No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Three Notes on The Choephori
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
Sidgwick describes this strophe as ‘locus corruptus, coniecturis nondum sanatus.’ Mazon, who prints απεύχεται in 1. 625, leaving the rest as it stands, says ‘texte douteux.’ Of the three principal attempts to amend or otherwise interpret it, that of Hermann (ed. 1852) is too radical and far-fetched, requiring an excessive parenthesis. That of Headlam (C.R. 1900, p. 196 f.) involves the strange theory that the chorus suddenly divides itself into two, and that one half indulges in a sort of disorderly interruption of the other. That of Wilamowitz (ed. maior, 1914), while leaving the worst textual difficulty to stand, supposes that the chorus accuses itself of weakness and subservience to Clytemnestra, which, in view of Wilamowitz's own convincing interpretation of the Parodos, is highly improbable.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1936
References
page 101 note 1 For αϒεΙρω in this sense cp. perhaps Plato, , Politicus. 272dGoogle Scholar: οὗ δ' ενεκα τὸν μῦθον ηγείραμεν, which campbell takes as from εϒεɭρω ‘to arouse’.
page 101 note 2 Herman, Sidgwick, Headlam, but not Wilamowitz or Mazon. Cp. L. and S. s.v. δαϊος.
page 101 note 3 Cp. Choeph. 126, Eum. 518.
page 102 note 1 Sidgwick in his commentary points out that (a) the preceding speech of Orestes is addressed to Clytemnestra, (b) Electra had been told (1. 579) to go in: νυν οὗν σὺ μὲν ϕύλασσε τάν οϊκψ καλῶς, (c) though the grief is hollow in Clytemnestra's mouth, it would be equaly so in that of Electra, who knows that her brother is not dead, whereas in Soph. Electra she is deceived. The similarity between the two passages is very possibly due to imitation by Sophocles; but such imitation may well be merely verbal.
page 102 note 2 Cp. Croset, , Éschyle, p. 206–7Google Scholar.
page 102 note 3 Pythian XI. The date of this ode may have been either 474 or 454 (cp. Farnell's introductory note to his translatios). It cannot therfore be used as evidence to prove that Aeschylus was in certain respects drawing on Pindar, as in done by Lesky, A., Die orestie des Aischylos Hermes LXVI, p. 190 ff.Google Scholar
page 103 note 1 Éschyle, p. 24, with note, in which he deals with this ery point.
page 103 note 2 Éschyle, p. 227.
page 103 note 3 Griechische tragödie I, p. 117. Sidwick remarks with great good-sense ‘to find allusion … to the meaning “husband” is refining too much.’
page 103 note 4 Croiset, p. 171, who cites Robert, , Bild und Lied VGoogle Scholar. Cp. Gardner, E. A., Poet and Artist in Greece, pp. 86, 121Google Scholar, who figures one vase from Caere. Two are illustrated in Bayfield's school ed. of Sophocles' Electra. Cp. also Wecklein's, note on Choeph. 889Google Scholar. who gives references to Gerhard and Baumeister.
page 104 note 1 The detail may ultimately derive from Stestichorus. E. A. Gardner, p. 86.
page 104 note 2 He is the origial of Sophocles' Paidagogos.
page 104 note 3 The epithet ανδροκμῆτα, as Sidgwick saw, is almost more impressive in the woman's mouth if it has no refrence to her husband.