Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T12:00:38.752Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Notes on the Agamemnon and Persae of Aeschylus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2009

James Diggle
Affiliation:
Queens' College, Cambridge

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1968

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

page 1 note 1 Dawe, R. D., Repertory of Conjectures on Aeschylus, Leiden 1965.Google Scholar

page 2 note 1 See C.Q. xxiv (1940), 60.Google Scholar

page 2 note 2 The conjecture and construction are defended at length by Ferrari, W., Annali della R. Scuola Norm. Sup. di Pisa, lettere, storia e filos., vii. 2 (1938), 363366.Google Scholar

page 2 note 4 For this form of paroemiac cf. Parker, L., C.Q.. xlii (1958), 84.Google Scholar

page 2 note 5 It is pleasing to discover from Wecklein that this verb had occurred also to Bamberger, who suggested φροντ⋯δ' ἄπληοτον/λ⋯της, φρ⋯να θυμοβορ⋯σαν, which however is unstylish and syntactically ambiguous. As Hermann saw, ‘requiritur genetivus ad ἄπληστον’.

page 2 note 6 But, as Professor D. L. Page has suggested to me, we ought to allow for the inversion of λ⋯πης φρ⋯να and admit into consideration θυμοβορο⋯σης φρ⋯nu;α λ⋯πης.

page 3 note 1 Lest it be objected that classical Greek furnishes no examples of true compounds from the noun κοῖτος/κο⋯τη (or even λ⋯χος and λ⋯κτρον), it should be noted that our only examples of a compound from the noun δ⋯μνιον are the two occurrences of the exactly analogous form δεμνιοτ⋯ρης in this very play.

page 3 note 2 The confusion of K with IC scarcely needs illustration, but I give three certain instances in the Oresteia: Cho. 897 ᾧ συ Robortello: ὠκ⋯ Μ, Eum. 177 εἶσιν οὗ Kirchhoff: ⋯κε⋯νου codd., 862 ἱδρ⋯σῃς Ἄρη Stephanus: ἱδρ⋯σῃ κ⋯ρα codd.

page 3 note 3 For further examples of this type see Jackson, John, Marginalia Scaenica, p. 106.Google Scholar

page 4 note 1 I have not had access to the dissertation by Kühn, W., De Vocum Sonorumque in Strophicis Aeschyli Canticis Acquabilitate (Halle, 1905), mentioned by Kranz, p. 298.Google Scholar

page 4 note 2 Murray prints ἔχουσιν … μ⋯νουσι, heedless of the warning of Kranz (p. 299), ‘um des Gleichklangs willen muss man Hept. 911 f. ἔχουσι und μ⋯νουσι entweder beide mit -ν schreiben oder keins von beiden’.

page 4 note 3 Cf. Broadhead, ad loc.

page 4 note 4 Editors generally print στεν⋯ζω, though Μ gives στεν⋯ξω at 788 (but not at 818). It should be clear that στεν⋯ξω, which gives a closer rhyme with ῥ⋯ξω, may well be right For similar variations in the manuscripts between -ζω and -ξω cf. Fraenkel on Ag. 785.

page 4 note 5 Fraenkel and Kranz give a few examples from Euripides. As Fraenkel notes (op. cit., p. 365 [ = p. 346] n. 2) the device is common in anapaests, the metre of Ag. 1541.

page 4 note 6 I accept Broadhead's κρηνα⋯ου γ⋯νους, but not his suggestion κ⋯πῳ for κενο⋯: ‘(distressed) by the exhaustion of breathlessness’ is scarcely a natural expression. The likelihood that a lacuna follows after 484 does not affect my conjecture.