Google Scholar, declares πολυχαρμοσύνη improbable but gives no reason.

8 Lapini, W., ‘L'addio del Megarese (Aristofane, Acarnesi 833)’, in Bastianini, G., Lapini, W., and Tulli, M. (edd.), Harmonia: scritti di filologia in onore di Angelo Casanova (Florence, 2012), 1.425–33Google Scholar. He provides a full bibliography, much of it not cited here.

9 I owe the latter observation to a referee. At Ach. 523, ‘local’ means ‘confined to Athens’, unlike the events that follow. On the other hand, Page's sentence might not have seemed unidiomatic to Plato, who at Phaedo 57a writes τῶν πολιτῶν [Φλειασίων] οὐδεὶς πάνυ τι ἐπιχωριάζει τὰ νῦν ᾽Αθήναζε.

10 Nigel Wilson kindly tells me that to the best of his knowledge the proposal is new.

11 Fraenkel, E., Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (Rome, 1962), 15–16Google Scholar.