No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Problem in Aeschylus' Septem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
A. ScT 803–21 are a notorious crux, which has received very varied treatment from editors without any clear solution of the problem emerging.
A widely favoured version follows that of Weil, and disposes the lines as follows: 803–4 
–6–7 (
(Heimsöth) or 
(Dindorf))–8–9–io 
(Porson))–ll (
(Hartung))–21–I2 … 19– [20]. We may be able to concede the arbitrary transpositions of 805 and 821, since it is likely enough that the text is substantially disordered; more serious, however, are the inherent weaknesses in Weil's rearrangement:
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1968
References
page 4 note 1 So, for example, Smyth, H. Weir (Loeb Classical Library), and A. Sidgwick's school edition (Oxford, 1903).Google Scholar
page 4 note 2 The spelling 
seems to underlie the variants 
and was restored here and in Supp. 298 by Schultze (Kleine Schriften, 321 ff). Professor Dover reminds me that the morphological argument 
is not strong, since these are perhaps the only extant examples of gen./ dat. dual of a noun in 
and analogy may have counted for more. On balance I think that the orthographic variants here support Schultze, and there is euphonic advantage in the avoidance of homoeoteleuton.
page 4 note 3 In Denniston, p. 340, ScT 809 is listed with other (few) examples of 
but it is clearly different in that it neither follows a negative nor makes a negative statement, in conjunction with 
the line being equivalent, approximately at least, to 
The meaning is both assentient and progressive (thus slightly corrective), and though not exactly paralleled is in line with the general usage of 
For the rhythm cf. 668 
page 4 note 4 Page, D. L., Actors’ Interpolations in Greek Tragedy (Oxford, 1934), pp. 31 f.Google Scholar
page 5 note 1 Cf. Pers. 396, 397, 403, 408; 447, 448, 453, 463, 467. I refrain from multiplying instances in Aeschylus of similar groups of resolved feet.
page 6 note 1 
as the plural of 
is unknown in Attic poetry. Such a form is not to be ruled out in later antiquity, but is here probably to be attributed to Triclinius. M1 has 
which in this line may well be the only early variant 
‘joint–born–sons of the king’, i.e. 
cf. 807). If 804–5 ever cohered in antiquity, then 
will probably have been regarded as an unfinished sentence–opening (aposiopesis), followed by a fresh start: ‘(unnamed) men are dead’. This, though odd, at least avoids too explicit a statement of the news before 806–8. For this, 
(Porson) may be preferable, but little is gained by introducing such a correction into the text. The later Byzantines evidently took the sense to be ‘reges, viri consanguinei’.
page 6 note 2 If 805 is regarded as spurious, 
(M1) acquires significance; it could be that the line was originally inter– polated in this unmetrical form, and only later corrected to 
Much depends on our hypothetical dating of the corruption as a whole, for which see below.
page 6 note 3 The first question (‘Who?’) is more, perhaps, than a mere exclamation of shock. True, ‘the joint–born kings’ is hardly ambiguous, but the Chorus-leader's first reaction may well be to demand names, instinctively rejecting the obvious meaning. Her second question is more logical, and 
serves to apologize for the slow–wittedness of the first query, as well as expressing her anxiety about what is to come. Perhaps we should punctuate 
page 7 note 1 So Wecklein, dismissed by Murray: ‘sed ru sic quidem bene se habet 
’. Given the stichomythia it is hard to visualize a better antecedent (p. 4 above, and n. 3).
page 7 note 2 Here may be mentioned the variant 
intelligible at any period and probably unconnected with the main disorder; also 
(all except M1): the alteration (clearly for the worse, unless we are also prepared to write 
) is sur prising, but undoubtedly subsequent to the intrusion of 805 and reversal of 809–10; after ‘Dead are … Oedipus’ offspring … and indisputably reduced to the dust’, ‘Do they lie there?’ rightly seemed feeble, and ‘Did they even come thither 
?’ at least made a point, if an ungrammatical one.
page 7 note 3 
(codd.) was rightly sus– pected by Murray. 
is certainly what one expects and 
could have resulted, e.g., from erroneous rectification of ΔON-OMΩC. With 
the Chorus-leader is saying ‘Forget my irrelevant remark and tell me what is essential’ (Denniston, p. 461). There is little logic in this here, for 
refers to the same topic as 
We might justify papia 
by saying that is logically equivalent to 
(the whole point being the Chorus' fear), but the equation is a strain, and we still do not require both 
and 
while 
is almost necessary with 
.
page 7 note 4 
(codd.) is less obvious than 
(Headlam, Murray), but prob– ably right, associating Oedipus also, through his curse, with the ill fate.
page 7 note 5 A lesser change than 
(Hartung), and 
(Middle) is other– wise Epic. Perhaps 
was misread as 
unless y' was simply omitted (cf. Hp. 275).
page 8 note 1 e.g. E. Hp. 405–6 and 662–3 (see infra 20ff, 28ff).Google Scholar
page 8 note 2 A similar problem is presented by Hp. 105 ff., where 105 seems to have been brought forward from a position before 114, with reversal (? prior or consequent) of 106–7.Google Scholar
page 8 note 3 The problem was usefully studied by Page, D. L. (op. cit.), but few will be able to agree with all his decisions in detail. In general I think that editors are too ready to postulate comparatively motiveless composition by actors (surely all the suggestions are that their tolerance of apparent anomalies was greater, not less, than that of the great dramatists?), and often premature in deducing spurious composition rather than transmissional error from linguistic faults.Google Scholar
page 8 note 4 The present dialogue has a lively character, almost in the manner of Euripides (cf., esp., Hp. 310–13)Google Scholar; some have associated this passage with the quasi-Sophoclean conclusion of the play (Wilamowitz, , Aischylos Interptetationen, following Scholl, Westphal, Wecklein, Paley, etc.)Google Scholar. But the authenticity of the finale has been vindicated by Lloyd– Jones (CQ N.S. ix [1959], 80 ff.).Google Scholar
page 8 note 5 Barrett, , Hippolytos, pp. 45 ff. If ScT was creatively revised in antiquity, such a process would seem least unlikely to have occurred very early, when the plays of Aeschylus were in posthumous competition with those of Sophocles and Euripides (perhaps even by Aeschylus himself at the end of his life). No doubt there were plenty of litterati in the later fourth and third centuries fully capable of sustained iambic composition in the grand manner; but it is less clear that such people will have been in a position to revise an established masterpiece in such a way as to affect its subsequent tradition. This a priori argument may be tenuous, but I think it sufficient to set against some of the assumptions too lightly made by many editors of dramatic texts.Google Scholar
page 9 note 1 A fairly clear case of early interpolation caused by misunderstanding of an interruption is to be found in Hp. 1045 ff. (delete 1047–50).Google Scholar
page 9 note 2 Such a telescoped variant could alternatively have resulted from a helpful marginale explaining the construction of 804 …821.
page 9 note 3 One consideration which might help to date the confusion is that those variants which seem connected with it 
are found in all MSS. except only the first hand in M; whereas variants unconnected with the disorder 
are quite differently distributed. But it is difficult to deduce more from this than the dogged honesty of M1 when faced with nonsense in his archetype. We cannot know whether wrong corrections by M2/m are new conjectures or based on marginalia in the archetype.