Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:10:29.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Guilt of Agamemnon1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Hugh Lloyd-Jones
Hugh Lloyd-Jones
Affiliation:
Christ Church, Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In recent years the general view of the theology and morality of Aeschylus which we still find expressed in the most popular handbooks of Greek tragedy has come under fire; fire which its defenders have so far been unwilling or unable to return. That Aeschylus was a bold religious innovator propounding advanced doctrines can no longer be assumed without argument; neither can one take for granted that his outlook on morality in general and on justice in particular was as advanced as it was once usual to maintain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 12 , Issue 2 , December 1962 , pp. 187 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 187 note 2 See Page's, D. L. preface to Aeschylus, Agamemnon, ed. Denniston, J. D. and Page, D. L., 1957;Google Scholar and my article ‘Zeus in Aeschylus’ in J.H.S. lxxvi (1956), 55 f.Google Scholar

page 188 note 1 Fraenkel, Eduard, Aeschylus, Agamemnon (1950), iii. 625.Google Scholar

page 189 note 1

page 189 note 2 Rh. Mus. ciii (1960), 76 f.Google Scholar

page 190 note 1 Daube, B., Zu den Rechtsproblemen in Aischylos' Agamemnon (Zürich, 1939), pp. 147 f.Google Scholar

page 190 note 2

page 191 note 1 I follow Page in accepting Bamberger's emendation of . At P.V. 944 (cited by Fraenkel as a parallel supporting the manuscript reading), I would render by ‘you whose excess of bitterness shall taste bitter in your own mouth’, supposing the adverb to involve the sense of the word illustrated by Fraenkel, , op. cit. ii. 301, n. 1.Google Scholar

page 191 note 2 ‘Morals and Politics in the Oresteia’, in Proc. Cambr. Phil. Soc. 186, N.S. vi (1960), 19 f.; on this point see pp. 27–28.Google Scholar

page 192 note 1 is Valckenaer's emendation of the manuscript reading . It is usually supported by quoting Il. 6. 202 ; but a better parallel is furnished by Quintus Smyrnaeus, 3. 456 . To hold on to the manuscript reading and suppose that can be construed with as though it were a verb of knowing (as Murray, Fraenkel, and Page all do) seems to me impossible.

page 193 note 1 Proc. Brit. Acad. xxviii. 22.Google Scholar

page 193 note 2 Aeschylus, Agamemnon, ii. 441.Google Scholar

page 193 note 3 Der Agamemnon des Aeschylus (Zürich and Stuttgart, 1957), p. 23.Google Scholar

page 193 note 4 Aeschylus, Agamemnon, ii. 371 f.;Google Scholar cf. Proc. Brit. Acad., loc. cit., 22–23.Google Scholar

page 195 note 1 See Denniston, and Page, , op. cit., p. 120.Google Scholar

page 196 note 1 In (Festschrift für W. H. Schuchhardt) (Baden-Baden, 1960), pp. 69 f.Google Scholar

page 197 note 1 T.A.P.A. lxviii (1937), 197 f.;Google Scholar see also my review of Fritz, K. von, Antike und Moderne Tragoedie (Berlin, 1962), which is shortly to appear in Gnomon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 197 note 2 I hope soon to supplement this article by a discussion of this ode.

page 198 note 1 My translation assumes that in 1. 1470 one may restore responsion and at the same time remove the very real difficulty of by accepting Rauchenstein's conjecture .

page 199 note 1 Agam. 1485–6; Sophocles, , Trach. 1278.Google Scholar