No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Cobet, in his second discussion of ⋯γορεύω and its compounds, maintained that these verbs in Attic formed all tenses except present and imperfect from ⋯ρ⋯, εἶπον, εἴρηκα, εἴρηµαɩ, ⋯ρρήθην, save that forms with -αγορευ- were optionally used to distinguish certain alternative meanings. Thus ⋯πηγόρευσα etc. (Dem. 40.44, 55.4) could be used in the sense ‘forbid’, but not in that of ‘weary’ or ‘give up’; προηγορευµένα (Xen. Mem. 1.2.35) could be used in the sense ‘proclaimed’, but not in that of ‘foretold’ ‘or’ ‘said previously’; προσαγορε⋯σαι etc. (Pl. Phd. 104a, Polit. 288c; Xen. Mem. 3.2.1; Anaxilas fr. 21.4; Dem. 39.38, 40.1; Lyk. Leokr. 9, 18; and several other fourth-century instances, to which add one much earlier, [Aesch.] Prom. 834) could be used in the sense ‘call, name’ but not in that of ‘greet’. These distinctions, he believed, did not break down until about the time of Alexander. Hence his rejection of the aorist καταγορεύσῃ offered by the MS. tradition in Peace 107.
But καταγορεύειν too is a verb with two clearly distinct ranges of meaning: ‘tell, declare’ (as here, Clouds 518, Eur. Med. 1106) and ‘denounce, accuse’ (as Hdt. 3.71.5, Pl. Rep. 595b).
1 Mnemosyne (1st ser.) 11 (1862), 127–38Google Scholar.
2 Cobet actually deleted the phrase in question (ὡς ἄλλο τι ποι⋯ ἣ τἄ προηγορευµένα), but it was accepted by his follower Rutherford, W. G. (The New Phrynichus [London, 1881], 333–4)Google Scholar.
3 This view agrees with the evidence of inscriptions, in which ⋯ναγορε⋯σαι begins to appear alongside ⋯νειπεῖν from c. 325 b.c. (Meisterhans, K. & Schwyzer, E., Grammatik der attischen Inschriften 3 [Berlin, 1900], 182Google Scholar).
4 Most editors from Blaydes onwards have followed Cobet here. The last not to do so seems to have been Rogers, who in his critical appendix (p. 185) denounced Cobet's ‘reckless generalizations’ without, however, bolstering his rhetoric by any cogent argument.
5 Sharpley (n. ad loc.) asserts, contrariwise, that καταγορεύσῃ could only mean ‘accuse’. He cites no evidence in support of this statement, and in classical Attic (which alone is relevant) I am not aware of any.
6 On the assumption that, as is always possible and sometimes necessary both in tragedy and in comedy, the first syllable of ⋯θάνατον is long.
7 In three of these places the resolution is at sentence-end (once with change of speaker), in Ach. 928 at clause-end. See West, M. L., Greek Metre (Oxford, 1982), 89Google Scholar.
8 Sharpley, and also at one time Coulon, V. (REG 38 [1925], 82Google Scholar), tried to defend ἰώ in Peace 246 by supposing what can best be described as a histrionic pause after the first Mέγαρα. In a later article (cited in n. 10) Coulon rightly abandoned this notion.
9 These are listed by White, J. W., The Verse of Greek Comedy (London, 1912), 50Google Scholar.
10 These passages, and others, are discussed by Coulon, V., REG 66 (1953), 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar (who tends to favour proceleusmatic feet) and Newiger, H. J., Hermes 89 (1961), 175–84Google Scholar (who tends to favour emendation).
11 It is highly probable that they are right. Their language (τό α ⋯κτείνεται, ὡς ⋯ν ‘Ολκάσιν, ἒνθα κα⋯ τò Νικοφ⋯ντος ⋯ξ ‘Aφροδίτης Гον⋯ν [fr.2]παρετέθη· οὐκ ⋯ς κόρακας τώ χεῖρ’ ⋯ποίσεις ⋯κποδών | ⋯πò το⋯ σκυταλίου 〈τε add. Dindorf 〉καί τ⋯ς διφθέρας;) shows that the matter was discussed more fully in a commentator's note on a passage in Aristophanes’ Holkades. This passage may or may not be Ar. fr. 422 Kock = 432 Kassel-Austin σκύταλονύποσίδρον; in any case there is no good reason to reject the commentator's evidence that the text was such as to require the scansion -τᾱλ-. It is quite credible that σκύταλον and its derivatives may have been optionally pronounceable with [a:] in colloquial Attic: a parallel is provided by κυνοκεφᾱλῳ (Knights 416), and the lengthening will have been aided by the existence of several slangy words in which -ᾱλος seems to have functioned as a quasi-suffix (σκίταλος, κόβαλος, *σκίµαλος, implied by σκιµαλίζω and itself surviving, it seems, to be recorded, slightly misspelt, in a Greek-Coptic glossary of the sixth century a.d. [P.Lond. 1821.308: see Aegyptus 6 (1925), 194]Google Scholar).
12 If, as Dr Austin tells me he believes, the text of Thesm. 100 (µύρµηκος ⋯τραπούς, ἣ τί διαµινυρίζεται;) is sound (διαµινύρεται Dawes and most editors), it constitutes an exact parallel to Wasps 1169, and whatever analysis is correct for one of the two lines should be applied also to the other.
13 The simplex κορίζοµαι, in fact, is known only from Clouds 68, where it takes as second object not a pet-name or euphemism, as ὑποκορίζοµαι normally does, but a speech.
14 See West, , Greek Metre 14Google Scholar.
15 Wilamowitz (n. ad loc.) ‘Das Iota muss in der Aussprache verschliffen sein’.
Kriton 47e ἣ φαυλότερον ⋯γούµεθα εἶναι το⋯ σώµατος ⋯κεῖνο, ὅ τι ποτ’⋯στ⋯ τ⋯ν ⋯µετέρων περ⋯ ⋯ ἢ τε ⋯δικία καί ⋯ δικαιοσύνη ⋯στίν; The question itself makes it clear that Socrates regards the unidentified something as very important indeed, and as having a precise identity which only awaits discovery; as both Kriton and Plato's readers will have been well aware, it is in fact the ψυχ⋯.
16 Op. cit. (n. 10). The relevant passages discussed by Newiger are Plato com. fr. 188.1; Nikostratos fr. 15.2; Antiphanes fr. 234.6; Men. Sam. 192 Körte3 = 407 Sandbach; Men. fr. 326 K-T. Another passage, Ar. fr. 345.1 Koch = 359.1 Kassel-Austin, was not considered by Newiger, because Coulon in his 1953 article (see n. 10) had not cited it as evidence for the admissibility of proceleusmatics in the comic trimeter; it is manifestly corrupt.
17 I am particularly grateful to Dr Austin for alerting me to the relevance of this passage.
18 Page, D. L., Greek Literary Papyri i (London etc., 1942), p. 212Google Scholar (line 74). Page fails to mention the emendation in his apparatus, which at this point says only ‘63–75 as given by Körte’; similarly Plepelits, K., Die Fragmente der Demen des Eupolis (Vienna, 1970), 144Google Scholar ascribes τίς γ’ to Körte, but the conjecture is not to be found in either of Körte's treatments of the passage (Hermes 47 [1912], 289Google Scholar; Berichte Akad. Leipzig (Phil.-hist. Klasse) 716[1919], 8Google Scholar). If γ' is inserted. the second metron of the trimeter must be taken to begin with -τω rather than -ει-, so that ποι-. if rightly restored, must be scanned as short.
19 Luppe, W., Archiv für Papyrusforschung 28 (1982), 22Google Scholar, bluntly describing the text of the papyrus as ‘metrically false’.
20 They have the same problem with Agamemnon in 783ff.; these passages are the beginning of the ‘what shall I say?’ theme (cf. Lebeck, A., The Oresteia [Washington, 1971], 103–4Google Scholar) which runs most of the way through the trilogy.
Knights 1107 ⋯νύστέ νυν ⋯ τι περ ποιήσεθ'. There is no sign that the speaker, Demos, is much concerned about the precise nature of the services Paphlagon and the Sausage-seller are going to perform for him; what matters to him is not the quality of these services but their quantity (cf. 1108–9) and the speed with which they are delivered (cf. 1107 ἁνύσατε, 1156–7).
Clouds 476 ⋯λλ' ⋯γχείρει τόν ππρεσβύτην ⋯ τι περ µέλλεις προδιδάσκειν. The speaker is the chorus-leader; she is unlikely to be curious about the exact content of Socrates’ teaching (indeed, as a goddess and a patron of Socrates she might be presumed to know it already) — rather, she is urging Socrates to set to work now on educating Strepsiades, her ultimate motive being to bring about the punishment of both of them (cf. 1452–61).
Frogs 1105–7 ⋯ τι περ οὖν ἒξετον ⋯ρίζειν, | λέγετον, ἒπιτον, ⋯νά τε δέρετον | τά τε παλαιά καί τ⋯ καιν⋯. Throughout the contest between Aeschylus and Euripides the chorus see it primarily in agonistic terms, their interest being not in the important issues at stake but in the styles and methods of the contestants: cf. 814–29, 875–84, 895–906, 997–1003, 1100–4, 1370–7. Here too they seem less concerned to find out what the next subject of debate is going to be than to hear it discussed with ingenuity (1108 κ⋯ποκινδυνε⋯ετον λεπτόν τι καί σοφ⋯ν λέγειν) and combative vigour (1106–7).
21 θέλεις MГU: θέλῃς RVEA.
22 The following words (⋯µ⋯ν τείν codd.) are a notorious crux (see West, M. L., CR 18 [1968], 7–8Google Scholar), but are not relevant to the problem with which we are concerned here.
23 Euthph. 3d, 5d; Charm. 168d; Rep. 492e; Parm. 142e, 153de, 154d; Tim. 77b; Soph. 224e, 234b (⋯ τι περ ἃν βουληθῇ δρ⋯ν, το⋯το ίκανώτατος ὣν ⋯ποτελεῖν ἒργῳ), 255a, d; Laws 645c, 656c, 662a (ποι⋯ν ⋯ τι περ ⋯πιθυµοῖ, 753c, 780d, 863b, 878a, 915a; Epist. 7.335b.
24 Cf. Ach. 566, where ὦ (Hermann: metrically necessary) has become ἰὼ in all MSS., influenced by ἰὼ Λάµαχ’ Just before and in 568.
25 They are not mentioned in the recent defence of the MSS.' reading by Marzullo, B., Museum Criticum 18 (1983), 99 n. 19Google Scholar.
26 Accepting in 538–47 the speaker-assignments of van Leeuwen, which gave the passage a liveliness and a consistency of pattern never before perceived, and which have been adopted by Coulon, Platnauer, and Mastromarco.
27 So van Herwerden and Mazon, and most recently Cassio, A. C., Commedia epartecipazione: la Pace di Aristofane (Naples, 1985), 66 n. 28Google Scholar.
28 For καί…γε used by a speaker capping the remark of another, cf. Knights 963, Clouds 293, Wasps 500, Birds 1552, Lys. 1221, Thesm. 709, Ekkl. 476, 816, Wealth 99, 153, 217, 622, 1168. Dr Austin objects that the insertion of γ' after τ⋯ν δορυξ⋯ν might ‘put too much emphasis’ on that phrase; compare however Wealth 217 αὐτòς διαπράξω τα⋯τα. — κἃν βο⋯λᾐ γ', ⋯γώ, where the main emphasis must be on ⋯γώ rather than on ἤν βο⋯λῃ. It is true that ‘the effect of γε in καί…γε is to stress the addition made by καί’ (Denniston, J. D., The Greek Particles 2 [Oxford, 1954], 157)Google Scholar; but in Peace 549 ‘the addition made by καί’ is not just τ⋯ν δρυξόν but the whole sentence.
29 The Comedies of Aristophanes, Vol. 5: Peace (Warminster, 1985)Google Scholar.
30 There are nine other passages in Peace where metre and/or sense strongly support the insertion of a γ’ or γε absent from the paradosis: 387 (emended by Triklinios), 402 (Triklinios), 439 (Rogers), 449 (Neil), 497 (Bentley), 630 (Bentley), 824 (Dindorf: see below), 916 (Dindorf), 1029 (Triklinios).
31 Cf. Heberlein, F., Pluthygieia: Zur Gegenwelt bei Aristophanes (Frankfurt, 1980), 89Google Scholar.
32 Cf. Denniston, , Particles 451–3Google Scholar.
33 Cf. also Wasps 795 (γ⋯ρ Suda), Peace 220 (γ⋯ρ ed. Aldina), Frogs 804 (γ⋯ρ Sudae codd. AVFMac). In Peace 545 γο⋯ν survives in RV alone and Triklinios had before him a defective text which he supplemented with γ⋯ρ; in Wasps 217, contrariwise, he altered a seemingly unmetrical γ⋯ρ to γο⋯ν (better with Porson γ' ἆρ’: see Lowe, J. C. B., Glotta 51 [1973], 45Google Scholar).
34 See Kühner-Gerth, i.211–12. Properly ἄν belongs with the imperfect ἒσειον, but it is displaced to accompany a participle specifying an important circumstance, as in Xen. Anab. 4.7.16 ἒσφαττον ὦν κρατεῖν δ⋯ναιντο, καί ⋯ποτέµνοντες ἂν τάς κεφαλάς ἒχοντες ⋯πορε⋯οντο (cf. K–G i.242–3).
35 It was printed by Blaydes, who claimed to have conjectured it independently. Sharpley prints ὥς γ' ⋯γὼ as lemma to his note, but for some reason not in his text.
36 Denniston, , Particles 133–8Google Scholar.
37 So e.g. Brunck, Meineke, Hall-Geldart, Sharpley, Rogers.
38 So van Leeuwen, Coulon, Platnauer, Mastromarco. Dobree, followed e.g. by Holden, gave all of 1045 to Trygaios and 1046a to the slave. Mazon gave 1045a to the slave and the rest to Trygaios. The MSS. have no explicit identifications of speakers hereabouts.
39 Knights 728–9, 786–7; Birds 93–4, 1495–6; Thesm. 134–45; Frogs 38–9; Wealth 422. In some of these passages the comment is on the actions of the person(s) concerned rather than on their appearance; in some it takes the form of one or more further questions.
40 Denniston, , Particles 33, 39–40Google Scholar.
41 Other such question-guess sequences include Clouds 1260–1, Wasps 1509, Birds 269, 1203, Lys. 982 (where read with Bentley σὺ δ' εἶ τί; π⋯τερ' ἄνθρωπος ἣ Θονίσαλος;), Ekkl. 327.
42 Knights 351, 493; Peace 1224; Birds 225, 1153; Lys. 136; Frogs 6; Ekkl. 404; Wealth 905. In addition, at Ach. 802 and Thesm. 140 only the Suda is in error. My information on MS. readings is derived from published apparatuses, collations and reports (among which special mention is due to Eberline, C. N., Studies in the Manuscript Tradition of the Ranae of Aristophanes [Meisenheim, 1980]Google Scholar), and more complete information would probably result in the above list of passages being further pruned. For the similar fortunes of δαί in Euripides see Page on Med. 339.
43 δή appears in R at Clouds 656, in G at Birds 1615 and in all MSS. at Peace 929 (where the sequence δή … δ⋯τα would be without parallel, and Meineke's δαί is now generally accepted): cf. perhaps τιή (V) and ⋯τιή (M) for τί δαί at Frogs 867. In Birds 136, however, δή (Bpc) is a metrical correction of δ⋯ (BacГU al.), like the Triklinian δ' αὖ at Birds 832 (for δ⋯ VEMГU). Eur. Med. 1012 provides an interesting spectrum of error; Diggle reports δαί BOEAL, δ⋯ CVP, δ⋯ D, δ’αὖ Christus Patiens 731.
44 That many would prefer to write χρ⋯σθ⋯τ⋯ρῳ there, whereas no one thinks of writing δ⋯γώ here or (e.g.) γράψοµ⋯γώ at Wasps 538, is of no significance: all these passages are examples of the same linguistic phenomenon. See Platnauer, M., CQ 10 (1960), 141CrossRefGoogle Scholar; West, , Greek Metre 13Google Scholar.