No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Aeschylus, Eumenides 174–8
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
The difficulty in this antistrophe is found mainly in its last line and is caused by ⋯κε⋯νου which, as it stands, does not make sense and is also unmetrical (⌣––, instead of the required –⌣–, cf. the last line [172] of the strophe). It is noticeable on the other hand that the basic meaning of the antistrophe is not really affected by omitting †⋯κε⋯νου†, and it looks as though the scholia did not pay any attention to it in commenting (on ἕτερον ⋯ν κάρᾳ) as follows: 
.
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1996
References
1 For a judgement in Hades of sins committed in life cf. Suppl. 228–31,414–16; Pi. 0.2. 56ff.; Ar. Ra. 145ff.; PI. R. 33Od–331b, Phd. 113d ff., Grg. 523a ff.
2 It could have been a consequence of such considerations that we have conjectures like 
Wakefield, 
Hartung, 
Weil, 
Zakas (
Wecklein). Two other conjectures seem to intend someone related to the Erinyes (Hades?): 
Scholefield, 
Newman, whereas a different line of thought is 
(Sauppe, Wecklein). Many other conjectures are listed in Wecklein's edition (Berlin, 1885).
3 
was certainly not written by Aeschylus. The only question is whether the corruption is due to the misreading of a similar word or words or to the intrusion of an explanatory gloss. Ether seems possible.
4 West, M.L., Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart, 1990), p. 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 If Aeschylus actually wrote 
, which is an intelligent conjecture, 
could have been a gloss on it. However, I should suggest that 
could well be elucidatory not of the missing word(s), as scholars seem to take for granted, but of the expression 
else of the word 
. Then 
, originally written in a margin, entered the text later as a correction for the word(s) now lost.