PA 4413 T7M32 \ *v. PA 44->?> BOUGHT WITH THE INCOMB FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henrg W, Sage X891 Aix^M fs i^/y /^^^.. STTJDIA SCENIC A. PAKT I. SECTION I.— INTRODUCTORY STUDY ON THE TEXT OP THE GREEK DRAMAS. THE TEXT OF SOPHOCLES' TRACHINIAE, 1-300. BY DAVID S. MABOOLIOUTH, FELLOW OF NEW OOLLEOE, OXFORD. MACMILLAN AND CO. 1883. The original of tliis bool< is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924026677025 Cornell University Library PA 4413.T7M32 Studia scenlca. ^7ffl 3 1924 026 677 025 STUDIA SOENICA. STUDIA SCENICA PART I. SECTION I.— INTRODUCTORY STUDY ON THE TEXT OF THE GREEK DRAMAS. THE TEXT OF SOPHOCLES' TRACHINIAE, 1-300. BY DAVID S/ MAEGOLIOUTH, . FELLOW OF NEW COLLBOE, OXFOBD. MACMILLAN AND CO. 1883. A II rights reserved. A- \-2.7fc'f^ ADVERTISEMENT. The writer of the following pages is contemplating a New Edition of the Poetae Scenici Graeci, a field thrown open by the lamented death of W. Dindoef in the present year. He hopes to show that there is room for a new Eecension of Sophocles, even after the epoch-making labours of Nauck and Blaydes; and that the same is the case with Aeschylus will not be doubted by those who have seen the results of three hundred years' study summarized in Kikchhoff's indispensable edition. The present Monograph wiU serve as a specimen of the method which the Editor intends to employ, and will enable Scholars to judge whether he possesses any of the qualifications neces- sary for his task. New College, October, 1883. STUDIA SCENICA. PAET I.— STUDIES ON AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES. Section I. — Introductory Study on the Text of the Trachiniae, 1-300. § I. — Passages Corrected. 1. Xoyoy fxev ear apxcttoi avOpciiroov (paveis. Either a vCpwxft)!/ or ]. For vaioua(a) Fernstedt suggested valovTos : which is more elegant than Apitz's vmovaiv, if indeed that would be possible Greek, ev is harsh after ev Sop-oicriv Olveooi. Probably we should write vaiovaa tt/jo? JlXevpHovi. Trpos c. dat. is used by Sophocles very nearly as an equiva- lent of ev. 0. C. 1047, "Trpos UvOiats 5? Xafnrdanv uKrah. Ant. 825, SiTT^Xo) TTjOo? aKpca. Aj. 95, e/3a\^ay eyj^os ev irpo's 'A.pyelo}v arpaTui. Fr. 371, ravTa '7r6Kko\ ttjOO? p-eari T paxivltav ayopa a-vve^r)Kovov. Upos {i.e., Trarpo?) of the previous line caused the omission. * A very similar mistake occurs in Aesch. Ag. 1377. efwi S ayoiv oS' ovk d(j>p6vTLcrToi irdXai vtKijs jraXatas ^XOe, avv XP°^V 7^ f"?''- We should read 6//iot 6' dyiiiv oS' OVK d^povTKTTO'i TraXai At/crys iraXaUiv -qXdi, uvv \p6v(f ye ix.rj\'. STUDIA SCBNICA. 9 27. Xexoy yap 'H/oaKXet KpiTov tTva-Taa-' aei tiv eK ipo^ov 4>6^ov Tpew. avcTTaar', as Dr. Nauck remarks, is obviously wrong. Xvyelcra, whicli he writes, seems to me harsh. "We should read, I think, Xexoy yap HpasXe? Kpirov a-jreva-aar' ael tiv sk (po^ov v, ri TTOVTiai avXwvas, rj Siaaaicriv cnrelpoig KXiden- Mr. Blaydes has corrected Trou^a Kupv^ai tov 'AXfc/wJi/a?. The same scholar has pointed out that r/ irovTias avkwva? k.tX. is ungrammatical, as it should be irorepov, el, or ehe. We should, I think, read 5? irovTias avXwvos k.t.X.: the genitive being governed by 'iroOi, and corresponding to the prepositional phrase, tj Sia-traicnv airelpoK KXiOeti, or in the two continents. TTovTia avXdv — ' the sea ' is clear (compare avXwv MatcoTi/cos), whereas the plural is not. 106. ovttot' evva^etv aSaKpvTWV l3Xe(pap(0v iroOov. Eather irovov. ttoOop seems a reminiscence of irodov/jLeva supra. 115. TToXXa yap coctt aKap-avTO^ ri VOTOV rj tiopea T/? Kvp-UT ev evpei tto'itm pavT eiTLOVTa t iooi, ovToo 8e TOV JLaSfioyevrj Tpe/a"toi/. The construction is (wcnrep) ireXayoi l^pi^aiov ^cotov, TroXiiiro- vov wa-jrep tu iroXXa KvfxoTa k.t.X., i.e., containing troubles many as are the waves, etc. Hence only one verb is necessary sc. TpepOl(TlV aVTOV KUL viv Oil OaXiTOi Oeov, ovS ofn^poi ovSe KViuoLTOov ovSev KXovei. avTov is meaningless. Eead ev TOioicrSe ^oaiceTai ywpoia-L ^lOTOV. TOioia-Se sc. iv oh aireipovia-Ti (142). The ' paths ' and ' walks ' of life are familiar phrases in the literatures of many nations. The corruption of v into /8 is not unparalleled in our MS. In 0. T. 227, we read Kei fiev (po^eiTai TOxnr'iKKriix VTre^ekwv avTO^ KaQ' avTOv, — TreiVerat yap aXKo p.ev acrrepyes ovSev, yijs S' aireicriv aa-oiieva (T, but awkward, as 131, /JLevei yap ovt aloXa vv^ k.t.X, fol- lows naturally on 129, dkX' cttI ■jrfj/j.a Kal x^-P^- k-t.A t For the staleness of the consolation cf. Job v. 7, Van Waenen on Abu Taleb i. 105 (Oxford 1806), Theocritus' rax' avpiov eo-jai afj.eivov c. interprr., and especially Schopenhauer, Die Welt u. s. w. book iv. 12 STUDIA SCENICA. However, (po^eirai is wrong also; for (1) a future is wanted; (2) Oedipus' first alternative must be suppose the man obeys the proclamation; very well (aposiopesis) ; for no harm shall be done him, etc. But suppose he does not, etc. Eead therefore Ket fxev (paveiTai, Toi/irlicXiifi eire^iwv avTOS Kud' avTOv. 150. ijroi vpoi avSpos ^ TeKvwv ^o^ovfj.evt]. Trpbs, ' from,' can scarcely be right. Qy. Trpo ravSpoi. 159. afiot irpoddev ovk erXt] Trore, TToXXovs dywvas i^im outtw ippaaai. ■jr. a. i^iwv is condemned by Mr. Blaydes, who however only ofiers tentative corrections. Eead TToXX' els aywvag e^iwv, * The best instances which I have met of virt^aipeTv in the active are (1) the well-known oXfiov &v inre^tXiov in the Hippo!., where it means 'having taken away, destroyed.' (2) Ehetor. ad Alexandrum, 1432, 6 11, TrpOKaTdXrj^j/is kcm. St' rjs to. re tZv aKovovraiv cTrtTi/iij/iara Koi tous Ttoi' avTiXiyuv inXXovrtav Xoyov^ TpoKara- Xa/j,j3a.vovT£S v7r€^aipiqiT0jj,cv Tcis iiTK^^pofikva.'s 8va-)(epdaiXov rnn^tXav TreLpwjj^voi tov B-qy/iaros, i.e., 'trying to remove him out of the lion's reach.' we^eAwv ToviriKXrjfw. could therefore only mean 'having removed (cancelled) the accusation ' : and this is the meaning of the inverted phrase amas iire^iXeLv in Aphthonius ap. Walz. I., p. 84, if genuine. The writer is arguing against tyrants. 'Other men, though they commit the worst crimes, can r^v yviL/xrjv i^iX&rdai rrjs 7rpd^e(os. Only the tyrant cannot say he did not intend. For had he entered on his enterprise against his will, we might absolve him of the intention, vvv Sk ttov SiKaiov air Las virt^eXeTv tov wpb tSv ipyuiv r-g yvdfiri yevo/xevov'. So the excellent New College MS. written by TricUnius has it; but it seems to me that the correction iTre^eA^eiv is certain. In any case the meaning of todVi/cAjj/*' ime^eXuv will be the reverse of what is wanted, though I will not deny that had the Athenian audience had an hour to think over the ' passage,' they might have excogitated the interpretation given it by G-. "Wolff. Having cited a Greek Ehetor, I will take the opportunity of correcting Cic. ad Att. I., 14 (Watson, ed. 2, p. 41), where in a list of rhetorical ornaments Kapwol occurs. This should, I think, be emended koivoI tottoi. STUDIA SCENIC A. 13 ■KoWa is extremely common in Sophocles for ' often.' Philoct. 1458. Trach. 1192, oTS' wj dur^p ye ttoWo. Si] crraOeh avoo, 789. Cf. EUendt. 164. XP'^^OV TrpoTOL^as ws Tplixrp/ov riv'iKa XW/oaj (XTrelri Kaviavcrios jSe/Swy, tot' rj Qaveiv XP^i); a"0e rwSe too XP^^V ri TOvO' inreKSpauovTa tov xpovov tsAo? TO XoiTTov >]8}] ^^v aXvTnjTw /3ta). In 165 Dr. Nauck (with Wakefield) writes Tp'innvos: doubt- less with justice. In 1 6 6 for tot read oV. OT rj Qaveiv X/"^"/ ""^^ Tu>8e rtp xpoi'w ' since, he said, at that time he must either die,' etc. oTe= exeJ is common in Greek writers, especially in Sophocles, v. EUendt. In 167 )j TOii0' inreKSpa/JLOVTa tov xpovov TeXos, TOV xpovov is plainly intolerable after Tw^e tu> xP^^V of 166, and is a slip of the pen on the part of the scribe, who wrote the word twice. Tovff inreKSpa/xovTa TeXo? = escaping this consummation — to reXo? being QavaTO?, i.e., Qavorrov TeXo?. In all such cases restoration is dif&cult, but the use of the pious phrase a-w QeS> or crvv Oeocs in speaking of happy contingencies (Oed. Tyr, 146, ^ yap eiJTvxeh crvv tu> Oew (pavovfieO' ^ -rreTTTcoKOTes, Aj. 779 ; Xenophon, Anab. 3. 1. 23, 5. 8. 19, 48, 6. 5. 23, 6. 6. 32, 7. 2. 34; Eur. SuppL 360, Herm.) makes it probable that Sophocles wrote )j TOvO' vireKSpaixovTa aw Oeoig TeXo? k.t.X. 173. Kai TutvSe vafiepTeia crvft-^aivei xpovov TOV vvv irapovTO^ ft)? TeKeaQrivai xpeuiv. The mea,niiig of this clause should be : ' and this is the moment at which we are to ascertain how this oracle is to be fulfilled ' : we should therefore write Kai TUivSe vafiepTeia crvfi^alvei xpovov TOV vvv irapovTOS, ttw? TeXeaBrivai XP^^v.* * Cf. Person ad Or. 742. 14 STUDIA SCENIGA. 179. eTrei KaTacTTe^rj are'ixovO' opw riv avSpa irpos x^-P^v Xoytcv. TTjooy x^jO"" ^oV'*" ^°^^ ^°*' •'■ t'™^' ^^^^ of explanation ; irpos xa/"" seems feeble ; I believe we sHould restore Trpo? XP^'"'' ^oywv, comparing 0. T. 1174, m irpo's t'l xpela^. Similarly 0. T. 724, wv yap av deos ■)(pelav epevva paSm avTos (pavei should be rendered ' with what object the god is searching' ; and m Antig. 30, oioovoii y\vKvv Orjo-avpov eiaopuxji irpos X^P'" ^opai, where ela-opuxn or irpos X"/"'" must be wrong, we should probably write olwvoii yXvKvv 6r]jj.a iroXvipafiiwv oAa- Bil'S evpelais eiv avpais. Of the second line the metre should be — ^- ^- : so that we have simply to restore aAa I dels ^vpiaicriv avpais. The antistrophe is curiously corrupt, but not difficult to correct — oiot oloi Xv/iafTL's V irpo yas vXdcrKoi' Tipiyajxirra /ipvd^ws, OS epcoTttS* o jxiyai NtiAos vfipi^ovTo. a-' dirorpe\f/eiev dioTOV v^piv. This should be restored — 0101 0(01 Xifias, 61 (TV Kopas JleXaayo)!' TreptTre/iTTTa yStafeis" (Of. Ag. 87) ov eo-O) -yas o /xeya^ NctAos ippi^ovr' dirOTpixp- uev dvoia-TOv v/3piv. STUDIA SCENICA. 15 Trapaa-TOif is an oxymoron ; and this figure is only used on very rare occasions, and for some special effect. We should almost certainly restore kvkXoi yap avrov MjjXieyy (XTras Xew? Kplvei Trepia-TOLs. Compare Thucyd. 4. where irepiorTavTai is used of the persons who stood round and heard Demosthenes haranguing. Cf. Steph. Thes. 204. ^(nvricraT w yvvaxKes al t et'crco crriyrjs (XL T eKToy avX^j, wy aek'TrTov ofj-fi e^oi ^^fitjS avac^xov TrjaSe vvv KapirovfxeOa. These lines are harsh and wordy in the extreme. Eead o)? aeK-KTOv 0/J./J.' e/xol (pt^/xr/g avaa-)(ov rijcrSe, viv KapTrdofjieOa. The enjoyment was to be represented by the clamour. 205. avoXoXv^aro) So/ulois ee(TTiois aXaXayaii b fieXXovvfi^os' ev 6e Koivos apaevwv tTft) KXayya tov ev(papeTpav 'A'TToXXcoi/a irpodTaTav. In hymns of this kind it is usual for the youths (^Oeoi) to sing to Apollo ; while the maidens praise Diana. Dianam tenerae dicite virgines, intonsum pueri dicite ApoUinem. (Compare the carmen saeculare throughout.) This then will be the case in the present ode. Vv. 205-209 are an exhortation to the youths; 210-215 to the maidens. There is therefore nothing to alter in the first line, avoXoXv^arw Sofion 6 /uLeXXovv/jLCpog* ' In each house let the youth shout aloud ' : o fji.eXX6vvfi(f)os := 6 §Oeos (v. Euhnken, Timaeus ad v.) the 'unmarried'; compare yueXXoVoo-i?, fr. inc. 910.t The word * SofioLs cannot be altered to fio/xos, as the synaphea requires a long syllable ; and o cannot be altered to d (Erfurdt approved by Nauck), as choric iambics should be pure, especially in a monode. t /ieXXoTToo-iv TOV av&pa oJvo/iao-f Pollux. Did Pollux' memory deceive him ? May not this be an allusion to the place with which we are dealing 1 16 STUDIA SCENICA. need not imply even betrothal ; but even if it does, no one will argue from the clumsy mythological makeshift, Eur. Phoen. 945, that the betrothed were no longer called ^deoi. ecpecTTiois aXoKayati. This is gibberish, as the variations in the MSS. (aXaXayaty, a\a\ai9, aXXoKaym) partly acknowledge. Happily, however, the sort of phrase required is easily seen ; this line should contain the object of the thanksgiving (Iph. A. 1468, v/ui.ei9 S' eTrev(pr]nria-aTe iraxava t^/j.^ avfiipopa: Orest. 1335, ew' a^loitn rap' avevcpij/j-ei SofjLOi). Read therefore Itt' ataloi^ (TvvdWayuii. crvvaWayai is synonymous with a-uficpopal, Cf. 0. C. 410. The history of the corruption is, I think, as follows, sir' icrloig was written for e-jr' ala-loK : ecpea-rioK was then an improvement.* These double layers of corruption are not always easy to detect, but in the nature of things they are only too conunon.t One part of a line is reduced to meaning- lessness; and then the scribe deals with the rest according to his own sweet will. A better illustration of this could scarcely be found than Aesch. Ag. 413 — irapecTTi aly arifiog aXX' aXoiSopoi dSicTTOi acTop.ai. Corruption of ovk into ovSe is only too commOn in the tragic tradition:* I presume, because the correctors thought that no one could deny them the right tov veavievecrQai in such trivial matters. In 1. 217, for l^ov p! avarapaaa-ei, which is unmetrical, read iSov p! avoo Tapd(Tvcnv Tiv' eixe 4>pd^^, Ttva 8' aKprjV rj/Bri? c'x*"'' is acknowledged by all sound criticism to be corrupt; the only mean- ing the lines could have is ' tell me what he looked like then, and 18 STUDIA SCENICA. In the last line, for vTroa-Tpicpwv afuWav, we have to read irpoa-tpepoDv dfjLiXXav. The verbs crrpecpetv, rpecpeiv, and (pepeiv are perpetually confused; and Dr. Nauck has restored the right word in many places. Cf. 0. T. 93, and Hermann's per- verse note on Trach. 107. Avery similar error is that which gives so much trouble in Aesch. Ag. 100; TOTe S' e/c dvcriwv ayava ^aivovcr' ekirh afxvvei (ppovTiS' cnrXtjiTTOU Trjv 6vfiopeva \welv. I will now give the above lines of the Trachiniae together in their restored state: aeipe fi , ovk (nruxTOfiai Tov avKov nr6Xuiv ^vyov, ovpeiov t aKp-ijra Tavpov, ' he rears him a yoke of servants in the horse and the bull.' * The phrase ij ^■''VM '''^^ XP°^°^ ay^pwv ttoici occurs twice in Philostratus. I can remember no other instance in which the adj. and subst. are combined. STUDIA SCENICA. 21 Similarly in 0. C. 6 8 we have the strange phrase Lv o paKxiwTa^ aei Aiovvaros £iu./3aTevei 6eiat9 a/J.nroXwv TtO^vacs. Who are Dionysus' nurses? And why does he wait on them, instead of they on hinr? The corruption is almost amusing ; 'lv 6 j3aKxt(ii- Tas aei Aiovvcrog efjL^aTsvei [Set at?] a/ji.(pi'!r6ku)v 'AOijvas* In 0. T. 702 we read, 'pray tell me what you are so angry about ' : * If any one objects that this is impossible because an Attic poet would have said Kkuval or Xnrapal 'Ad^jvai, but not Beiai 'Adr^vai, like dda 2aAa/iis, the remark is, I beheve, just and scholarly. Only 'A^iji'as is not to blame, but Oeiais which, under all circumstances, must be corrupt. The question between 'A^ijvas and ndi^vais is one of taste and sense;, in the case of ddaii we have the still more for- midable factor metre. For the atitistrophe ouSe Mov- crav X°P°^ ''"' a'recrr'uyTjcrai' ouS' has a syllable too much or too little ; too little if Odai^ is to be kept; and this missing syllable it will be hard to supply by patchwork. But the metre is not likely to be ^--^-^ — -^-^ — -— — -^ but .^^.^ — ^^ which is obtained for the strophe by leaving out deiai's. In the antistrophe no one keeps aiJ; all change it to a, retaining oifSc. But the poets like to say oxJSe — ov. So Antig. 249, «Ke? yap owe tod ycvgSos ^/v irkriyfii,' ov St/ce'AAjjs kKJ^oXr). 0. C. 973, Ant. 952. And of ov here I beheve av to be the cor- ruption, and ov^k the interpolation ; so that the antistrophe should be read ovSk M.OV- arav XopoL viv o.-Ki.mvyr\(ro.v ov xf)i;(rcil'tos 'At7roA.(3v 'A^ijvas. Petals I presume comes from del and 6a A Aei. 22 STUDIA SCENICA. 01. 'epS>' (re yap tmvS' ey 7r\eov yvvai cre^W* KpeovTOi;, oTa /xoi ^elSovXevKws e'xei. 10. Xe'y' el tra^ajj to veiKOi eyKoKSiv epet?. This last line cannot be construed. From Philoct. 327, ev y' S TeKvov we learn to restore eu y for Xe'y, But the words TO vetKos eyKaXwv are also imintelligible; read to veho? eKKoKovv, that which caused the quarrel. The whole line running — 10. ev y el o-a^ajj to veiKog eKKoXovv epeis. In Philoct. 43 we read — aXX' ri Vi opPtJ9 vocTTOV e^eXijXvOev rj (pvXXoV e'l Tl VloSvVOV KUTOlSt TTOV. The corrections /xaa-Tuv, etc., fail partly on grounds of syntax, and partly because the language of the tragedians is averse to unusual words. I propose (with some diffidence) dXX' rj Vt op^i}i /J-eoTTOV e^eXTjXvOev rj ^vXXov e? Tl vcoSvvov KUTOiSe irov. That is some herb fiUed with nourishment or relieving pain. The previous line is an illustration of the habits of the copyist : •TTW'i yap av voawv avrjp KwXov TraXajot Krjpt irpoa^aLr] fiaKpav, irpoa-^alri is absolutely inappropriate ; the poet \vrote KaoT ov\ sKcii ttov' ttw? yap av voawv avtjp KwXov TraXaia Krjp). /cat ^attj fxaKpav ; the Kal seems to me almost necessary ; just as in English we should say, 'how could a man with a diseased foot go far.' But two words beginning with k successively were too much for the first copyist, and the corrector finding a syllable * All the editions seem to me to mistake this line. Jocasta asks the chorus to tell her the reason of the quarrel. They refuse. She then asks Oedipus, and he says ' I will.' The editions take the rest of the line to mean ' for I honour you more than t]iem '; but what sense has this 1 Surely it must be ' for I honour you more than they do.' STUDIA SCENIC A. 23 wanting, like a school-boy writing verses, attached a pre- position to the verb.* * There are scholars still who follow this method of correction. On 0. T. 875, aTroro/iov ^povcrev £ts dvayKav, an English editor of Sophocles remarks that S. probably used a compound of opovw, and so he writes pevas vcf}' ■qSovrjs •yiJi/aiKos ovveK l/c/^aAjys, the same scholar accepts the Triclinian emendation ras (ppivas y' v(ji tjSovijs, 'not because he is sure that it is right, but because it is more probable than anything else.' (May we write rots 4'pkva's Kad' rjSovrjir, i.e., 'at a moment's notice,' as we say?) And so Brunck : ' Triclinius ras c^pei-as y. Rede ; nam sine hoc fulcro versus stare non potest.' Triclinius did something for Sophocles, and so did Brunck : the former more than the latter on Oed. Tyr. 494-509, by omitting in the antistrophe the senseless words yap eir air^, which come out of the Laurentian Scholia; whereas Brunck on 494 gives the grotesque correction Tph's otov xprja-dp.evo's Brj Pao-dvo). Neither of them saw the important point, the punctuation of the passage, which should be as follows : Trcro/tat S' eXiricnv, oiir' kvddS 0/0(01/ o-uV OTTio-o) — tI yap -^ AafiSaKlSais tj tcS IIoXv/3ov vcikos e/ceir' ovre irdpoidiv ttot' tyioy' oiSre ravvv jto) ep-aOov — Trpos otoi; 817 jSacrdvov (codd. male Patrdvw) km, rdv iTriSafj-ov ^ariv etp,' OlSiiroSa, i.e., seeing neither here nor in the future — as I know of no quarrel between the two houses —any evidence on which to attack the world-wide fame of Oedipus (i.e., the renowned Oedipus) to avenge an obscure murder. Seyffert's correction of Antig. 648, x'"^' v^ov^^, is an illustration of a method against which the writer of these pages will often have occasion to protest. The Tragedians did not use obscure words. Seyffert, whose works on Latin composition are of high merit, was not great as a corrector of Sophocles. Witness Antig. 1080^ e^dpal 5e TtSxrai a-vvrapdarcrovTai TrdAeis ocrcov (TTrapdyfiaT' rj Kvves Kadrjyviirav 7] 6rjpiipiliV avocriov ocr/iTji/ icnLovxov is ttoXiv. Seyffert wrote oa-iav ra -n-pdyp-aTi}). Of course the error is in 24 STUDIA SCENIC A. And here I should venture one general remark about the work in which this study is a humble attempt. In reading the Attic Tragedians we may be sure that anything which is difficult or awkward is corrupt.^'' This is what Blaydes has repeatedly asserted; and his resolute adherence to this canon is what constitutes to my mind the chief merit of his edition. The Attic audience had no time to tliink out double or treble constructions, or to pick out agreements and governments. The plays were intended for the stage, not for the schools; and some dramatists, as we learn from Athenaeus, if unsuccessful, never published their pieces at all. From Plato's Symposium, we know that a tragic crown was thought a tremendous distinc- tion; and from Aristophanes' Knights, that the Athenians, as was just, judged each piece entirely on its own merits, not KadriyvKTav, which should be corrected Kcvrqyyiaav, i.e., brought near. Of. Rutherford on Babrius, fab. 1. The editor alluded to above, though his text as a rule adheres with the most relentless tenacity to the Mss., can sometimes correct Sophocles where he does not require correction : e.g., in fr. 779. 12, where he alters airoSjj/ioCvTos into wnoX-qpovvTo^. Sophocles (?) means 'that you should not be thought the son of a country cousin ' ; and the editor being also an editor of Plato (' doctissimus Theaeteti editor,' Vahlen ad Aristot. Poet.) will remember half-a- dozen passages in the ' Laws ' where Greek ideas about residents in town and country are illustrated. Similarly 0. T. 329 is marked by this editor as corrupt ; strange to say it is not so, but is to be taken €y(u 8' ov jx-qn-OTt Ta/J.' (lus av ciTrto fuj to. era) Jkc^^vo) KaKa, as I once leamt from Dr. Ridding, and have since found confirmed by Demosth. de F. L. § 104 = 115, o-i yap av e^ap/ceo-ete tois aTToAwAocrt ^vfx,fid\ois Sia TrjV ajBeXrepiav tijv £/i^v, iva firj tijv tovtov Aeyo), TOLavra TreirovOevai. The meaning is then, ' you do not know, and a man must be a fool to reveal his own crimes.' The inverted firj is frequent in Sophocles, and is one of his mannerisms. Philoct. 67. 332. 653. 961 (Ellendt very rightiy interstitio loquendi post oXoiofacto MiNiME pronuntiandum), 0. C. 1522. (The mannerisms of Sophocles are worth collecting ; essays on his language are apt to be collections of corrupt and misunderstood passages, wronging the poet, and throwing science back.) * The canon applies indeed to all writers save those puiposely, or by nature; obscure. Cf. Bachmann, Praef Lycoph. i. p. 7. STUDIA SCENIOA. 25 taking into consideration former achievements on the part of the author. If, therefore, a poet aimed at success, his first effort must have been directed towards making himself intel- ligible.'"" We see, therefore, that he had the ivill to write good and easy Greek. Nor can we doubt that he had tlie jsower.t Why then should he have rejected his ' vernacular idiom'? And how could he count on his audience understanding him, how- ever acute the theatre may have been known to be? For the awkwardnesses of which we complain are not natural awk- * Cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1122. + I know that high authorities have asserted that Sophocles and Thucydides knew no grammar, and have on that principle accounted for the peculiarities of those writers' styles. The more I examine this proposition, the more hopelessly unable I am to make any meaning out of it; if it is a paradox, I do not see the point; if it is meant seriously, it seems to me to contradict every known fact of language and languages. The fragment of Plato on Hyperbolus, o 8' ou yap rjTTiKi^ev, & MoiTcrat iXai, d\X' oTTOTe fji,iv XP^^V ^'■y^'^lt-i'iv Xkyeiv i(f>a(TK' eSiaiTWjUTjv" ottotc 8' eiTretv Seoi oKiyov, 6 8' oXiov cAeyev, coming from one who by profession was an opponent of the a-la-rtiode education, shows that an Athenian had as clear an idea of speaking good Attic as an Englishman has of speaking good English, or an Aethiopian of speaking good Aethiopic. (Cf. the first sermon in Dillmann's Chrestomathy, where the preacher asks the congregation to pardon any mistake he may make in the language. The Aethio- pians prior or posterior to Christianism were not, so far as I know, a specially cultivated race; the mythical ApoUonius found them charlatans, and Philostratus has usually some inaccurate knowledge about the places whither he sends his Messiah.) The fact that there were no grammars does not prove that there was no grammar; for though PatanjaU (Mahabhashya, Prooemm«i = Sarvadar9anasangraha, System of Pdnini) denies the possibility of teaching a language word by word ; — illustrating the proposition by the story that the Teacher of the gods taught Indra Sanskrit on this method for a thousand ' divine ' years, and at the end Indra turned out a poor scholar; — it is nevertheless certain that we all learn our mother-tongues in this way; we find out the analogies for ourselves, and get the exceptions by practice. 26 STUDIA SCENICA. wardnesses '^''' — such as anacolutha, where the speaker has got into a net which he must cut to extricate himself — but harsh- nesses and diffimlties to be got over by grammatical sophistry, or verbose sentimentality, as e.g., ovveK eCTTt (TOl PpoTBiov ovSev fiavTiKrj(s exov TexvrjV. I should not hesitate to say that it were an insult to Sophocles to take that line as a specimen of his writings. ' Explaining corrupt passages ' may be added to the collection of the Scho- liast on Aristophanes on the phrase \lQov 'h\reK. 256. (ucr0' opKOV avTui Trpocr^aXoov Siwfiocrev ^ fj.riv Tov ayxiaTrjpa TOvSe tov iravov^ avv iraiSl Kcil yvvaiKi SouXwcreiv en- ayyiar'^jpa is corrupt: no such word exists, or could, as Dr. Nauck points out. Dr. Nauck himself corrects avT6)(eipa, but if I may differ from that Scholar, I should remark that Eurytus could scarcely be called the avro-xeip of Heracles' slavery; he was only the first cause. I think we should read § fjLrjv TOV ap\eTrjpa TOvSe tov iradovs- ap-^eT^p is to a.p-)(i >]s as u(f)tjyrjT^p to vipriyrjTri^, and as iKerrip to iKeTfig. The course of the corruption was as foUows: ap-yerripa was written apy(a.LTripa, and then the fatal p did its work. In Antig. 593 we have the following ungrammatical and unmetrical passage — ap'xaia to. Aa/3SaKiSav o'ikwv opwfiai Trr'ifjLaTa 9iTm' (Herm. difievwv) e-jrl -Trijfxacn ttltttovO'. This should be corrected, apxoi'c Ta A.a/3SaKiSav (tkottuiv oplJofiai •KYifxaTa ^OavTWv ewi Tnjfiaai ttItttovO'. The verb v TeKvwv XeiTTOiTO Trpo? To^ov Kpia-iv. (pwvel Se SovXoi avSpo? w? eXevOepov paioiTO. 28 STUDIA SCENIC A. Dr. Nauck will here again, I trust, pardon me if I differ slightly from him in the treatment of this passage. "We should read (pwvrjv Se SovXof avSpos ojg eXevuepov a'lpovro, i.e., that he made himself out a free man, when he was really a slave, paloiro is a word which could not easily occur in tragedy.* The corruption is not very serious. For the use of aipofxai, compare 0. T. 1225. 289. avTov S EKelvov evT av ayva Ovfiara P^itl T'aTpwu) Zijvi Trji aXwaewi (ppovei viv coy jj^ovra. The last line is ungrammatical : read (j)p6vei vvv S>S ^^ovra. Cf. Ellendt^, s. v. vvv. 295. ttoXXj/ Vt' avdyKrj rySe tovto a-vvrpexeiv. * How many impossible words may have been foisted into Sophocles (as into Aeschyhis) by the copyists we cannot easily ascertain. I entertain, e.g., the strongest doubts as to the existence of the word SvcraXyTjTos = dvdXyrjTO's. The fact that Suidas cites 0. T. 12 with Sv(TavdX.yijTos, and under the article dvdX.yrjTos, does not go for much, though for something. The other instances in which this word occurs are (1) in the glorious series of epithets in Philo de Sacrif. p. 268 M., wrongly cited by Dind. in the Thes. as meaning dvaia-OrjTos : as from the nature of its neighbours we learn that it must signify 'badly suffering.' (2) Cited in Pollux from Eupolis as a synonym of Sixroto-ros, SiKravacrxeTos : which I do not beheve, unless dXyeiv meant (f>€peLv, Tracrxetv [Meineke's treatment of this fragment is to me wholly unintelhgible. See on Fr. Inc. 32.] (3) In a fragment of Sophocles (689. 2), oo-Tts yap Iv KaKotcnv lfj.dpu fSiov rj SeiXos epevas. My difiBculty in this passage is that the alternatives are not exhausted, indeed tfutt the Sixj-aXyijTos = dvdXyrjToi alternative scarcely makes sense. Surely it is illogical to say, ' he who when in trouble desires to live must either be a coward, or does not feel the trouble.' If he does not feel it he is not in trouble ; dXyil yap oiJSev T(ov KaKiov ■g(Tdy]jxkvo Zev Tpoirate ixrfTroT eicriSoifJu ere TT/oo? TOV/J.OV ovTw cnrepfia xoopricravTd -Trot. ■)(wpri(TavTa iroi is meaningless : read TT/oo? Tovfiov OVTW o-TTep/uLa x^pi? evrpovri?. ivrpoTT)] = wpa is used by Sophocles 0. C. 299, and cf. supra, eTrei tIs aiSe Ziji/a reKVOiS a^ovXov etSev. meant ; and that the word mind which remains bears witness to the fact, though I leave it to some one else to suggest the Greek for ' not right in.' Still the fact that Svo-aAyijTos occurs nowhere else would be no argument against its existence. My doubts are drawn from the form; — not from the use of the terni. - rjros activeli/, as I know that these forms may be used optionally : e.g., in the first 200 lines of the Trach. only Ifinda/ic^ivetK^ = d/x<^ivet'/ojTos, dvavSptaro's = avavSpos, dSaKpyTOi = aSaKpvs, evfivacTTOs = evfivapuDv, avafji.Tr\dKr]Tos active, dvdX,- ■yr^Ta, dXviriqTos = akviroi. But I know of no word signifying evil which when compounded with Si's is negatived by that particle ; the idea is merely strengthened : so, e.g., SvirSaKpirr' SSvp/xaTa Trach., does not mean lamentations hard to weep over, etc., but lamentations accompanied by painful tears. Compare iva-dpriv-qro^, etc. The same is the case in Sanskrit : e.g., looking down the columns 615 sq. in Grassmann's Worterbuch zum i?gveda I find that dug-cyavand = schwer zu erschuttem, dur-nidrsa = ijnveryesslich, dur- gdham, schwer zu du/rchdringender Ort, dar-vdrtu, schwer abzuwehren; but that dur-mdda means losen Eausch habend, trunhen, toll, von tollem Wahn bethort; dur-may&, bose Kiinste anwendend. In Zend, from the list given by Justi Eandbuch, p. 159 sq., the idea of evil would never seem to be absent from this particle : duzlmpa is rendered schwer zu erlangen ; duzhita, schwer zuganglich ; in the rest dush, duzh is invariably schlimm, iibel, schlecht. If the restoration of these poets is ever completed, the lexica will have to be re-written : e.g., c/cxariois will disappear and be found under eK7rdyXoi.s ; this being one of the thousand instances in which T in our MSS. represents y. 30 STUDIA SCENICA. The wrong division of words is a frequent cause of corrup- tion in MSS. One curious instance occurs in Ag. 360, where we read the apparently hopeless words — TTc^ai/rai S' eyyoVow, aTo\iu.7jTwv" A.p^, irveovTm fuel^ov Ij Sikcums. We have merely to alter one y to p and write Tretpavrai S' epyov overa ToXfJi-ij twv" Kprj irveovTuiv k.t.X- 309. amvSpo? ri reKOva-a ; Trpo? p-ev yap (pva-iv iravTOiv aireipos TwvSe, yevvaia Se Tty. ■wavTwv, as Dr. Nauck points out, is corrupt : read irovwv airetpoi ToovSe. 312. e^eiTT' eirel viv rwvSe ifKeia-TOV uncriua jSXeTTOUcr' ocranrep koi. (ppoveiv olSev p-ovri- No sense is to be got out of 1. 313: read ^Xewova-', ocrovTrep koi tppoi/ecv, ovSer p,6vij. The line, however, cannot have been spoken by Deanira. .320. eiV & ToXaiv' aXX' ^piv eK craxrriji, eirec KM ^up t£J eiowy y en too e^enrov teAo?. It is no exaggeration to say that every one of these lines presents inextricable dif&ctdties to the interpreter. The com- mentators try their hardest without any success; and the present writer has spent days in trying to get any meaning into them or out of them. And yet this ought not to be; for, supposing that obscurity can be tolerated in a choric ode, or a speech, where the singer's or speaker's thought is coloured and inter- preted by the nature of the environment, it cannot be tolerated in monostichs, which must either interpret themselves, or for ever hold their peace. But still, such is the simplicity of the poet that, in spite of the corruptions which, as I hope to show, disfigure every line, enough traces are left to enable us to recover what I believe to be the very words of the original. The wrong words and the right may be placed side by side; but they do not intermingle. First, then, we observe that in 1. 931 eiVe is plainly a mis- writing for eiKe: Kai fjLt]v ToS' elKe firj Trapa yvoo/ntjv e/moi ' Yet do not yield me this against your judgment.' Then the meaning of 932 becomes plain; 'be assured that I shall not let my judgment be perverted;' i.e., 'you wUl never persuade me that it is right to do this.' In the third line Be'ia-ai has no meaning; a man does not vow to the gods to do a certaiu thing on condition of Ms getting into a fright; but on condition of his escaping a danger, winning a battle, etc. Sela-a's, it seems to me, may be an interpretation of the line, in which case it is tolerable; but in the line it cannot have occurred. I write therefore — riv^U) Oeois a-coOeh av mS' e'pSeiv raSe ; This teaches me the meaning of reXo? in the remaining line; c 34 STUM A SCENIC A. it is reAo? (romipm. The corruption of eIks into etVe sup7-a helps us to restore iko/mi^v for e^eiTrov; i.e., Ikov was written for iKOfxtiv, and i^iKov was a corrector's patchwork; so Aesch. Ag. 1495, fljj'yet is written for BnyeTai, ib. 158, Xe'^at for eXey^erai. Agamemnon means that, as he was certain of success from the beginning,* any such vows would have been superfluous. ecirep Tig eiSwg y ev toS' iKOfirjv reXoy. And now the reader shall have the four lines together as he had the four of the corrupt tradition : KA. Kui firiv ToS' euce fxi] irapci yvu>fJi.>]v e/nol. AT. yvcJofiijv /j-ev 'icrOi fir] SiacjtQepodvT e/ie. KA. r]u^o) 6eocs (T(io9e}g av wS' epSeiv -raSe; A.V. e'nrep ti? eiScos y ev toS iKOfjLrjv TeKog. 1 will not assert that these lines are exactly as Aeschylus left them; I will assert that they are clear, pointed, and worthy of the writer; and that an editor by inserting them ia his text would be doing better than by practising the doubtful virtue of ' adherence to the Mss.' I will add one more instance from the Agamemnon. Cas- sandra's magnificent harangue contains the following passage, 1. 1266 sqq., which metrical considerations have long shown to be corrupt, though critics have differed as to the method of correction — ere p.ev irpo p.oipag riy? e/U^y SLa(j>Qepu>. 'lt e? (pdopov irecrovT ayaOco S' a/ji.eiy}ro/xat. aXXj;;' Tiv aTrjv avr e/nov TrXoi/r/^ere. The second line should long ago have been palaeographically interpreted as follows — W ey v TOiovraiv irepl (Tvi/aAAa^euiv : tliere must always be some object implied which a-Tepyuiv cTTepyei. (Paley goes strangely wrong over Enm. 911 — a-rkpyia yap dvSpos ^iTVTTOi/ievos SiKrjv tu t5v SiKaiuv twcS' airivQ-qTOV yivos — even in his fourth edition; Twi/Se is obj. gen., i.e., 'I like to see tlie generation of the righteous untroubled by such weeds as these.' How else does the comparison between Athena and the avTfp irv!ro'ip.-qv come in at all ?) Nauck's note on this passage seems to me a model of sound criticism (as indeed his whole edition is). 'If ot a-Tep^avTi? are 01 ^8r; 7ra6!o'i'T£s they must be so as being reconciled to their misfortunes; and is this a possible ground for making a iKcreta 1 If, on the other hand, they are ol xPyC"^"^^"^ ^^Y does Sophocles make use of so unintelligible an expression.?' (Nauck's note in substance.) I had once thought the question to be ' is this a iKereia or a 7rpoo-o6osf (of the kind alluded to in Plato's Laws as the proper occupation for boys). But I have no real doubt of the 36 STUDIA. SCENICA. which could scarcely have been restored had not Nauck, with his ordinary tact, laid his finger on the seat of the corruption. In the next line the same all-important particle is put in where (as I shall try to show in a foot-note)* it has no place in Attic Greek. solution suggested above of a passage which has occupied me longer than any other, and which first taught me to walk by the Ught of Nauck. Having cited the ' Laws ' once or twice in this note I may call attention to the state of the text of that magnificent work, which in both the Zurich editions is simply unreadable. One or two instances : p. 866 = p. 291 ed.^, iav S 6 Trpoa-qKtav kyyvrara fir) eTre^iy T(j) iradrjfjLaTi, to jUtao-|U,a (is £ts uvtov irepLeXrjX.vOo^ tov TrafldvTos 'Trpoo-Tpeirofj.ivov rrjv Trddrjv, 6 jSovXafievo^ e^re^eXObiv Tovr(f Siktjv TrivTe ert] aTroT/]ixrjv TrpoTpeTreTat, suggests that something wholly difierent stood there— which, having no metre and no 'law of simplicity ' to guide me, I do not venture to restore. On the other hand, I am not likely to be the first person who has seen that in p. 853 = 274", k-n-tiSrj Si ov, Kaddirep ol TraXttiot vop-oOeTai diiav Traia-l vo/J.odeTOV[iev, ot Tots ■qpwcri, k.t.X. should be written for vopo- OeTovp^voi. Whether the extraordinary harshness of style which characterises this otherwise brilliant piece is Plato's fault or that of his copyists I cannot determine. * The only thing that might make me still think that p,fi ov in the sense of ' unless ' might be an Attic idiom, is the fact that Lucian, who so envied the Atticists he pretended to despise, simply revels in it (Hermot. § 49, Catapl. § 15, Tyrannic. § 15, etc). As however he uses the combination sometimes where in Attic it certainly would not have been allowed, I am not sure that his evidence is worth much. In Attic, unless I am mistaken, it only occurs in the following places : 1. The three well-known passages of Sophocles, all corrupt or misunderstood ; 2. One place of Isocrates (10 §74); as however there are five other passages (5 § 34, 8 § 11, 15 § 233, § 255, § 276) to be found in his small corpus in which the simple pfj is used in precisely similar circumstances instead, that place may very well be corrupt. 3. In Demosthenes it occurs once, de r. L. ^ 135, against countless (e.g., Lept. § 122) instances of STUDIA SCENICA. 37 In 0. T. 656 we have the absurd and tautologous phrase. — Tov evayij ? ju-e x^P'? mtim, where the poet perhaps left yvw^n's S' aXrjOovs (j-. fj.. x- «•; and so on without end. Where then are we to find the remedy ? Oberdick, in a recent number of Fleckeisen's Jahrbiicher, reproached Kirchhoff ' for having published the Scholia on Aeschylus without a fresh collation of the Medicean MS.; strangely : Cyrop. 2. 2. 20, alcrxpov ov avriXeyeiv firj ovxh ib. 8. 4. 5, rj(TXuv(.TO fji-rj ov t^aivifrdai, but ib. 3. 2. 16, aiepeappd(r ^^^ i* ^^1 ^^ allowed that that is the smallest part of the above correction. 5. On Eum. 783 iv yf raSe, (f)ev, luv luv avTiirevdrj fxedetcra KapStai (TTdXayiiMV \Oovl acfjopov, Ik 8e Tov k.t.X. the Scholiast's brilliant observation, ' participle for verb finite,' does not encourage us to expect much from the remark on a-raXay/jLov Trjv Kara /ipax^ 9opdv. Heimsoth's ' satisfactory ' treatment need not be discussed. It is plain that the otiose x^o""' is wrong, and must represent a verb finite in the future; and this can be only x«Oi"'", I shall pour. Read o-raAay/xov x^oixai aopov, Ik Se rod k.t.X. These, I presume, are the best corrections from the scholiasts which Ober- dick can adduce. I am not very familiar with Heimsoth's works; such portions as I have read, and still more, the fact that Nauck rarely cites him, make me doubt whether his ' Wiederherstellung ' was not imaginary. A last illustration of the worthlessness of these scholia may be taken from Dindorf's note on Persae 49 (2nd Oxford edition, p. 17), (TTevTai (pro o-Teui/rat), veram esse lectionein brevi sed egregio cod. med. scholio docemur. kXW dXaXa TroXkp.ov Ovyarep ^ dv€rai dvBpiS. OVTUD'; (TT€VTa.i eviKuv ai'Ti TOV TrXrjOvvTiKov. However, Dindorf then proceeds to show that the quotation is wholly inappropriate, and the singular to be explained on a difierent principle. Dindorf s life was mostly spent in the study of scholiasts, lexicographers, etc.; if this is his specimen of an egregium scholium, what must the ordinary ones be 1 Compare Dindorfs Lex. Aeschyl. p. 412. * Cf Moritz Schmidt, praef smaller edition, ed. 2. Hesychius has the gloss dXe^aiOpLov Oep/iuv crK€-!ra(Tjia,Ho(j:iOKXfii'Ap,^-^ •6 ^ -7^ i