16οι (α) θαρρῶν (β) θαρσῶν Pors.

(α) ώσπερ (β) ὥστε Scal.

1602 (a) deest pes in fine. (B) yw suppl. Heath 1603 (a) deest pes in fine. (B) Kaλws suppl. Can.

1603. This Conspectus shows that the editor has received about 286 corrections of the ms. text made by other scholars, and 134 for which his own judgment is responsible; the latter including 16 suggested additions which supply good poetic sense in places manifestly defective. These additions are in the text itself carefully distinguished from the adjoining context. The editor admits that many of his emendations are of an unusually bold character in places which seemed to him to require the ǎkos Toμaîov. If he is censured, as by some he probably will be, for undue audacity, he can only reply, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τὸ κάλλος ἐξέσωσ ̓ οὔ μοι μέλει. His endeavour has been to exhibit such a text of this noblest Greek drama, as the scholar may read or the actor recite without having to flounder through many a puddle of grammatical, logical and metrical corruption. If he has done this, he is content: if he has failed to do it, his failure is complete.

K. A.

13

APPENDED NOTES ON INTERPRETATION.

ως

So. Tó 6 népynpwv. Mr Paley (Ed. 4, 1. 79), editing o épympus, the conjecture of Franz, says in his note: 'the preservation of the termination in ws is in favour of Franz's emendation': alluding to the corrupt readings of most codd. Tɩθυπεργήρως, τόθιπερ γήρως, while Cod. F. has τόθ' ὑπέργηρων. But it is not surprising that scribes should corrupt pov into γήρως, being familiar with the words γῆρας, γήραος, γήρως. The with which all begin would be very surprising, if it did not represent an original reading Tó. There could be nothing else suggestive of that letter at the beginning of their corrupt word. This argument is decisive in favour of Tо ρων'. pov1. See also note on Consp. Lect.

T

542. Νικώμενος λόγοισιν οὐκ ἀναίνομαι. Mr Paley's note here (566) by rendering ‘I do not reject or disdain the feeling of joy,' seems to suggest that avaívoμaι requires an accus. object to be mentally supplied. This would be an error. The verb, like aloxúvoμai, admits three constructions (1) accus., (2) infin. as 1582, (3) participle, as here, ouk avaívoμai vikúμevos. So Bl. Gloss. 'cum participio loquentis construitur. Eurip. Iphig. Α. 1512, θανοῦσα δ ̓ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι. Herc. F. 1235, εú δράσας δέ σ ̓ οὐκ ἀναίνομαι.

859-862. We regret, on every ground, that in his 4th edition (904-907) Mr Paley should persist in combating the

1 We also think that the abstract expression τó 0' vπépynρwv comes in sequence to ὅ τε γὰρ νεαρὸς μυελός with far more fitness and probability than the concrete ὅ θ' υπέργηρως. Our emendation οὔ τις ἀρείων for οὐδὲν ἀρείων, gets rid of the only grave objection to τό θ' ὑπέργηρων.

interpretation of these lines, which we gave in the Journal of Philology, and repeat in this edition; and that he should substitute a version, which the logic and context of the place, the laws of language and taste, and the facts of Greek archaeology concur in rebutting. A thoughtful student of the Greek drama cannot suppose that Clytaemnestra in this στIXομνbía merely resumes an entreaty which she had made already (ἔκβαιν' ἀπήνης τῆσδε κ.τ.λ. 834), and which Agamemnon had answered with a reasoned denial, 846 K.T.λ. She returns indeed to the charge, but it is by a questioning λeyxos that she now tries to carry her point, and this change of form is introduced and indicated by the transitional particles καὶ μήν', well now. Mr Paley renders τόδ ̓ εἰπὲ μὴ παρὰ yvúμnv čμoí, 'do speak on this matter not contrary to my will' wrongly in all but μn aρά. Εἰπὲ τόδε cannot mean what he gives, nor anything but (with poí) tell me this (which I am going to ask),' i. e. answer me this question.' Tvμŋv ought not to be rendered 'will' it means 'opinion' or 'judgment. Again un rapà yvény époì is bad Greek in the sense 'not against my opinion.' Aesch. had already given the true Greek for this phrase, as well as the true sense of yvwμŋv, in Suppl. 448, γένοιτο δ' εὖ παρὰ γνώμην ἐμήν, ' may it turn out well contrary to my opinion.'

6

Evidently Clytemnestra says: well now (kai μrjv) eiñè τόδε ἐμοί tell me this μὴ παρὰ γνώμην not contrary to your opinion, i.e. give me a sincere answer to this question: or, as it stands in our verse translation,

'Well now, thy true thought not evading, answer me.' Coming to the next line, we have Agamemnon replying

γνώμην μὲν ἴσθι μὴ διαφθεροῦντ ̓ ἐμέ.

1 We find κal unv 20 times used by Aeschylus; here alone with an imperative; and we doubt whether all Greek literature will supply a second example of such use. It is manifestly due here to nothing but the necessity of oтixoμvlía, which required an introductory line before the actual question.

Which Mr Paley renders: 'as for will, be assured that I am not the man to alter mine for the worse.' We could proceed on his lines here, only correcting his renderings of yvwμŋv and baofesora. We could write: 'as for opinion, be assured that I am not the man to misstate mine.’ Διαφθείρω can take the sense given by Mr Paley: it can equally well take the sense we give. And ours is right, because we cannot suppose that Aesch. means Agamemnon simply and brutally to reply here: I am not the man to change my will, I can tell you.' His language is the sentiment of a true gentleman: 'be sure I will say what I really think.' Mr Paley seems to suppose he has found an argument against our view when he says 'the pronoun (uè) is clearly emphatic.' But it is used with exactly as much emphasis in our rendering as in his'. In our verse translation it stands :

'My true thought be assured I shall not falsify.'

Then Clyt. puts her first question:

ηὔξω θεοῖς δείσας ἂν ὧδ ̓ ἔρδειν τάδε ;

Mr Paley does not edit this as a question. He prints it with a full stop, though it finds a manifest reply (eidws ye) from Agam., and is followed up by an undoubted question in the next speech of Clyt. Yet he himself gives the question-form as an alternative in his note; thereby showing that the right

Let us say a few words here about the pronominal forms ¿uoû, ¿μoì, d. It seems to be often assumed (because there exist μov, μo, μe, which #enclitics are, eo nomine, less emphatic) that èμoû, èμoì, èμé are therefore always essentially emphatic. This is an error: and the proof is, that they gain emphasis by an appended ye. They are no more emphatic than their first person ἐγώ or their congeners σοῦ, σοι, σέ. In short their more or I emphasis, or indifference, depends on their position relatively to other words: and a poet, swayed by the claims of metre, will often place them for convenience where some may suppose an emphasis to be designed. uch we believe to be the case with euol in 859. Aesch. would willingly have written εἰπέ μοι τόδε. Ἐμοὶ falling to the close gains some force and es near to represent our idiomatic 'please,' or 'pray.'

version to his mind is doubtful. ful in the smallest particular.

To our mind it is not doubtBut let us hear Mr Paley.

906. 'You would have vowed to the gods to act thus in a time of fear,' i.e. you are pursuing a course more like one in peril than a victor....Or interrogatively: 'Did you make a vow to the gods that you would so act (or wde pools av) in a time of fear?'

Of these two widely divergent renderings we could not have been 'happy with either' were the other away. They both imply something novel in archaeology, that a Greek warrior in a dangerous crisis of battle could make a vow to some god or gods, that, if rescued and victorious, he would not on returning home walk on purple tapestry to his palace. What? Are we anywhere told that Greek warriors in time of danger vowed to the gods that they would refrain from doing something? Do we not read everywhere, that their vows were to do something involving expenditure, to offer victims, to build shrines, or, as here, to walk on purple embroideries in honour of the propitious deity? This certainty sets aside both Mr Paley's suggestions. The former, if made interrogative, by writing 'Would you' instead of 'you would,' becomes correct. The second is on every ground wrong. (1) That the words yo ἂν δείσας are to be taken together is certain (see ἂν ηύξάμην 891). (2) The nature of the question suggested by Mr Paley carries its own confutation with it. Could any one be supposed to make a vow, that, if a dangerous crisis occurred, he would not walk on purple after being saved? We render in our verse translation:

'Would'st thou in fear have vowed unto the gods such act?'

i.e. 'would you in some fearful crisis have vowed that you would do the thing I am now inviting you to do?' Clyt. herself afterwards says (891) 'I would have vowed the treading under foot of many a broidered cloth, if an oracle had declared such expenditure to be the necessary ransom of your life.'