In attempting to determine the text of Sophocles in the places presently to be discussed, it is notmy purpose to put forward a series of novelties which, though more or less plausible, are essentially incapableof proof. I seek rather to plead for the reception of certain ascertained but neglected variants, and to establish their claims by a survey of the relevant evidence. After a somewhat prolonged study of the data, I am convinced that the chief hope of progress— apart from (...) the discovery of fresh material—lies in a more methodical use of the ancient scholia and lexicographers. Although their value has long been acknowledged, they have been employed unintelligently or at haphazard, largely because the character of their information and its sources have been imperfectly understood. One of the chief aids which they afford is in passages where the genuine reading has been displaced by an explanatory gloss. This is a possibility which critics have always recognized, but, while ready enough to suggest that the word selected for expulsion is a gloss on some other, they frequently fail to demonstrate that it is used as a gloss at all. Leaving such guess–work aside, we shall still find various grades of probability. It should be a minimum requirement that the word removed from the text is, either itself or as one of a class, a well-attested gloss of the proposed substitute. Thus in El. 800, where LA with most other MSS. have καταξως but four of the recentiores κατ' ξιαν, I think that Bothe and Monk were right in preferring κατάξι' ν. (shrink)

O.T. 463 sq.BRUHN followed Zielinski in adopting είδε from F, and used the variant together with others as establishing the value of Fas an independent source. We have already seen reason for refusing to attach much importance to the authority of this MS. , but it should be observed that both readings are recognized by Σ, and the question between επε and είδε must be settled on its merits. Γ itself has πε written over the last syllable of είδε, and (...) Zenodotus read επ for εδ in Hom. O 207. Zielinski thinks that Eur. Andr. 998 τελουμένων δ Δελς εσεται πέτρα is an echo of this passage, but the inference is by no means certain. It may be that the original text of Trin points to the true solution, that πε fell out by haplography, and the isolated ε became εσε or δε. (shrink)

There is no established agreement concerning the meaning of πτυχας. The scholiasts give three alternatives: τας ποισεσιν πε διαιρεται ες στρος κα ντιστρΦους κα πδς. To the same effect, but more comprehensively, Boeckh interprets: artificiosi flexus numerorum harmoniae saltationis. Similarly Donaldson, Paley, Fennell, and Mezger apply the expression to the artistic turns of poetry; and Gildersleeve's sinuous songs is explained to mean the same thing. Myers translated sounding labyrinths of song, which Sandys modified to sounding bouts of song; but I (...) am not sure that I understand their metaphors. Embroidery of song is apparently a suggestion of the scholiast, since he remarks that πτυχας is suitably attached to δαιδαλωσμεν and ποικλλειν—σπερ π κατασκευσματος. But we look in vain for a justification of πτυχα so employed. Then comes the counsel of despair μνων πτυχας: τος μνοις κατ περΦρασιν, for which it is perhaps unnecessary to refer to Rutherford's Annotation, p. 250. I cannot think that anyone is really satisfied with such explanations, although there are no open notes of dissent. There must be some objection which I do not see to the rendering ‘glorious pages of minstrelsy,’ and yet πτυχ is well established in that connexion: Aesch. Suppl. 947 οδ' ν ββλων πτυχας κατεσΦραγισμνα where Schuetz rightly finds a reference to charta papyracea )( πνακες. Everyone remembers Gray's ‘Knowledge … her ample page rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll.’. (shrink)

There is no established agreement concerning the meaning of πτυχας. The scholiasts give three alternatives: τας ποισεσιν πε διαιρεται ες στρος κα ντιστρΦους κα πδς. To the same effect, but more comprehensively, Boeckh interprets: artificiosi flexus numerorum harmoniae saltationis. Similarly Donaldson, Paley, Fennell, and Mezger apply the expression to the artistic turns of poetry; and Gildersleeve's sinuous songs is explained to mean the same thing. Myers translated sounding labyrinths of song, which Sandys modified to sounding bouts of song; but I (...) am not sure that I understand their metaphors. Embroidery of song is apparently a suggestion of the scholiast, since he remarks that πτυχας is suitably attached to δαιδαλωσμεν and ποικλλειν—σπερ π κατασκευσματος. But we look in vain for a justification of πτυχα so employed. Then comes the counsel of despair μνων πτυχας: τος μνοις κατ περΦρασιν, for which it is perhaps unnecessary to refer to Rutherford's Annotation, p. 250. I cannot think that anyone is really satisfied with such explanations, although there are no open notes of dissent. There must be some objection which I do not see to the rendering ‘glorious pages of minstrelsy,’ and yet πτυχ is well established in that connexion: Aesch. Suppl. 947 οδ' ν ββλων πτυχας κατεσΦραγισμνα where Schuetz rightly finds a reference to charta papyracea )( πνακες. Everyone remembers Gray's ‘Knowledge … her ample page rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll.’. (shrink)

The object of this paper is twofold: in the first place, to expound afresh a passage of Greek tragedy which has been mauled by recent criticism; and, more particularly, by recognition of the light which it throws upon the development of the action, to vindicate the dramatic unity of the play.

The object of this paper is twofold: in the first place, to expound afresh a passage of Greek tragedy which has been mauled by recent criticism; and, more particularly, by recognition of the light which it throws upon the development of the action, to vindicate the dramatic unity of the play.

Since the time of Brunck there has been a more or less general acquiescence in his substitution of πνθμεθα for πνθομεθα, inasmuch as there is no obvious reason to be alleged in support of the optative. Campbell, it is true, found the optative more in accord with the feeling of the blind and weary Oedipus; but who will listen to this nowadays? Therefore it is the more surprising that Radermacher should retain the optative as expressing the eager wish to attain (...) the goal, basing himself on J. M. Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb, p. 482. For Stahl, who admits the existence of certain exceptional instances to be justified in this sense, expressly excludes from the category this passage as well as El. 57 and 760, and seeks to limit the scope of his pronouncement to the writings of Aristophanes, Xenophon and the Orators—a curious combination. (shrink)

Clytaemnestra describes her anxious presentiment of coming evil, but ό π ροστατν Χρθνος bears no obvious meaning. The schol.'s πιενόμεος —corrected to πιινπιγ by Papageorgios from Suidas—is meant to interpret the phrase as merely a periphrasis for the future. So the schol. on Pind. ol. X. 9 glosses πιγν πιγ with ιγενόμε&ngr;ος. Jebb practically agrees, but thinks that strictly ό πρ. Χρόνος is ‘the time which stands in front .’ Kaibel, rightly in my opinion, regards έμο as the necessary complement (...) of προστάτης, but understands the latter as Time personified leading the queen by the hand continuously forward. She does not know her goal, but fears it is death. None of these views is convincing; and if we would seize the metaphor which the words are intended to convey, we shall do better to follow the indication afforded by Aesch. Ag. 976 τιπτε μο τς μπςως |δείμαπ ροατατατηριον| καρδιας τερασκόπον ποτται where the speaker is labouring under the burden of apprehension, whose image hovers over his heart. The future casts its shadow beforehand as a danger to be encountered. So here Clytaemnestra cannot rest for the persistent image which ever obtrudes itself upon her mental vision . Meineke preferred προσ-στατν just as Blaydes conjectured προσ-στατ ριον in the Agamemnon. (shrink)

O.T. 463 sq.BRUHN followed Zielinski in adopting είδε from F, and used the variant together with others as establishing the value of Fas an independent source. We have already seen reason for refusing to attach much importance to the authority of this MS., but it should be observed that both readings are recognized by Σ, and the question between επε and είδε must be settled on its merits. Γ itself has πε written over the last syllable of είδε, and Zenodotus (...) read επ for εδ in Hom. O 207. Zielinski thinks that Eur. Andr. 998 τελουμένων δ Δελς εσεται πέτρα is an echo of this passage, but the inference is by no means certain. It may be that the original text of Trin points to the true solution, that πε fell out by haplography, and the isolated ε became εσε or δε. (shrink)

Since the time of Brunck there has been a more or less general acquiescence in his substitution of πνθμεθα for πνθομεθα, inasmuch as there is no obvious reason to be alleged in support of the optative. Campbell, it is true, found the optative more in accord with the feeling of the blind and weary Oedipus; but who will listen to this nowadays? Therefore it is the more surprising that Radermacher should retain the optative as expressing the eager wish to attain (...) the goal, basing himself on J. M. Stahl's Syntax of the Greek Verb, p. 482. For Stahl, who admits the existence of certain exceptional instances to be justified in this sense, expressly excludes from the category this passage as well as El. 57 and 760, and seeks to limit the scope of his pronouncement to the writings of Aristophanes, Xenophon and the Orators—a curious combination. (shrink)

Evripides Rhes. 161 sqq. Dolon, having undertaken to visit the Greek lines as a spy, addresses Hector:οủκûν πονεεîν μèν χρή, πο;νοûνταμιαθòν φéρεαθαι. παντì γàρ προακε;íμενονκéρρς πρòς.

As my suggestions have been unfavourably criticized in Professor Ridge-way's article on ‘Euripides in Macedon’ which appears in the current number of the Classical Quarterly, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of explanation and reply. Professor Ridgeway's article in its latter part is chiefly directed against the thesis I endeavoured to support in the Classical Review of 1921, pp. 52 sqq., to the effect that our Rhesus is probably not the genuine work of Euripides. Space does not permit (...) me to do more than refer to a few of Professor Ridgeway's strictures; but I would ask readers not to accept his statements of my views without reference to my original article. The context often makes all the difference. Thus, for example, when I am arguing that a strong case can be made against Euripides on the score of language, I am made to be dealing with the whole issue of authenticity. Indeed, if Professor Ridge-way's judges were to sum up at nisi prius on the lines suggested for them, they would soon become the by-words of their profession. (shrink)

As my suggestions have been unfavourably criticized in Professor Ridge-way's article on ‘Euripides in Macedon’ which appears in the current number of the Classical Quarterly, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of explanation and reply. Professor Ridgeway's article in its latter part is chiefly directed against the thesis I endeavoured to support in the Classical Review of 1921, pp. 52 sqq., to the effect that our Rhesus is probably not the genuine work of Euripides. Space does not permit (...) me to do more than refer to a few of Professor Ridgeway's strictures; but I would ask readers not to accept his statements of my views without reference to my original article. The context often makes all the difference. Thus, for example, when I am arguing that a strong case can be made against Euripides on the score of language, I am made to be dealing with the whole issue of authenticity. Indeed, if Professor Ridge-way's judges were to sum up at nisi prius on the lines suggested for them, they would soon become the by-words of their profession. (shrink)