MASTER NEGATIVE 
 
 NO. 93-81546- 
 
MICROFILMED 1993 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 
 ■Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project' 
 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT ^OR THE HUMANITIES 
 Reproductionsmaynotl^^madewithout^^^^^^^ 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The coDvriaht law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 slates Code -concerns the making of photocop.es or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 under certain conditions specified in thj ' J^' f^^^f^^^^^^ 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 ?ep?Son one of these specified conditions^^^ 
 Dhotocopy or other reproduction is not to be used for any 
 S?pSe other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research " If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
AUTHOR: 
 
 VERRALL, A.W 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 "ON EDITING 
 
 AESCHYLUS" 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 LONDON 
 
 DA TE: 
 
 1892 
 
Keslriclions on Use: 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BIDLIOnn APHIC MirROFORM TAKHFT 
 
 Master Negative // 
 
 J-'i.'.m-ik-k 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 88Ae7 
 0Z6 
 
 Verrall, Arthur WooUgar, 1861-1912. 
 
 On editing Aeschylus," a reply, by A.Y/. 
 Verrall««« London, Macmillan, 1892. 
 28 p. 22 cm. 
 
 587o:i 
 
 U 
 
 S5- 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 
 IMAGE P^AcWNfr^^^^^ 1,0 ^'^'^"^^^^^ KAT,0:._///_ 
 
 DATE FILMED:_______2_^^9 I INITIALS SS 
 
 HLMEDBY: RESEARCH PUnLICATIONq IMP wnnnnTy7pP;-^~j- 
 
c 
 
 Association for information and image Management 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 12 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 llllllllllllllllMlllllllllMllllllMMlmlllllllllllllMllIlN^ 
 
 I I I 
 
 Inches 
 
 TTT 
 
 T I I I I 
 
 T 
 
 T 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 8 9 10 11 12 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliinliiiiliiiiliiii 
 
 T 
 
 TTT 
 
 TTT 
 
 ■so 
 
 163 
 
 n I 
 
 KiUu. 
 
 2.8 
 
 3.6 
 
 4.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 13 14 
 
 Imhm 
 
 T 
 
 15 mm 
 
 MPNUFPCTURED TO flllM STFlNDfiRDS 
 BY RPPLIED IMRGE, INC. 
 
USl. 
 
 "ON EDITING AESCHYLUS." 
 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 BY 
 
 A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 
 
 FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 (I 
 
 Uoniion : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK. 
 
 1892 
 Price One Shilling net. 
 
64 
 
 ON EDITING AESCHYLUS." 
 
 A REPLY 
 
 BY 
 
 A. W. VERRALL, Litt.D. 
 » « » 
 
 FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 Hontron : 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK. 
 1892 
 
•.a 
 
 ■'4 
 
 <t 
 
 PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, 
 AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 
 
 ON EDITING AESCHYLUS." 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 w 
 
 'We parted last night in the middle of a controversy and are rageing to 
 resume it. Where is our redoubtable antagonist?" 
 
 Mrs Mountstuart wheeled Professor Crooklyn round to accompany Vernon. 
 
 **We," she said, "are for modem English scholarship opposed to the 
 champion of German." 
 
 " The contrary," observed Professor Crooklyn. 
 
 *'0h. We," she corrected the error serenely, "are for German scholarship, 
 opposed to English." 
 
 "Certain editions." 
 
 * 
 
 "We defend certain editions." 
 
 "* Defend' is a term of imperfect application to my position, ma'am." 
 
 "My dear professor, you have in Dr Middleton a match for you in 
 conscientious pugnacity, and you will not waste it upon me...." 
 
 Mrs Mountstuart fell back to Laetitia, saying "He pores over a little inexac- 
 titude in phrases and pecks at it like a domestic fowl." 
 
 George Meredith. The Egoist. 
 
 I 
 
 351110 
 
, Mr Walter Headlam has recently published*, under the 
 title *' On editing Aeschylus. A criticism," a solid pamphlet 
 of 159 pages against my writings and me. When the book 
 was announced, I did not expect that it would give me any 
 reason or excuse for departing from the rule, that a review 
 should be left, without remark, to the judgment of numbers 
 and time, and that the author criticised has nothing to do but 
 to correct his opinions where he sees reason, and, as occasion 
 offers, to correct his works. I am not, I hope, so fatuous or so 
 obstinate as to reject correction. Like all men of any candour, 
 I am aware that I make mistakes. I supposed that Mr Head- 
 lam would note some points on which I knew that I had gone 
 wrong, and would satisfy me that I was wrong in other places 
 which I had not suspected. Of course I also expected to find 
 many arguments which would not convince me. Of these last, 
 had such been the purport and character of the book, I should 
 have taken no notice, having never thought that public contro- 
 versy between a particular pair of students, who may be in no 
 way specially fitted to enlighten each other or to strike out 
 truth between them, has any advantage over peaceable separate 
 work. As to the points on which I was convinced, I might or 
 might not have thought it desirable to make acknowledgment 
 at once, but should probably have waited for convenient oppor- 
 tunities. 
 
 When the book came to my hands a fortnight ago, I saw at 
 a glance that the tone of it was such as is now seldom used 
 between students who merely disagree where difference is per- 
 missible. This however did not surprise or annoy me. From 
 what I had seen of Mr Headlam in another case, I did not 
 expect to find him in my own case a very ceremonious critic. 
 But when I read continuously, I found, to my astonishment, 
 that the book as a whole purported to be not a discussion of 
 
 1 London, David Nutt, 1891. 
 
 i) 
 
6 
 
 **OiV EDITING AESCHYLUS. 
 
 >» 
 
 points debateable, but an arraignment of me personally, not 
 merely for such ignorance in elementary parts of my subject as, 
 considering my position, might well be regarded as a moral 
 offence, but for such wilful persistence in ignorance as in a 
 professional writer would be nothing less than dishonest. This 
 was another thing altogether and opened at once the question 
 of answering. 
 
 I am not indeed afraid that these charges will be believed 
 against me by any one well acquainted either with me or with 
 my work, or by any competent person, who has the leisure and 
 patience to go fully into the matter. If it were possible to 
 create a court for such cases, Mr Headlam's statements would 
 be actionable; and I should commence an action immediately 
 and with confidence. I should be almost bound to do so ; for 
 whether Mr Headlam sees it or not (I think he does) his book 
 is libellous. The question is whether, this being so, I am not 
 now bound, for want of a court, to make some answer in print, 
 for the credit of my position, and in consideration of the fact 
 that among busy men mere assertion, even if not credible nor 
 consciously believed, is apt, if not contradicted, to leave a vague 
 impression. I have decided on the whole that I ought to 
 answer, not without misgiving, for the whole proceeding is 
 scandalous and unpleasant. But if there is ground for dis- 
 pleasure, let the blame be laid where it ought. 
 
 My critic, everywhere stern and severe, as becomes one 
 who is demanding justice upon a criminal, is nowhere more 
 peremptory or more confident than in his remarks upon my 
 treatment of the pronoun avTo^» In the course of my notes on 
 the two plays of Aeschylus, which I have published as part of a 
 complete edition of the poet, I have repeatedly made or implied 
 a statement, which is given most fully in the note to Theh, 
 656: 
 
 As has been observed before, the use of avroi^ unless for emphasis, is 
 very rare in Aeschylus. As unemphatic pronouns can be supplied from 
 the context, the insertion of them is a sacrifice of force to simplicity and 
 clearness, and alien to the weighty and sententious Aeschylean style. 
 With the light enclitic pronouns viv^ ot/)c etc., this is not felt, but avrotj if 
 needless, has an incongruous effect, and where it occim* an emphasis is to 
 be looked for. 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 Mr Headlam cites from my two commentaries fifteen notes 
 to this effect, and then continues thus (p. 57) : 
 
 Now all this is due either to unverified assumption or to deliberate 
 disregard of the evidence. The truth is stated by Dindorf {Lex. Aesch, 
 8. V. avTos p. 52) : avTos is, sed in casibus tantum obliquis, neque in initio 
 sententiae, sed post unum vel plura vocabula, et plerumque in diverbiis, 
 rarius in melicis,... 
 
 According to his list there are in Aeschylus certainly not more than 
 thirty-one instances of avTos emphatic in the oblique cases, and certainly 
 not less than 44 unemphatic. Reference to that list will save me from 
 disproving the assertion that * except with emphasis avros is exceedingly 
 rare in Aeschylus', as it might have saved Dr Verrall fix)m making that 
 assertion. Though indeed a lexicon would be of little use to the judgment 
 that could propound such interpretations. ^ 
 
 Let it now be carefully observed, that with the last sen- 
 tence, the remark on my judgment, I have no concern what- 
 ever, and will assume that it is true, as indeed in one sense it 
 is. It simply expresses, in language of no common asperity, 
 the fact that Mr Headlam disagrees with me. I do not 
 dispute this ; so far as the question is one of judgment, it is no 
 subject for polemics. The statement which I impugn is no 
 matter of opinion but of fact. It is the false and injurious 
 statement, that all this is due either to unverified assumption or 
 to deliberate disregard of the evidence, interpreted as it is by the 
 rest of the passage and the remark about Dindorf's Lexicon. 
 Statements, or rather accusations, like this are scattered all 
 over the book. There is nothing to indicate that Mr Headlam 
 considers this one any weaker than the rest, nor is it. I choose 
 it as a specimen because it is especially gross. And I say that 
 it is a libel. 
 
 That it has one quality of a libel, that it is defamatory and 
 injurious to nay character, I need not labour to prove. It is 
 meant to be so. If my remarks upon the use of avT6<: in 
 Aeschylus were made negligently, the negligence is of that 
 kind which deserves a different name. To plead an oversight 
 would be ridiculous. The question goes to the very roots of my 
 author's language and style. I came to it fifteen times in the 
 two plays, and had therefore at least fifteen opportunities of 
 reflexion. Moreover, if I was really studying Aeschylus as a 
 
8 
 
 "OiT EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 9/T^ 
 
 whole, as I said that I was, with the intention of editing the 
 whole, I must he finding other such opportunities frequently. 
 The means of investigation were ready to hand. If then under 
 these circumstances I went on making my statement, either 
 without consulting a lexicon {i.e. upon an "unverified as- 
 sumption "), or knowing that the lexicon was against me but re- 
 solved to ignore it {i.e. in " deliberate disregard of the evidence"), 
 there is an end of my moral competence to write profitably 
 about Aeschylus or any subject whatever. Mr Headlamps 
 charge then is defamatory. 
 
 In the next place, it is absolutely untrue. Since there is 
 no way of proving this except to state what I actually did, and 
 since no one knows this fully, or well could know it, except 
 myself, I hope I shall be excused, if I speak of my private 
 work in a way which but for this necessity might be called 
 obtrusive. 
 
 Doubts about the extent, to which the unemphatic avro^ 
 was used by Aeschylus and other poets, occurred to me first in 
 the general course of my reading, and I had made many notes 
 upon the subject. When I began to edit Aeschylus, it was 
 necessary that, so far at least as his usage was concerned, 
 I should go to the bottom of the matter. I read Aeschylus 
 through, with this purpose among others in mind, completing 
 and revising my notes on the point. I then took the list of 
 examples in Dindorf's Leoncon, following here for a moment the 
 scientific method recommended by Mr Headlam. And here 
 I forgot to stop. If I had stopped here, it " might have saved " 
 me from making my assertion. It might indeed. It would be 
 a most saving and compendious method. It would save me (or 
 any one) from making this (or any) assertion about the usage 
 of Aeschylus. What need of it, if Dindorf^s Leocicon is the 
 final truth ? However I went on. I examined again the 
 examples of avT6<:, upwards of forty, which Dindorf classes 
 together as unemphatic. I then took the list in Donaldson's 
 index to Pindar (more than forty examples of the oblique cases) 
 and spent many hours over that. I then read — for I wanted to 
 observe several other things in connexion with avro^: itself, 
 and indices were not convenient helps — I then read, for this 
 
 purpose only, the Oedipus TyranwuSy the Oedipus Coloneus, and 
 the Antigone, the Medea and Euripides here and there, several 
 chapters of Thucydides, and other portions of prose authors. 
 Having done this, and not before, I wrote, as I came to the 
 passages, the notes on the subject, about a page in all, in the 
 Seven against Thebes and the Agamemnon. Most of what is 
 here said I could confirm by documentary evidence and the 
 testimony of others ; for the rest I can give only my word. 
 There is nothing to boast of. No one can do more than his 
 duty; but I think it will be allowed that I did not do less. 
 Upon this single subject I spent at least a week. 
 
 And here in strictness my reply to this charge, on the 
 question of its truth, should end. To set forth my investi- 
 gations, or any part of them, is not to the point ; nor does it 
 matter whether my conclusions were completely right or com- 
 pletely wrong. But since, though this paper is necessarily 
 personal, I am unwilling that it should contain nothing of 
 interest apart from my personality, I will give here briefly the 
 rest of the statement on avT6<: in Aeschylus, with which I have 
 been prepared ever since I began to edit his works. Of pas- 
 sages in the two plays already published I shall say nothing. 
 All these I had certainly considered, for I printed notes on 
 them. It will be seen that the account which follows accords 
 with the notes and is such as any one, reading the notes, would 
 naturally suppose me to have projected. I have used here for 
 convenience the numeration of Dindorf s Poetae Scenici and 
 Lexicon to Aeschylus. In my edition I use that of Wecklein. 
 
 Let us first state the question. In fully developed Greek 
 prose the oblique cases of avro^y having practically driven out 
 of the field some archaic rivals, are used almost as freely as 
 the English him, her, them, it, and constantly without any 
 emphasis at all. The somewhat cumbrous dissyllable, for so 
 light a point in the sentence, is not (to my thinking) among 
 the advantages of Greek, and the composers of Attic prose may 
 well have sometimes regretted the general abandonment of <r<f>€ 
 and viv, though uniformity had carried the day. However that 
 may be, the Attic poets show no fundness for the unemphatic 
 auT09. They maintain the exploded enclitics. They use 
 
} 
 
 10 
 
 "OiV EDITING AESCHYLUS." 
 
 P^ 
 
 ellipse of the pronoun much more freely than would be con- 
 venient for prose- writers, whose first object is to be clear. 
 They turn their sentences by preference so as not to need 
 unemphatic pronouns. In short, from whatever motives, they 
 manage, as compared with prose-writers, to do with very little 
 of avTo^. The poets differ slightly among themselves, and 
 Aeschylus shows certainly not more inclination to be free with 
 the word than others whom we should naturally match with 
 him. It is therefore no idle enquiry, but one arising naturally 
 out of the facts, whether, when he acts against his common 
 inclination, he has not a motive for doing so, how far his lapses 
 into auT09 are really lapses, and how far acts of discretion. 
 If we contrast the language of a prose- writer with that of 
 a tragedian, even Thucydides with Euripides, no difference 
 is more marked than the comparative rarity in the poet of 
 sentences such as the last of these lines from Aeschylus 
 {Supp. 302) 
 
 A. Tt OVV €T€V^€V oXXo SvaTTOTfltp fiot ; 
 
 B. /SoTjXdTTjv fiVMira KivrjTrjpiov' 
 
 A. olarpop KoXovcrip avrov oi NetXou TreXa? . 
 
 Here, prima faciey amov appears to be used without any 
 necessity at all. If it were not there, we should supply a 
 pronoun mentally, and the meaning (it seems) would be the 
 same. This is the "unemphatic avT6^'\ the use of the pro- 
 noun, where by an enclitic, or by ellipse, or by turning the 
 sentence differently, the meaning could be as well expressed 
 without this pronoun. And the question is, how much of this 
 use do we find in Aeschylus ? I said and think that it is ex- 
 tremely rare. 
 
 That the classification in Dindorf, though true as far as it 
 goes, is not exhaustive, would sufficiently appear from the 
 fact that it includes as simply unemphatic the following case 
 (Pers, 837): 
 
 aX)C avTov ev<\>p6v(o^ av irpdvvov Xoyoi^' 
 fiovTjf; yapf olBa, aov Kkvfov dve^erau 
 
 > The difitribution of the dialogue is here immaterial. See Mr Tucker*B note. 
 
 A REPLY, 
 
 11 
 
 So says Darius to Atossa, requesting her to console the grief 
 of Xerxes. Now surely we cannot say that the complexion of 
 this sentence is precisely the same as if the poet had written 
 a>OC €v<f>p6va)<; ai) irpavvov vlv. The point is the special re- 
 lation between the king and his mother, and this point is 
 marked, in the most natural way, by the emphasis of the 
 contrasted or correlated pronouns. It is Xerxes who has to be 
 consoled; therefore Atossa, the only person to whom he will 
 listen, must give the consolation. Both <rv and avrov are 
 emphatic, the one as much as the other: <ru, which is so by 
 nature, is left to take care of itself; avTov is reinforced by 
 position in the sentence. 
 
 So again in Eum. 767, Orestes, promising that his spirit 
 shall protect Athens against Argos, says : 
 
 avToi yap rifiel^; oure^ iv rdijyoi^ rore 
 TOfc? rdfia irap^alvovo'L vvv opKWfiara 
 d^irj'xdvoLa'L irpd^ofiev hvairpa^iai^ 
 6Bov<: d6vfjLov<: Kal irap6pvi6a<i ir6pov<i 
 Ti6€VTe<;y ft)9 avTOtai fjLerafieXy ttovo^' 
 opOovfiivcov Be Kal ttoXcv ttjv UaWdBo^ 
 TLfiSxTiv del TTivBe (TVfifid'xcp Bopl 
 avTolaLv ij/ict? iafiev evfiepiaTcpoi, 774 
 
 Here, in the last line, the very position of avrola-iv shows 
 that it is emphatic, and the connected emphasis of rjjxeh shows 
 what the point is. The Athenians have bound to them, by 
 eternal gratitude, one who is to become a chief hero (' patron- 
 saint' is the nearest equivalent) of the Argives. So long, there- 
 fore, as they behave well to Athens, their own patron will 
 be favourable in proportion to them ; and if they try to assail 
 his benefactors, he will use his power not against Athens but 
 against them, so that they themselves (not Athens) shall have 
 cause to repent of the enterprise. And this example is speci- 
 ally instructive, because it warns us not to be hasty in concluding 
 that there is no point in the choice of a pronoun more weighty 
 than usual. The structure of the verse directs us to the 
 emphasis in v. 774: and when we have noted this, we can 
 see what, if we had trained ourselves sufficiently in the habits of 
 
12 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 A REPLY, 
 
 13 
 
 U 
 
 I 
 
 i * 
 
 Greek poetry, we should have felt before, that the weight of 
 the pronoun is meant to tell in v. 771 also, although here it is 
 not, or at least not equally, enforced by position: which is 
 a caution not to be quick in trusting our first impressions on so 
 delicate a matter. 
 
 Such a caution we need, for example, in another case (also 
 classed by Dindorf, with all here mentioned, simply and without 
 distinction as an example of ** avrof; is"), From, 680: 
 
 fiovKoXo^i Be yrjyevTj<i 
 aKpaTO<; 6pyr)v *'A/3709 ci)fidpTei>y irvKvol^ 
 6<raoi<; 3e8op/ca)9 roiffi ifiov<i Kara ari/Bov^, 
 aTTpoaBoKijTo^s 8' avTov ai(\>vLhLo^ fiopo^i 
 rod ^rjv direaTipTja-ev, 
 
 Here we can of course ignore the weight, which avT6<;y by 
 the mere rarity of its occurrence in poetry, should carry to the 
 ear. But, if we do, we miss the delicacy of the expression: 
 dirpoaBoK'qTO'i 3* avTov k.t.X. is contrasted with BeBopKox; Tov<i 
 ifjLov<: Kara ariffov^i: and the point made or suggested is, that 
 while Argus was all eyes for /o, he was surprised by a sudden 
 fate which annihilated him. 
 
 So again in From, 306 : 
 
 Bipfcov Oeafia, rovBe rov Ato? ^lXop, 
 TOP a'vyKaTa<rT7]aavTa ttjv TvpavvlBa, 
 o'lac^i vir avTov irrj^ovalaL Kdfnrrofun. 
 
 If we say that avrov here is without weight, we miss the 
 very point and pathos of the verse, which lies in this, that the 
 friend of Zeus should be so bowed with torture by him, by the 
 very Zeus whom he served: the pronoun is as plainly emphatic, 
 as if Aeschylus had written avrov rod A^ov. Yet even this 
 is counted as merely one instance of " avT6<; is," 
 
 So in Eum, 829 : 
 
 Kaycb ireTToiOa Ttrjvij KaX tL Bel Xeyetp ; 
 
 Kol KXfjBa^ olBa B(ofJLaTO<; fiovrj Oea)P, 
 
 €P w Kepavpo^ ear LP €a'(f)payia/Jbepo^, 
 
 aXX ovoep avrov oei* av o €V7r€iur)<; efioi, K.r.X, 
 
 It is surely not without importance to the feeling of this 
 passage, that the poet does not use avro^ habitually and con- 
 stantly, as a prose-writer does. The emphasis which, owing to 
 this parsimony, avrov carries in itself, conveys exactly the 
 meaning intended. "But there is no need of it'* The 
 weapon itself, the actual display of force, is not needed ; it is 
 enough, and more than enough, to hint that Athena, as is 
 well known, could command it. Let the rebellious not wait 
 for her thunders, but at once yield obediently to her (avrov — 
 efioi). 
 
 Not less clear is it (in my opinion) that avrd has weight 
 and significance in the following {From, 441): 
 
 KaiToi OeotcTL rol<i peoa rovrot^ yepa 
 rl<^ dXXo<; rj '70) irapreXw^ BLtopiaep ; 
 aXX avra acyw. kol yap elBviaiaLP ap 
 VfiLP Xeyoific, 
 
 Would it have made no difference here, except to the metre, 
 if Prometheus had said dXXa aiyw rdBe, and does he mean 
 merely " I say nothing of them " ? Surely not. In a\V avra 
 aiyco the pronoun, even by position, has a stress ; since, metre 
 apart, if no stress were meant, the order should be dXXd a-iyS 
 avrd. But avrd, ' the gifts themselves,' means ' the actual gifts,' 
 *the specific gifts,' and contributes an important quota to the 
 sense. In English we should throw the meaning, with the 
 emphasis, into the verb, ' But I do not specify the gifts.' The 
 same thing might have been expressed a little more fully by 
 avu Cfcaara, 
 
 Again, avr6<s is naturally used, with the usual emphasis, 
 when the sentence expresses an inversion of relations, a retri- 
 bution in which some one is * done by as he did,' or is treated 
 himself as he proposed to treat another. This accounts for 
 From. 358. 
 
 ef ofifidrwp S' rjarpairre yopyaywop aeXa^, 
 CO? rr}P Ai09 rvpappiB* eKirepatdp /Sla' 
 aXX rjXOep avrS Zrjpof; dypvirpop /SeXo9, 
 Karai^drrj^ Kepavpo^ eKirvefov (pXoya, 
 09 avrop e^eirXrj^e K.r.X, 
 
b| 
 
 u 
 
 ''OX EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 15 
 
 Here the mere fact that the exceptional pronoun is used 
 twice in a few lines is notice of some particular intention ; and 
 the intention is clear. Typhon proposed to * storm the royalty 
 of Zeus/ Instead of this, r'X^ei; avr^ Zrjvo^ /8e\o9, it was the 
 bolt of Zeus that descended upon him^ : avrop in v. 360 echoes 
 and reinforces the same idea. 
 
 Precisely similar is Cho, 119: 
 
 XO. T0t9 aiTLOi^ VVV 70V tf)6vOV fl€flVrf/l€P1] 
 
 HA. Tt 0ft) ; BlBaaK dweipop i^7)yovfi€vrj, 
 
 XO. ikOelv TLv avrol^ halfiov rj fipoTwv riva — 
 
 HA. TTorepa SiKacTtfv ff Bi/cr)(j>6pov Xeyet?; 
 
 XO. a7r\(it>9 Tt (fypd^ova, 6aTi<i avrairoKrevel, 
 
 Here avTot<; imports and anticipates the idea of retribution 
 ('that an avenger, divine or human, may come to shed their 
 blood '), which the speaker is afraid to put clearly, but, by the 
 management of Electra, is led to make explicit in avTairoKTevel. 
 With these passages for comparison we can see why avrw 
 is right and desirable, even though the passage is lyric and 
 the pronoun singularly prominent, in Eum. 320 : 
 
 ocTt? 3 aXtTwv coaTrep 6S* avrjp 
 ;^e?/3a9 <f)ovia<; iiriKpvTrTei, 
 fidpTvp€<; opOal roiai Oavovaiv 
 7rapayi,yv6fi€vac irpcLKTOpe^ aTfiaro^ 
 
 aVTM T€X€ft)9 €<j)dvr]/l€V, 
 
 The language is similar to that of the last example, and the 
 point the same. 
 
 Alike in principle, though not precisely alike in form, is 
 Prom. 909 : 
 
 i 
 
 rj fiTjv €TL Zeu9, Katirep avOdSr) (fypoiMV, 
 ecTat raTretvo^' roiov i^aprverai 
 yafMOv yafieiVf 09 avrov €K Tvpavviho<f 
 6p6v(ov T aiarov ifC^aXel. 
 
 * Theb. 431 Tiiroida 5' aiVry, k.t.X. 
 belongs to this class, avTcp going with 
 ii^€tp. So far I agree with Mr Headlam. 
 I wrote my note in this sense first, but 
 
 afterwards changed it (erroneously as 
 I have long since thought) for that 
 printed. 
 
 Here the point is that the act of Zeus shall have for result 
 the expulsion of Mm from his power; and avrov should no 
 more be classed as without emphasis than avro^ would have 
 been, if the sentence had taken the form Be op avro^ ix 
 OpopoDP eKireaelrai,, 41 
 
 Of Pers. 436 roidh' iir avroh (or avTov<;) rfkOe k.tX., and 
 Cho. 712 ay avTop k,tX. it is needless to say anything. In 
 each case an emphasis on the pronoun is proper, to prepare the 
 ear for the intended sequel. In the first the antithesis is between 
 avToU and roorSe, in the second between avrop and oiriadoirovi 
 'conduct him..., and conduct his followers.* 
 
 From the nature of the case it must result that there will 
 be examples in which the context does not determine whether 
 the pronoun is meant to have weight or not, in which either 
 way of reading is possible, and only a complete study of the 
 poet's use as a whole will direct us which to prefer. Some of 
 these I could not discuss properly without setting out the 
 context to an inconvenient length. It will be sufficient to give 
 one instance {Pers, 231), and to mention the rest. 
 
 AT. (0 (^tkoiy irov Ta9 'A0rjva<: </>ao-ii/ IhpvaOai x^ov6<; ; 
 XO. T^Xe 7r/)09 Sva-fiaU, apafCTO<; 'HXlov <})0cvdafia(Tip. 
 AT. dWa firjp XfjueLp ifio^; iraU rrfP^e Oijpdaac ttoXip, 
 XO. irda-a yap yipoir ap 'E\\a9 fiaaiXiox; virrjfcoo^, 
 AT. cSSe T49 irdpearip avroU dvhpoTrXrjOeLa aTparov; 
 XO. Ka\ arparo^ tolovto^, €p^a<: iroXXd Brj M?;8ou9 fcaxd — 
 AT. Kal TV irpo^i tovtoktcp dXXo; ttXovto^; e^apKrj^ Sofiot^; 
 XO. dpyvpov TTTjyrj Ti9 avTOi<; eVrt, 6rj(ravp6<: 'xSovo^, 
 
 If this piece were prose, I should say that avTol^ in both 
 places had no special force, and that the meaning was simply 
 * they have.' Nor can it be proved that Aeschylus meant otlier- 
 wise. All I can say is that, after a very careful investigation of 
 the matter, in Aeschylus and elsewhere, I believe that, if he 
 had not meant otherwise, he would have preferred to give his 
 sentences another shape ; that he used avrol^ with conscious- 
 ness, and meant, in the first place, ' Is Athens such a host in 
 itself V in the second place, 'They have a special resource of 
 their own! 
 
16 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 The following, which are also ambiguous, I will mention 
 only, to shew that I have not overlooked them, and believe 
 them to fall within the general rule: Prom. 48, Prom. 454, 460, 
 487, Pratn. 913, 918 (these two are connected), Pi^om, 853, 
 Pers. 153, Gho. 1014, Pets. 767, 768. 
 
 In a few cases there is a question about the reading either 
 of the line in which avro^ occurs, or of the determining: context, 
 e.g. Cho. 883, Prom, 772, Pers. 191. None of these appear to 
 be true exceptions. 
 
 There remain a few cases (Pers. 520 and Pei^s. 727 for in- 
 stance) in which the use may be indistinguishable from that of 
 ordinary prose. I will suppose these cases as many as twelve, 
 though I think six would be too high a figure. I could suppose 
 them twenty, and it would make no difference. It is clear that 
 a usage, which might naturally have occurred in Aeschylus 
 hundreds of times, if he had not regarded it as essentially 
 prosaic and unfit for poetry unless under special circumstances, 
 may with propriety be called * extremely rare ' in his works, if 
 he admitted it a score of times, a fortiori if, as I hold, he really 
 lapses into it not so often as once in a thousand lines. 
 
 I now return to the proper question of this paper. All the 
 work above summarized I had gone through before I wrote upon 
 avTo^: as I did; all this, and three or four times as much besides; 
 for, as I have said, I went almost exhaustively into the usage of 
 Pindar, and made considerably studies in other writers as well. 
 Whether my conclusions were right or wrong is at present 
 nothing to the purpose. I am in a position to prove that I did 
 what I have described. The statement that what I wrote on 
 avTo^ in the notes to the two plays ' is due either to unverified 
 assumption or deliberate disregard of the evidence ' is therefore 
 absolutely untrue. 
 
 But it is not only injurious and untrue ; it has also the 
 third quality of a libel ; it is, in the legal sense of the word, 
 though in this sense only, malicious. This it would be, if 
 it had been made merely without evidence. But there was 
 ample evidence to the contrary, all the evidence, which, from 
 the nature of the case, could naturally exist or be expected. 
 My statements were limited to the usage of Aeschylus; I 
 
 A HE PLY. 
 
 17 
 
 went far beyond Aeschylus in investigation, as seemed to 
 be proper ; but I said nothing, and meant to say nothing, about 
 any other writer. I proposed to edit the whole of Aeschylus, 
 and had announced this intention. I had edited two plays. 
 On all the passages bearing on the question of avT6<;j which 
 occur in those plays, I had written notes, whether absurd or 
 judicious is nothing to the matter. Was it not then obvious to 
 suppose that I was prepared to deal with the passages in other 
 plays, when I came to them ? Could anything be more per- 
 versely uncharitable than to assume that I should not, and to 
 accuse me, on this assumption only, of * disregarding ' evidence, 
 to the sifting of which I had given more than a week's hard 
 work ? I repeat then that Mr Headlamps statement respecting 
 my work upon avro*; is a complete libel ; and I say that it 
 ought never to have been published. 
 
 Of malice in the common sense, of any ill-will to me person- 
 ally, I entirely acquit Mr Headlam. I believe that he would 
 have criticized any one else, as indeed he has done before now, 
 upon similar principles. He is a very good scholar, as this pam- 
 phlet shows, and as most of us would assume without proof from 
 the position which he holds. If he would address himself 
 directly to the classics and let his contemporaries alone, he 
 would produce work, which few or none would study with more 
 interest and pleasure than I. But for judging the work of 
 other students there never was in the world a man more com- 
 pletely disqualified. The first rule for a critic, as for any other 
 judge, is that the onus prohandi lies always on the accusation ; 
 that you are to suppose no fault, until it is proved, and never to 
 suppose a great fault, if to suppose a smaller will account for 
 the facts. Mr Headlam is incapable of this equity, and his 
 practice is the very reverse. He construes everything against 
 the prisoner, and as strongly as possible. For him, as I have 
 just shown, facts not cited are facts not examined, and this, 
 however strong may be the circumstantial evidence that the 
 examination has actually been made. For him, as I shall now 
 show, a proposition which may be taken in an untrue sense is a 
 proposition which was intended to bear that sense, and this 
 without regard to the context, the position of the writer, or any 
 
 V. 2 
 
18 
 
 "OJV EDITING AESCHYLUSr 
 
 other circumstance whatsoever. The following instance is 
 typical, and is the only one, with which I shall deal in detail. 
 
 Mr Headlam charges me (p. 19—21) with ignorance of the 
 facts about the common anapaestic dimeter. He cites these 
 facts from familiar books, and implies truly enough, that no one, 
 who had made serious studies in Greek tragedy, could be ignor- 
 ant of them, but untruly more than enough, that I am thus 
 ignorant. Without vanity I think I may say, that to most of 
 my fellow-students this proposition would in itself have given 
 some pause, that they would have examined the evidence for it 
 with great severity, and would have preferred any other con- 
 clusion at all compatible with what I had written. Let us see 
 then of what kind is the evidence. 
 
 In the Seven against Thebes is a dialogue {vv. 789 — 816) in 
 which the text shows unusual signs of disturbance, and all com- 
 mentators have suspected some more or less extensive interpo- 
 lation. This dialogue concludes with a passage in anapaestic 
 dimeters, which runs as follows : 
 
 eS fieydXe ZeO /cat TroXwv'Xpi 
 
 haifiove^, dl hr\ KdSfiov 7rvpyov<: 
 
 Tova-^e pv€a0€f 
 
 TTorepov %cti/ow KairoXoKv^o) 810 
 
 TToXeo)? datvei awTrjpi, 
 
 ^ TOi)? fioy€pov<; xal Sv(T^aLfiova<: 
 
 dreKvov^ fcXavao) iroXefiap^ov^ ; 
 
 ot hrjT opOd)^ Kar iirayvvfilap 
 
 Kal 7ro\vv€CK€l^ 816 
 
 wXovT* daefiel Bcavoia, 
 
 The conclusion at which I arrived, after an investigation as 
 thorough as that which I have described in the case of avTot;, 
 was that almost all the dialogue is from another hand than that of 
 Aeschylus, and that from this hand probably came the anapaests. 
 This latter inference I based partly on the fact, that in the space 
 of ten verses there are no less than three departures from the 
 metrical practice of the poet, (1) the * common ' syllable at the 
 end of V. 809 (rovaBe pveadl), (2) the anapaest following a 
 dactyl {Bvahalfiova^; dTUvovsi)^ and (3) the inelegant rhythm of 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 19 
 
 the verse TroXew? daivel (TcoTrjpL, compared, for instance, with 
 drUvov^; K\av<r(o iroXefidpxov^, which is of a better type. We 
 cannot say with certainty, in the present state of the evidence, 
 that Aeschylus could not possibly have broken, once in a way, 
 any one of the practices against which these verses offend. I 
 should myself say that in these matters such an absolute a 
 priori certainty could never be safely assumed. But I thought, 
 and still think, that the conjunction of the three irregularities 
 is highly significant. I also thought, and still think, that, when 
 I wrote, the significance of this conjunction had been seldom or 
 never considered. I thought so partly because the commenta- 
 tors, whom I had before me, called attention to the first point, 
 but did not call attention to the others, whereas, from my point 
 of view, the three should be noted together ; and partly because 
 in Dr Wecklein's elaborate collection of conjectures I did not 
 find the suggestion, to which such consideration would lead, 
 that the anapaests were part of that interpolation, which all 
 suspected in this region of the text. 
 
 Under these circumstances I wrote as follows : 
 
 809. TovtrSe pmaBe. The original pveo-^at of the MS. (corrected by 
 the writer himself) must apparently have been merely a common slip of 
 the pen, due to the similar sound of ai and f. The infinitive has no con- 
 struction. By the strict rule deduced from the tragedians a long syllable 
 is required, as this anapaestic metre does not allow * common' syllables at 
 the division of the verses. We may of course suppose (with Dindorf) that 
 something is lost after pvttrBt {e.g. ^naprmp re TroXti/), or that the text is 
 otherwise corrupt. But it has not apparently been observed that we have 
 another, less obvious but still inadmissible flaw of metre in 812, as well as 
 the unrhythmical verse 811. My own opinion, as given above, is that, 
 instead of assuming an unusual extent of corruption in this place, we 
 should accept the passage as it stands for a fairly successful imitation. 
 Athens must have contained many men capable of writing fair verse, and 
 also quite capable of ignoring a delicate observance such as the Si/naphea, 
 
 I take this argument to be perfectly plain and perfectly 
 sound, as far as it goes, whatever may be held as to the strength 
 or necessity of the conclusion. I believe that if the note were 
 submitted to a hundred average persons of competent know- 
 ledge, and they were asked to guess what serious fault had 
 been found with it, they would be all at a loss. 
 
20 
 
 'ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 But my critic (p. 19) is not at a loss to find a monstrous 
 fault, nor ever need be, with such diviuing rods as he uses here. 
 Tearing from the context the sentence " it has not apparently 
 been observed that we have another less obvious but still inad- 
 missible flaw of metre in 812," and fixing particularly upon the 
 word " inadmissible ", he not only construes this as an assertion 
 that no example, certain or doubtful, of a dactyl followed by an 
 anapaest can be found in Aeschylus or anywhere in the Attic 
 poets, but actually proceeds to scold me for ignorance and 
 wilful negligence exactly as he might have done, if I had said 
 so in so many words. He cites from Hermann and Ahreiis the 
 evidence, familiar to me and all students, which shows that in a 
 very small number of places the rule in question is or appears 
 to be broken by the tragedians. (Mr Headlam would apparently 
 count (me doubtful case in Aeschylus, and one certain case, with 
 others doubtful, in Euripides, with whose practice, since the 
 problem before me was the genuineness of a passage in Aeschy- 
 lus, I was not at all concerned). And he draws the charitable 
 inference that I am ignorant of this evidence and of the books 
 in which it is stated. Upon the same principle he might have 
 gone on to attack me about the common syllable in pveade: 
 for whoever declares it certain, that no Attic poet, in any part 
 of his works, ever once broke the rule which prohibits it, says 
 more than the evidence warrants. 
 
 But I say that it is an abuse of criticism to construe in this 
 way, for the purpose of founding an attack, the words which I 
 use respecting either the one rule or the other. Construed 
 fairly, and with due regard to the tenor and purpose of the 
 argument, my words imply nothing but what is true, that both 
 rules are very strong rules of Aeschylean practice, so strong 
 that to find breaches of both, together with other violations of 
 his style and practice, within ten anapaestic verses, lays the 
 verses open to reasonable suspicion of their origin. 
 
 But the critic has another fault to find, and finds it in the 
 same way : 
 
 What we have here is an anapaest immediately succeeding a dactyl— a 
 rare thing. Dr Verrall imagines it has escaixjd notice in this place... 
 
 A REPLY, 
 
 21 
 
 Hereupon it is shown that the exception is noticed in 
 Hermann's Elementa DoctHnae Metricae.^^ndi }\xdigment is given 
 accordingly. But where do I say that no one has recorded this 
 exception ? I am arguing that the passage is not genuine. I 
 notice, as the commentators generally do, the breach of rule in 
 pv€a0€. And I continue thus : 
 
 But it has not apparently been observed that we have another, less 
 obvious but still inadmissible flaw of metre in 812, as well as the un- 
 rhythmical verse 811. My own opinion, as given above, is that, instead of 
 assuming an uinisual extent of corruption in this place, we should accept 
 the passage as it stands for a fairly successful imitation. 
 
 The fact of which I say that "it has not apparently been 
 observed " is, as any one reading the note as a whole must feel 
 and see, the fact material to my argument, the fact that the 
 first irregularity is immediately followed by two others, so that 
 we have three offences close together in this place. I did not 
 mean and I did not say, with regard to any one of these irregu- 
 larities in particular, that it had never been anywhere registered 
 with other exceptions of the same class. Such notice is nothing 
 to the purpose ; because no one of the three exceptions, standing 
 by itself in a passage otherwise unsuspicious, would afford ground 
 for the inference to which I was leading. I thought indeed, 
 and I still think, that the commentators (notwithstanding Her- 
 mann's Elementa) had been apt to overlook the collision of 
 dactyl and anapaest; because several commentaries, which I 
 consulted, agreed in noticing the flaw in pveaOe and in not 
 noticing the other, though both deserve notice, as departures 
 from the practice of the poet, and deserve it alike. This is 
 what I meant by the words *' less obvious." 
 
 If my sentence means that no one had ever remarked the 
 collision, then it also means that no one had ever shown dis- 
 satisfaction at the rhythm of TroXeo)? acnvel o-coTrjpL, Yet Dr 
 Wecklein's appendix of conjectures (to which I refer incessantly 
 and in such a way as to show that it was always under my eye) 
 records no less than four emendations which change this rhythm 
 and substitute one more satisfactory, and also one emendation 
 which gets rid of the dactyl and anapaest. To these and others 
 I allude, as might naturally be supposed, in the words "instead 
 
ii 
 
 22 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUSr 
 
 A REPLY, 
 
 23 
 
 of assuming an unusual extent of corruption in this place," and 
 I cite one of them, expressly as " a specimen ", in the note to 
 V. 811. Where then is the ground for thinking that I imagined 
 the matter to stand otherwise than as it actually and visibly 
 did? 
 
 Now I do not by any means say — and I ask attention to 
 this — that in point of expression my note is perfect, or that a 
 reasonable critic might not find something to improve. Such a 
 critic might say — it would be a punctilious and a dubious 
 criticism, but not unreasonable — that, for a short description of 
 the facts or apparent facts about the dactyl and anapaest in 
 Aeschylus, "irregular" would be a better word than "inad- 
 missible/* This, I say, is dubious, for in truth the state of the 
 evidence forbids us to decide which word best represents the 
 feeling of Aeschylus on the point; "inadmissible" may be too 
 strong, " irregular " is probably too weak. Either word might 
 be used in this context without any other inaccuracy than 
 inevitably arises from the impossibility of saying every thing 
 at once, and without danger of deceiving any one who did not 
 wish to be deceived. To write "irregular" would have been 
 no protection to me, for then some other Mr Headlam, who 
 happened to reject the one doubtful exception in Aeschylus 
 which this Mr Headlam allows, might have remarked, that, if I 
 had known anything about metre, I should have written " inad- 
 missible." Nothing less than a page of irrelevant discussion 
 would have prevented all possibility of misunderstanding and 
 misrepresentation. Still it may be that, if I had written 
 " irregular," I should have erred on the better side. 
 
 Nor should I complain at all of the remark, that although 
 from the whole of my note it may be clear enough to what I 
 refer when I say that " it has not apparently been observed," in 
 the sentence itself this is not so clear as it should be, and that, 
 to be quite perspicuous, I should rather have written some- 
 thing like this : 
 
 But it has not apparently been considered that, in close conjunction 
 with this metrical flaw, we have another in 812 and an unsatisfactory 
 verse in 811. 
 
 Neither this nor any statement, suitable to the brief limits 
 of a note, would bring in every relevant fact or be secure from 
 such an inquisition as that of Mr Headlam. But this would 
 have been a better form, and something better still might 
 doubtless be devised by a more skilful hand. 
 
 But what I have to protest against, as an abuse of criticism 
 and an injury to writers in general, is the manner in which my 
 critic, instead of assuming that I possess ordinary knowledge, 
 and therefore charging me with inexact or obscure expression, 
 prefers rather to isolate an ambiguous phrase, to fix upon it the 
 most erroneous meaning which it will bear, and so to bring out, 
 in place of a light objection to style, an impeachment for in- 
 credible ignorance. 
 
 Against such presumptions and such constructions no writer 
 would be safe. But this I will add; and as it is almost the 
 only concession which I can make to Mr Headlam, I desire to 
 make it amply and without reserve. If there is any writer who 
 is safe against such a method, I am certainly not that invulner- 
 able paragon. Humanuni est, as it was said by some Professor of 
 imperfect Humanity, alius aliter errare. My readiest way of 
 erring, as I am but too well aware, is to use, particularly in 
 subordinate propositions and obiter dicta, phrases too strong or 
 too wide for the facts. This is not due always or usually, what- 
 ever Mr Headlam may think, either to ignorance or to want of 
 labour. I believe (I am really vexed to talk of myself; but 
 how can I help it ?) that not many writers take more pains to 
 be informed of their subject. I have described in full one 
 specimen of my work, and it was not an exceptional case. I 
 do of course make blunders. But much more often an inexact 
 or misleading phrase in my writing is the result of trying to 
 state briefly, for the purpose of a note, the result of an investi- 
 gation, which in fact cannot be so represented. I will give 
 one example of this, a case in which (except for the tone of the 
 criticism, which is everywhere such as, I say boldly, I do not 
 deserve) I have nothing to object to my critic. It is I who 
 have deceived him and have done injustice to myself. 
 
 At Theh. 530 occurs the phrase Kah^elayv era, usually con- 
 strued as equivalent to Kahixeiayv rivd, a Cadmean. I think 
 
24 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:' 
 
 this interpretation wrong and not agreeable to the usage of the 
 poet, or indeed of the poets generally, respecting eh. The 
 interpretation is matter of opinion, and I do not now wish to 
 argue it. But as to the usage, to test my feeling, besides 
 referring to two or three Lexicons, I went through the articles 
 on el? in the indices to the tragedians, examining the refer- 
 ences. This was of course no superfluity, but necessary for my 
 purpose. In this investigation I set aside, as plainly not 
 parallel to Ka^ytictcaj; eva in the sense supposed, all those cases 
 of ehy in which the one specified is an individual named, or 
 who could be named, and is oiie of a fixed and permayient 
 number. 
 
 Thus in the Rhesus (393) we find iral rri^ fieXmSov firfripo^, 
 Movacov fiid<;, in Rhes. 891 Movaay avyyovayp fila, in Eur. Hel. 
 6 Twi/ Kar olSfia irapOevcav fiiav "^afidOrjVy in Ion 1 "ArXa?... 
 decov fiid^ €<f>v(T€ Malav, and in Cycl. 21 TraZSe? Oeov KvkXq)' 
 7r€^,..TovTCi)v (KvK\a)7rQ)v) €v6<i\ So Homer, as Mr Headlam 
 says, writes very naturally x^P^tq)v fiiav UaaiOerjv (II. H. 275); 
 Pindar eyafiep vyjrcOpovcov fiiav Nrjp^^Bcov {Nem. 4. 65); Apol- 
 lonius Rhodius Tepyjrtxopr) Movaiav fila (4. 896). But these 
 phrases are not parallels to KaSfieicov eva in the sense commonly 
 put on those words in Theb. 530, a Cadmean, an individual not 
 specified, nor specifiable, otherwise than as belonging to that fluc- 
 tuating class. In Rhes. 393, for instance, Mova&v fiid^ one of 
 the Muses, is parallel, not to ^AOrjvalcov tc<; an Athenian, but to 
 eU Tcov ap'xpvrwv one of the archons. These passages do not 
 show that the writers were indifferent in their use of eh and 
 Tfc9 (which was the point to which I was addressing myself); on 
 the contrary the fact that several such instances occur in tragedy 
 (whereas phrases like KaBfielayv eh a Cadmean are, as I repeat, 
 not found there) is evidence not against but in favour of the 
 distinction between eh and tl<; for such purposes, which the 
 
 » As to Soph. Ant. 1060 twv auv 
 avrbs ix ffT\dyxy<»>f' ^vfi \ v^kw vtKpCiv 
 dfioiphp ivriSovs iffet, I do not agree 
 that fva here means some one; I think 
 that, as the rest of the sentence shows, 
 it means strictly one (for one), and 
 
 that to write tiv6. wonld have spoiled 
 the expression. Ap. Bhod. 4, 1016 is 
 parallel to Eur. Med. 945, Ar. Eq. 
 1300 to Soph. Ant. 269. Ar. Vesp. 
 1165 belongs to the class above dis- 
 cussed. As to Ion 1 see note there. 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 25 
 
 tragedians appear to have felt. In Rhes. 393, if the author 
 had written Movawv tivo^, he would have changed the colour 
 of his expression, as it seems to me, and changed it very much 
 for the worse. And on the other hand, in Theb. 530, if 
 Aeschylus had meant what he has been thought to mean, he 
 should and would have written, not 4>^Ta KaS/jielcov eva, but 
 <f)(OTa KaBfiecov, or <f)(x)Ta, KaBp^elayv riva. 
 
 In the course of the investigation I noticed particularly 
 that in several places, where eh might at first sight seem 
 simply equivalent to t*? some one, it is really equivalent to 
 quivis, any one, and essential to the meaning intended. Mr 
 Headlam allows that this is possible in all the cases I cite and 
 others, though he does not agree; but of our disagreement 
 another time, or not now. Having then completed my work, 
 I put into my note the following parenthesis : 
 
 (It should be observed that eis is not found as a mere equivalent for 
 Ttf : in the apparent examples it generally signifies nearly quivis 'any one, 
 equal to one, merely one'; see Eur. Med. 945, Or. 264, Bacch. 917, Soph. 
 El. 1342. In Soph. Ant. 269 \iyfi m (h U iravras k.t.\. there is an 
 antithesis between eU and navras, and so elsewhere.) 
 
 Now, to the substance of this statement, so far as the 
 purpose of my note is concerned, I do not allow that any ex- 
 ception can be taken. But to the form of it two exceptions may 
 be taken. In the first place, for « not found " I should perhaps 
 have written "not found in authors comparable on such a point 
 with Aeschylus," because I had not, and have not, ascertained 
 precisely what are the limits in other Greek. I cannot think 
 this a serious matter, because any one reading the parenthesis 
 with the context (Mr Headlam takes it out, drops the marks of 
 parenthesis, and considers it as a principal and separate state- 
 ment) would see that I was thinking and speaking only of 
 writers, whose use in such matters can be held to warrant 
 a conclusion about Aeschylus. I could scarcely be bound to 
 maintain for instance, that eh and rt? were not used indifferently 
 by Dion Cassius or Eustathius. The second exception is more 
 important. I said nothing about such examples as Movaatv ficd^ 
 simply because I did not think them " apparent examples " of 
 eh for T«9: I thought it apparent that they were not such. 
 V. 3 
 
26 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:* 
 
 But, as I fully admit, this is not so apparent, that I could 
 aflford to leave it unexplained. That much is proved enough by 
 the fact that Mr Headlam, a reader more than competent, did 
 not see how I meant to dispose of these cases ; and if he had 
 called on me to explain myself further, he would have been 
 perfectly in his right. Whether under all the circumstances 
 it was judicious or considerate to conclude peremptorily that, 
 because the critic saw no explanation, therefore I could have no 
 explanation to give, or whether it was fair to collect a number, 
 not very large, of such incomplete or imperfect statements, and 
 to use them as secondary evidence in support of the charge 
 that I do not know the elements of my subject and have taken 
 no pains to learn them, are questions which I must leave to the 
 judgment of the reader. 
 
 I do not see reason for going further into the details of Mr 
 Headlam's book. A large part of it deals with matters of opinion, 
 matters which according to my notions should never have been 
 introduced into the body of an accusation, matters which I do 
 not intend to discuss with any one who has taken the tone of an 
 accuser. For instance, it is not to any person in the temper of 
 Mr Headlam that I shall address myself, if I wish to defend 
 further my suggested emendation of Theh. 1002 riOpTjKev olairep 
 6pv€oi<: Ovj]<T/c€iv KaXov (for TeOpffKCv ovirep rol^ veot.s:\ based 
 upon a note in the scholia. Mr Headlam gives three pages to 
 this, but touches the base of my argument only in one sentence 
 (p. 94), *'The schol. refers to the line of Homer only as the 
 most famous praise of fight in defence of one's country. The 
 quotation is so familiar that there is no need for him to finish it." 
 I, as well as Mr Headlam, know something about the scholia 
 to Aeschylus ; and I do not consider his explanation adequate. 
 Of the judgment shown in my emendation Mr Headlam speaks 
 in his invariable tone of contempt. I shall say only this. There 
 are a few living Englishmen who, having achieved the feat, now 
 very difficult, of suggesting a correction of Aeschylus both new 
 and valuable, have a right to speak on such a matter. One of 
 these is unquestionably Mr A. E. Housman. Mr Housman has 
 declared in print that my emendation seems to him " highly 
 probable." This does not prove that I am right; but it does 
 
 A REPLY. 
 
 27 
 
 prove that the style assumed by Mr Headlam, here and else- 
 where, is unfit for the subject and the persons concerned. 
 
 To form an opinion on Mr Headlam's accusation, it is neces- 
 sary first to abstract all that large part of his 159 pages which 
 deals with matter of opinion, and is distinguished in no way, 
 except the asperity, from the common staple of discussion. 
 All this, be it right or wrong, might have appeared just as well in 
 the periodicals, and affords no reason or excuse for a hostile 
 pamphlet. The not very large residue, if carefully examined in 
 the light of the cases considered above, would support the con- 
 clusion that in several places, not many but all too many, I have 
 written too briefly, too obscurely, or in such a way as might 
 naturally mislead. This kind of fault is, I believe, inevitable in 
 long, elaborate, and fatiguing work. I know that I could easily 
 show examples of it in the works of others ; and at any rate I 
 am well aware that my own is not exceptionally free from it, 
 but indeed quite otherwise. What Mr Headlam has done is to 
 collect these faults, to construe and misconstrue them with per- 
 tinacious iniquity, to swell the apparent bulk of them with 
 matter not relevant to an accusation, and to tack them to one 
 or two statements, like that concerning my investigation of 
 ai/To?, which, if they were true, would be really incriminating. 
 But these incriminating statements are untrue ; and it is un- 
 true altogether that I do not know my subject, that I have 
 neglected the means of information, or that I practise any other 
 method than the one only scientific method which Mr Headlam, 
 truly if somewhat ostentatiously, himself professes. 
 
 About the usefulness or propriety of such books as Mr Head- 
 lam's, elaborate works consisting entirely of attack and adverse 
 criticism on a particular writer, I have myself a decided opinion. 
 I think that they never, literally never, ought to be published or 
 composed ; and that it is practically impossible for such books 
 to be just either to the subject or to the writer of them. No 
 one, without injury to his temper and judgment, can dwell for 
 laborious weeks and months upon that which, with or without 
 reason, he dislikes and despises. Mr Headlam dislikes my 
 wiitings. I can see plainly enough that I am not likely to give 
 pleasure or instruction to him. In the various constitution of 
 
28 
 
 ''ON EDITING AESCHYLUS:' A REPLY, 
 
 minds this case will sometimes happen, without any particular 
 fault on either side. He does not allow, and doubtless therefore 
 he does not find, any substantial merit in me at all. This I 
 sincerely. regret; for I see much merit in him. But this being 
 so, why can he not bum his copies of my volumes, buy no more, 
 and work at the classics himself with the help of such writers 
 as he finds to be helpful ? 
 
 Mr Headlam, as I gather from his conclusion, would as a 
 general rule think it undesirable that the expression of opinions 
 about literature should take the form of his pamphlet. But he 
 holds that my writings are a peculiar case, an insidious danger 
 which calls for an exceptional remedy. " It would be easy to 
 point out many whom their glitter has dazzled, fascinated, and 
 seduced." I have not myself observed this crowd of obsequious 
 victims. I should have said that I have received at least my 
 share of contradiction. The truth I take to be this. Mr Head- 
 lam has noticed with displeasure that my works have been 
 praised, and heartily praised, by many who are very unlikely to 
 err with me, whose humanity errs, when it errs, in other and 
 opposite ways. He draws the conclusion that these persons are 
 under some glamour or spell, which prevents them from dis- 
 cerning that I am an impostor. My own explanation is differ- 
 ent, simpler, and certainly kinder to every one concerned. It is 
 that my writings, though they have doubtless faults of their 
 own, have also merits of their own, and have rendered to many 
 some not very common services. For the sake of these services, 
 generous people, thinking perhaps that merit of any kind is not 
 too common, and perhaps not sharing, for various reasons, the 
 fear of Mr Headlam that I shall make too many go and do 
 likewise, have forgiven me when I go wrong and will, I hope, 
 continue to treat me as my efforts shall seem to deserve. 
 
 Trinity College, Cambridge, 
 Jan, 30, 1892. 
 
 CAMBBIDOE: printed by C. J. CLAT, H.A. and sons, at the university PKE88. 
 
'^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 d^M^ 
 
 \u 
 
 - 1 
 
 
 F 
 
 \ 
 
y^^^»9»fgrqs-^ mj»^ w> .'>r<s, ■*-•: . 
 
 / 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below, or at the 
 expiration of a definite period after the date of borrowing, as 
 provided by the library rules or by special arrangement with 
 the Librarian in charge. 
 
 m- \ 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 DATS BORROWCO 
 
 DAT! DUE 
 
 DATE BORROWED 
 
 DATE DUE 
 
 i 
 
 fee 20 '47 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 '! 
 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 ! 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 
 C28(946)MIOO 
 
 
 
 
 /. 
 
 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 
 
 0032145616 
 
 OCMCO 
 
 — f *^«i?«.