BlCS 32 (1985) 35

GREEK TRAGIC TEXTS AND THE LIMITS OF CONSERVATISM

T.C.W. Stinton

Some conjectures I made some years ago1 have recently been criticised by Professor G. Giangrande on the ground that I have needlessly altered a sound text through failing to understand it.2 1 do not think his criticisms are justified, and reply to them in order.

A. Suppl. 524 aval ~ V U K T U V , paKapwv

reheiorarov KPUTOC, oh& Z E ~ ,

aXcvuov hv6pGv vppiv €6 uruy7juac, . . .

G. writes: “Paley . . . has understood and explained line 527 perfectly(‘yevbOo, “so be it”, it as it were the amen to the request which follows . . . no change seems advisable’), but Stinton does not even bother to quote Paley”, My own note reads: “M’s yev€uOw in 527 must meanf’hf, an impossible sense with no closer analogue than LXX ykvoiro ykvoiro”. By this I meant (and saw no need to explain) that the im- personal y ~ v k ~ O w / y&oiro =f iat is not found in classical Greek.3 I did not quote Paley because his note does nothing to meet this objection. Schutz had already found neiOou re K a l yevPuOo “feeble” (langueve videfur), and Lobeck had emended to y k w i u+. I was offering a firmer linguistic ground for suspecting the text. G. replies that on the contrary “yevkuOw is, of all things, typical of prayers and sacral language”, referring to Bauer4 and the Thesaurus for this word, and to Zieglers on forms of prayer for “imperatives of the type yEvkuOw” as “typical of prayers uttered in Aeschylus”. The three examples from Bauer (un- attributed by G., who implies that they are a selection), are:Matt. 6.10 ycvqO7jrw TO OkhqpU uou, from the Lord’s Prayer (in some MSS. at Luke 11.2; cf. also Matt. 26.42, with Luke 22.42); Syntipas 25.2 yeviuOw TO aiiqpa (compared by Bauer); and I Cor. 16.24 ~evqO7jro yevqr7B7jrw. The first two are not impersonal, and so irrelevant. The third occurs in one MS. only, after the concluding sentence of the epistle, 4 UyU7-r~ pou peru nuvrov bpGv kv Xpiur(?? Iquoli, and is a manifest interpolation of uncertain date. It is probably a liturgical addition, as doubtless is iyl7jv, read here in some MSS., which it would translate, as ykvoiro does in Ps. 72.19, for example. It might, however, since it concludes the epistle, reflect the epistolary subscript ycvkuOo found in Ptolemaic papyri (Mayser 2.2, 14), a purely secular expression, “agreed”, literally “let it be SO”, not mentioned by G. He also cites Oruc. Syh. 1.9 c h a r “ywaaOw”. The full context (9-10) runs: (nipavuKe) ij$curov @auihija, oe PKrm K O U ~ O V anaural einuc “yivkuOw”, K& ylvero6 i.e. ywiuOw is not impersonal but has K O U ~ O C as its subject, the passage being modelled on Cen. 1.3 K& e l n ~ v o Ocoq r&qO7jrw qWe. K U ~ kyivero qGc. Other examples in the New Testament of impersonal ywq6rjrd (not in Bauer or G.) are: Matt. 8.13 he knLbreuuae y ~ q & j r o uoi, 9.29 y. Karu rj7v ntbriv UpGv, 15.28 y. uoi h e OkXeie. But the adverbial clause, functioning as a predicate, makes an essential difference: yEvqO7jro h e Okheie = y. TO Bihqpu 0011.~ Finally we might compare ykvo~ro o ykvoiro, with a subject (see n. 3).

/lUKUpTUT€ KUi T E h k W V

nl6Ofi T E KUi y€Vfl 061

G. has previously invoked “the unanimous conclusion of the Naples international congress on textual criticism . . . that ‘conservatorismo’, in the sense of an effort aimed at explaining texts on a historical foundation - i.e. on the foundation of contemporary Sprachgebrauch and rdnoi - instead of altering them when we cannot at first understand them, is the primal duty of the textual critic”. I am all for conservatism in this sense, but the operative word is “contemporary”. Of course New

36 BfCS 32 (1985)

Testament Greek and vernacular papyri can sometimes throw much light on the development of the language, and so illuminate usages in classical Greek. But t o illustrate the language of classical Greek by examples of usage from texts of different genre, written several centuries later in a totally different society, is a negation of method. The epistolary yivtoOw, though later than the Septuagint, is perhaps the nearest parallel, being straightforward vernacular Greek with no Hebrew or Aramaic background; but it has none of the liturgical tones required, and is again poles apart from Aeschylus in period and genre. The examples in Ziegler (op.ci t . , n. 5 ) of “imperatives of similar type” in Aeschylean prayers are nothing to the point

G. rebukes me for “altering no fewer than three words in one line”: neiOou T E Kai to n d o i r u x a . T E KaI‘ is in itself suspect (a point I did make before). In Aeschylus and Sophocles re Ka‘juxtaposed normally link words which are both formally and semantically parallel, for example A. Ag. 391 rp loq T E Kai npoo/kAaic. Sometimes the conjunctions link a word and a phrase which are formally different, but the semantic parallelism is invariable, for example Ag. 1015 (6doic) izp~$~~~&q T E Kai k[ ~ A O K L W

~ T T E T E L & . The only exception is S. OT 1407 . . .uvpqac yuvaCKac pqripac T E , xwnoaa 1 aiuxiur’ kv avOpwnoiuiv Epya yiyvcrai where T E links pqrkpac with yuvakac, not with xc;jnooaetc.; but this passage is in itself remarkable. In Suppl. 527 yevkaOw, supposing the impersonal use were possible, is not semantically parallel with na‘Oou: obsequere erf’iut. “hearken and may it come to pass”, constitute a request for a prayer to be heard followed by a wish that (as a result) it should be fulfilled. The same applies, despite the formal parallelism of the verbs, to Lobeck’s neidou re Kai yPvei a@ / UAeuoov, KTA., since the request for a prayer to be heard has a different semantic function from the prayer itself: the sequence of thought is “hearken and (as a result of hearkening) ward off’, etc. T E Kai, then, is suspect, yevioOo (impersonal) impossible; both faults cannot be cured without altering three words,l and the principle of economy, which C. implicitly invokes, must here be ~ v e r r i d d e n . ~ This is less drastic than it might seem, given that the text depends on the testimony of a single MS.

(cf. n. 7).

Eum. 502 nEvomai 6 ’ ahhoc aXhoOw, npoqw- VWU rci rWu nkhac K ~ K U ,

X;j.$w b7ro6oaiv T E poxOwu, U K E a 6‘ ov B$aCa rha-

p o v parav napqyopci. 504 bn060ot‘u M: bn66uat‘u G Tr.

Some such translation as Lloyd-Jones’, “one shall ask of another . . . as he proclaims his neighbour’s ills, when shall tribulation subside and cease”, which does not imply that the cessation is actually taking place, is the best that can be done for the text as it stands (reading uno6oaw, “cessation”; bno6uaw would mean “escape [from] ”). I queried this rendering on the ground that “muOuuopa1 does not seem to be used in this way (with accusative) of ‘enquiring about’ a state of affairs which does not obtain.” In other words, nuv&iuopal with a personal object can mean “seek information about” as well as “get information about”, but with a non-personal, abstract object it is always a success word, and implies learning something which can be learnt. I was careful to add: “it would be rash to claim that Aeschylus could not have written nuvectvdal h?&u pdxewv for nvvBaud3ai Ei h i y o u a ~ pdX8a. But i t is certainly stretching the normal usage of nuvO&opal”. G. replies that for the use of nuv&bopal which I am querying “we need not look any further than Homer, where at Od. 1.94, 2.215 and 2.360 uouro~ n~vaop~voc means ‘in order to enquire about his father’s return’ (that the uduroc is a future one is clear from e.g. Od. 2.21 8)”. I do not understand this. U ~ U T O C means “journey home” as well as “arrival home” (e.g. at Od. 19.270), and there is no doubt that Odysseus’ vooroc, in the former sense, is something in being throughout the poem, otherwise there would be no Odyssey. Od. 2.218ff., to which he appeals to show that “the uoaroc is a future one”, runs as follows:

E i pku K E U narpdc /3wrov K a i uourov ~ K O ~ U L J ,

6 r’ au, rpu~opevoc r e p , €71 rhalgv tuiavrou. Ei ti& K E reOugCSroc ~ K O V O J W pqti * h‘ tovror, voorrioac 6fi &reira cpihgv kc narpiSa yaiau u{pa T & oi X E V W . . .

Kai aukpi pvrt‘pa t idoa.

BICS 32 (1985) 31

This means: “if I hear that my father is alive and on his way home, I will wait; but if I hear that he is dead, I shall return home, raise a tomb and give my mother to a husband”; cf. 4.713-4 dqpa ndhrai narpdc to17 f i uourou f i durwa norpou &reuneu. In 2.360 (cf. 1.94) uourou nmuopeuoc narpoc pi’hov, ( nov U K O ~ U O means “in order to learn about his journey home, if perchance I may hear of it”. Telemachus assumes that his father is alive, and wishes to get information, if he can, of his return. But the future nmudpevoc (like the final clause dppa mjhrai in 4.713) signifies intention; Telemachus can intend to learn even if his intention is frustrated by the fact that Odysseus is no longer alive and not on his way home. That is, the qualification means that nuuOuuopaican still function as a success word (“learn about” rather than “enquire about”) even if Odysseus’ uouroc were a “state which did not obtain”.

So much for G.’s Homeric examples. Spurred on by his scepticism, I have searched for other examples which might break the rule I have tentatively formulated, but found none, though the lexi- cographers do not always help. In S. Trach. 90f. , for example, obbdu khhei$w TO pq I n b a u nvOioOai rGu6’ uXi)&iau nkpi, rrvOduOai means “learn”, not “enquire” (Ellendt): the truth is ex hypothesi some- thing which obtains. An antithesis which illustrates my point is E. Ant. 63 (GLP i. p. 68) r i rot%’ kpevv@c; t u ueKpoic nevq OavGju (cf. S. Trach. 91, quoted below, where nvOoiro cannot be ambiguous). G. also rebukes me for doubting bnosOuic on the ground that it does not occur elsewhere, while bnotidouai occurs first in Aristotle = “give way”. I did not deny that bno6douai later means something like “diminish”, and allowed that it would therefore “be rash to deny that Aeschylus could have coined the word bn6sOuic = ‘abatement’ ”, as Paley implies he did. The fact that the word is not attested in Greek, nor the corres- ponding verb in Greek of the relevant period or genre, is simply another pointer to the possibility of corruption. G. himself deals with DnoGuuw (which he says “will do”) as a probable interpolation; the chief reason against it, which he does not give, is its lack of symmetry with hijliu. I therefore suggested knlaouw, AfiEiu kni6ouiu re being a polar expression meaning (neutrally) the “progress” of the disease, which I take to be the image here. What G. does not mention, though it is one of the primal duties of the textual critic to consider such things, is that the Eumenides is very poorly attested in our medieval MSS., though not quite so poorly as the Supplices; and that this shouldmake us readier to allow that the received text may be wrong. He might also have considered that prefixes are particularly liable to confusion in MSS., especially bno- and kn~- .~O

The question here, then, is whether to force the received text into making sense at the cost of some strain on the language, or to bring about a great improvement by a very small change. Such questions face the textual critic all the time; each must be settled on its merits and not by rule of thumb, and the decision is a matter of judgement.

S. Trach. 86 TX aXh’ ebi ,pi j rep. ei 66 Oeupar~u kycj /3aliu Karfi6q ~ G u ~ E , K&U nahai napij. uliu 6 ’ b & m j h c norpoc O ~ K t@ narpoc fipiic nporapfleii, ob6i Geylaiveiv ayau. Vuu 6 ’ c jc l v u i i p ’ , ob6du kXhei$w rd pi7 nGoau mOiuOai rGu6 ’ ahi)Oeiav ndpi. XGjpei uuu, & naC Kal yap vuripcp, TO y’ €6 Aq. 7TpUUU€W kn€i 6 6 0 l T 0 , K€P&OC kpTOhfi.

I argued (i) that “Vuu 6’ . . . k@ cannot mean ‘but as it is (before I knew these facts)’; it must mean ‘but as it is (in the present circumstances) his characteristic fortune does not allow us to fear for him’, which makes no sense in the context”. The text must therefore be changed, and I gave reasons why neither excision nor transposition meet the case (on Dindorfs excision of 90-91, accepted by Dawe, see now Easterling ad loc.). The minimum necessary change (and a very slight one) is k@ to eih (Vauvilliers). I then argued (ii) that ulju 66 “but as it was” (of a situation no longer obtaining’), followed by u6u 66 “but now” (in the present circumstances), was too confusing to be intelligible, and accepted nph 6’ (Wakefield), giving the combination nplu 6 ’ . . . e k , first adopted by Campbell, “who never emended without good reason”; for Campbell, as G. seems elsewhere to recognise, was a conservative critic of the best kind. But G. does not even bother to quote Campbell. Firstly, he invokes a well-known use

38 BlCS 32 (1985)

of the present, of a past action or process continuing into the present time (“resultative”) and paraphrases: “As things have been until now, the customary luck of my father has not allowed me (sic) t o fear too much for him”. This is a subterfuge, which G. conceals by not translating, as he should in accordance with his analysis, “has not allowed and does not allow me t o fear”, etc. “The resultative sense of the present i i j u 6 k is clear”, he says, “because the good luck of Hyllus’ father has lasted until the moment when Hyllus is speaking, i.e. until the present.” But the circumstances which did not allow him to fear for the present were changed a few lines before with Deianeira’s report of the oracle, and ex hypofhesi have trot lasted i t i f o the present, as they must if k@ is t o be justified. The imperfect is therefore essential.

G. now aims to show that S. El. 1332-34, cited by Jebb, is an adequate parallel for the repeated

1331 u h 6i i n Truclr. 88, 90. The passage runs:

uhh’ ei 07a8poioi roiu6e pi7 ‘ K ~ ~ O V U kyc;) nuhui cpuhaoowu, f iu hu vpiu ku Gopoic 7 a 6pwpeu‘ VpGu npdoeEu G 7 a o&pa.ru. ufiu 6 ’ evhabeiau T;U& npouekprp kyW. Kai u ~ u hnauaXeiv7E 7c;)v p a K p ~ v h d y w Kai r ic hnh?jo~ov 7 5 0 6 ~ o h Xapg Dofjc eibo napihee8 I , K T ~ .

He comments: “the sense is: ‘your plan would have been long ago (nMui) known to the enemy, but for me; as things have been until now, 1 have taken precautions. And now (Kai uiju, 1335) proceed’.’’ The difference between this passage and Truch. 8 6 ff., as I explained, is crucial: uiru 66 in /<l. 1335 introduces a situation which now obtains, and which underlies the instruction “and now proceed” (which they could not have done had the paidagogos not taken precautions). uliu 66 in Truck 88 (as I said) introduces a situation which n o longer obtains, uiju 66 in 90 a situation which obtains now. This is the difference which creates the difficulty in Truch. 86ff . not present in /<I. 1331 ff., which is there- fore useless as a parallel.

G. tries to smooth over the difference, and the difficulty, by rendering uh 6i in /<I. 1334 and Truch. 88 not “but as it is (was)”, the dialectical use of u6u 66, but “as things have been until now”, which he calls a “resultative” use. He produces no evidence for this usage except Masqueray’s trans- lation “jusqu’ a ce jour”, though he refers to Blass-Debrunner, Gramniatik d. N.T. para. 322 to illustrate temporal expressions followed by a resultative present, e.g. 2 Cor. 12.19 nuhai ~ O K E ~ T E , Luke 13.7 80; rpia i j~q hcp’ 06 ijpxopai, John 15.27 an’ upxijc per’ kpoU &~7e, which are plainly irrelevant. In fact there is no “resultative” use of uiru 66 in classical Greek, nor I suspect in Greek of any relevant period. I stand by my “imperious pronouncement” that the alterations are necessary.

Truch. 96 ou aidha uut tuapi(op6ua

“Ahiou, “Ahwu air& TOGTO Kap$ai 7oil ’ A h ~ p i - uaq, no& poi no& poi

+j nouriuc &h&uac, 4 6iooaioiu aneipoic Khieeic,

eln’, & Kpa7lor€uwu KU7’ oppa.

7lkTE1 KU7EVUU[Ei 7 E ~ h O y L ~ O ~ € U O U ,

uaiei nor’, & Xapnpg O T E ~ ( J ~ @ cpXeyi8wu.

I argued here that KXiOEL‘e cannot stand, since the only sense which can be got out of the Greek is “leaning upon two continents”, explained by Lloyd-Jones’ suggestion (after Paley and Whitelaw) of a colossal Heracles, which I rejected (cf. now Easterling’s note).ll I therefore suggested Kpu&, with the consequential change 6ioaak &u anetpo~c. G.’s main argument is directed against my summary of an article by P. JanniI2 and the conclusion 1 drew from it. Janni claims that K X L ~ E ~ can here mean “situated”, a sense which relies on the Homeric use of wAipiuoc (KeKhiami), as briefly suggested by Jebb. llc showed that there are various models underlying the uses of KhhOpUi. in Homer, and that the sense “leaning on”. “resting on”. “lying on”, which underlie the relevant examples of K E K A L ~ ~ V O S , are

BICS 32 (1985) 39

sometimes so watered down that it means n o more than KEipEvoq, situated in oron; for example Od. 4.608 a l6 ’ ah( KEKhiarai (of islands, cf. Od. 9.25 E ~ V &hi KeCTui), Theogn. 1216 ~ ~ ~ h i p . k ~ f 7 n~&l‘(j (of a city), 11. 10.472 xeovi K ~ K ~ ~ T O (of weapons); I / . 5.709 hipun K E K ~ L ~ ~ V O C and P. 0. 1.92 ’AXpeoC nopc; rX iOdc (of persons), “which come closest to KhiBEiC here as it is usually understood”, being “extensions of the ‘weak’ use, as Jebb saw”. I concluded: “But Janni does not meet the main difficulty: that the sense ‘resting on’, ‘leaning on’ underlying these personal uses cannot, however much it is watered down, apply in Track 101, because Gioaabiv uneipoic denotes the area within which Heracles is to be found, not a particular place near which he is situated” (the weakened personal use, as in II. 5.709, P. 0. 1.92); “and the analogy of islands ai‘ 0’ hhi KEKhiurai cannot be invoked t o justify some such paraphrase as kv XipfJc; K E L ~ E V O ~ because Heracles, like Mr King’s Regulus, was not a feature of the landscape. The same holds if with marginal change we read Giaaak kv uneipoic. There are thus two prongs t o the argument: (i) ~ h i 6 ~ i k cannot be personal, because Giooaloiv umipoic here should denote an area within which, not a place near which, as is standard with the personal uses of KXivopai; (ii) we cannot assimilate the dative to ui’8’ hX1‘ K E K ~ ~ U T U L (cf. eiu hhi K E ~ T C L I - islands, cities) because this use is found only with features of the landscape” (an over-statement, cf. I/. 10.472).

“But”, replies G., who notices only (ii), “the whole point is that Sophocles has used here, very elegantly, a metaphor, expressed by the verb KXiOeic on its own”, which “means that Heracles, instead of detaching himself from the place where he is, remains ‘situated’ there, sticks to the place, as though he were a part of the landscape, and remains immovable there, like a part of the landscape, instead of leaving the place and returning home”. For this type of metaphor he refers t o some earlier observations of his 0 ~ n . l ~ Not all his examples are convincing, but the following will serve to illustrate his argument. Musaeus 297 Xai’huni p a u n ’ ~ o v r ~ c 6hqv &ha (“nobody will be looking for a real whip”). Theocr. 13.34 h~ ipGjv y a p opiv E w r o p i y a orifla&eouiv oveiap : EKEiro, as Cow points out , does not here mean “was situated”, and the dative opiv shows that it has the special sense (LSJ 111) “was laid up in store” as a benefit (oveiap). As G. prefers t o put it, EKeiro is used as a tcrniinus fechnicvs t o denote “dass der A~ipGjv als eine nietaphorische fur die Argonauten gelagerte Wertsache zu veranschaulichen ist”. l 4 A.R. 4.823-4 &e@a 6 i roi nirpai K U ~ vrrippia K V ~ U T ’ Eaaw poVvov, a KEV rpC$aio Kaoiyvi/rnui ovv hhhaic: rpi$mo is a military terminus technicus (“put to flight”, “defeat”) to show that the approaching waves are envisaged as a hostile arniy.15 ib. 943 r+v 66 napqoplqv K ~ ~ T E V @OC: K O ~ T E V is used as an equestrian terminus technicits in order t o express an appropriate metaphor. The ship is envisaged as a horse.16 This depends on an allusion to two Homeric passages: I/ . 10.513--4 KOXTE 6 ’ ‘O~UUOEUC / ro[(t-) and 13.59-60 uKqnuvi(t-) . . . a p p o r ~ p ~ K E K O ~ L ~ n h f o ~ v p i v ~ o c , of Poseidon urging on the Ajaxes.

The examples thus range from the obvious metaphor paun‘(ovrEC t o the highly allusive K O ~ T E V .

G. remarks elsewhere17 that this allusive type of metaphor is widespread in Alexandrian poetry. The corollary would presumably be that it is less common in archaic and classical poetry, so that we should not look too closely there for such metaphors. But it is fair to see Homeric allusions in all post-Homeric poetry. Thus the “peculiar fitness of the comparison” in Traclr. 129--30 hhh’ i n i @pa KUL‘ xupuv / nuai K U K ~ O ~ V . ocov U ~ K T O U ( J T P O & ~ E ~ KihEu60i,18 as Jebb points out , is that the Bear never disappears below the horizon, a point which depends on the allusion t o 11. 18.407 apKrov r’ . . . { r’ auro6 arpkperui “that revolves in its place”, - “having n o share in the baths of Ocean”. The question is, then: can K A L O E ~ function as a metaphor in virtue of its special application to features of the landscape in Homer?

The difficulty with G.’s interpretation is twofold. (i) The Homeric uses of Khiuopai which apply to features of the landscape are ton few and sporadic, and not sufficiently distinguishable from other applications, for then1 to determine a scope definite enough t o serve as a metaphor; (ii) in these uses the word governs a dative of types t o which Giao-aiuiv UneIpoi~ cannot belong. (i) K E K X L ~ ~ V O C , to which editors, including Campbell, appeal, is so used once: Od. 13.234-5 f i nod ric vi/awv E U ~ E ~ X O C , 56 ric U K T ~ I K E 8 ’ ah1 K E K X L ~ P V ~ ~ ipipdXaKoc inelpow (cf. h. A p . 24 ELC uha K E K ~ ~ T U L , also of islhnds). There it means “sloping down to”, “verging on”, i.c. “close to”, something, again typically the sea: I / . 15.740 nOvr(j K E K X L ~ & O ~ ~ K Z L S . ijpd?a rrarpiGoc ahc; so also 16.68 oi 6 i p q y p k Oahuoaqcl K E K X ~ T U ~ ; both of the Greeks forced back t o the sea (as I said, the military sense “give way” may be

operative here). This personal use is once found in the watered down sense “situated near”: 11. 5.709 oc p ’ k~:’Thn vaieaKe h l p q K E K ~ W ~ U O C Kqqiui6i (cf. P. 0. 1.92 ’Ahqeoi, nopy KXiOeie). The watered down sense “situated’ n) is found once of features of the landscape: Ud. 4.608-9 ob y i p ric vrjowv

ai‘ 0 ’ ahi KeKhiarai (cf. Theognis 12 16). In 11. 10.472-2 €urea 6k up / Kaha nap’ airroiui xOovi K ~ K ~ L T O , i t is used of weapons; cf. 5.356 i ) ip i 6’ i?yxoc ~ K ~ K ~ L T O Kal raxi’iirno, of Ares: his spear might be leaning QgQinst a cloud, but his horses are presumably resting on one. Neither in the primary nor in the “weakened” sense, +hen. does Khltopai in Homer specify a feature of the landscape, so as to function as a one-word metaphor. (ii) The dative governed by Khivopai in the primary sense denotes a point or place which is verged upon; in the weakened sense, in which Khivopai almost = K E ~ ~ J C U , it is governed by the sense “rest on”. The older grammarians, followed by Campbell, regarded these datives as types of locative. Even if we accept this designation, they are neither of them locatives comparable with Giooaiuiv hnapoic, “somewhere in (on) the two continents”.19 Such a locative is in fact not to be found, in Sophocles or elsewhere.20 This difficulty cannot be met by the slight change Giooaic kv aneLpoie (a change which G. in any case repudiates), since Khivopat ku means “lean on”, “recline on” (cf. Archil. fr. 2.2 €v 6opr‘ KeKhipivoq). Khi&ic cannot therefore function as a one-word metaphor implicitly comparing Heracles with a feature of the landscape, let alone with the implication “sticks to the place”, etc., which G. requires. His parallels of highly specific uses of verbs giving rise to metaphors are beside the point.

Trach. 1 12-21 nohha yap d u r ’ arta/.Iavroc 5 uorou 5 Popia ric Kvpar‘ a v eirpi1 novrcs, pavr’ kniovra r’ i‘6oL OVTW 66 rou KaGpoywij rpkqe1, 70 6 ’ aii&l plbrou nohdnovov, d m e p nihayoc ~ p ? j ~ ~ ~ . m a eeGv aiiv avapnhaKgrov “At- 6a oqe Gopou kpd~e i .

The main problem is rp iqei , TO 6 ’ aij&i. G. takes me to task for rejecting Masaracchia’s suggestion, which he calls elegant and I found attractive, that Sophocles, relying on Homeric usage, is comparing Heracles to a wave.*! My two objections, he says, are groundless. Firstly, I opined that Masarrachia’s conclusion is “far-fetched”. Not so, says G., since rp iqei and d.$%i suffice per se to indicate that Heracles is envisaged by Sophocles as metaphorical waves. Certainly the Homeric contexts make such a metaphor possible, which his interpretation of KXLOEL‘S, again invoked here, is not. But my opinion was based on the con- clusion of the stanza: if one of the gods always keeps him from stumbling and saves him from the house of Hades, he is likely to have been compared to someone struggling against his environment, rather than to a part of i t . My second and more important objection was that the lack of contrast between rpPqei and autei, on which other interpretations also foundered, was still a difficulty; as I had pointed out, (76 p k v ) rpkqei, rd 6 ’ a&$€&, with the idiomatic ellipse of ro /.16v. required strong contrast (cf. the examples in Denniston, (2’ 166). But Masaracchia’s view required that T&EL and autei should be near-synonyms.

“In reality”, replies G., ‘.the context requires not a contrast, but just the opposite, i.e. a parallelism, provided by the synonymous rpktp~i and aVEei”. This, he says, is proved by the two synonymous verbs puvr’ knihra r’, which I “strangely leave unquoted”: they mean not “falling and rising”, but “one having gone and one coming on”. “The simile means, then, that just as the winds. . . create one wave after the other, so Heracles’ difficult life (TO fliorou nohunovov) buffets him incessantly, so that he is - metaphorically speaking - like the incessant waves which the wind builds up ( ~ p k q e i ) and makes surge (autei) one after the other. In other words: Heracles is buffeted by his fate, !ike the notorious Cretan sea which is buffeted by waves”. So the subject of rpitpct (and autei) is TO Piorou nohdnovov, and the object (rou KaGpoyevi)) is compared with nihayoc Kp?joiov.

The beginning of my note reads: “ ~ ~ ~ O T O U . . . Kp;/awu ‘as it were a Cretan sea of life’s troubles’; PLOTOU nohunovov cannot itself be substantival, and the article cannot be taken in hyperbaton with

BICS 32 (1985) 41

n o h u n o v ~ v . ” ~ ~ That is, I have from the first anticipated and precluded the syntax G. adopts without comment. As to ouvr’ inhvra, I say, in reply to the view of Mrs Easterling: ‘‘Durn’ intdvra re surely refers not to the ‘regular up-and-down motion of the sea’, and so (as she takes it) to the rising and falling fortunes of the swimmer, but to the perpetual succession of waves.” (p. 130, n. 43). My interpretation is thus precisely that of G., Campbell and others. The reason I have not directly related Puvr’ inldvra rc with rpiqci, ro 6 ’ au&i is that re indicates conjunction, ro 6; contrast. Of course, if TO . . . PLdrou xohumwo~ were a possible way of taking the words, the particle 66 would not in itself require contrast. But it is not possible, as nearly all editors before G. have seen; and it might have occurred to G. to wonder why they ignored a syntactical solution which he takes for granted.

Trach. 497 p i y a ri 0 8 i V O c a Kunpic kKlp€pETai viiac ad. Kai r k pub ecLjv

UEV oi, h i y o , n a p i @ v , ~ a i onoc KpoviGav anara-

In a detailed survey of the various interpretations given by editors of 497, I note Hermann’s: “Kypris ever exhibits mighty victorious strength”, and add: “cf. Lys. 19.30 aAX’ ob6’ oi nahai nhovowi hKoi)Vrfc atla hoyov Z ~ O L E V a v k[cvcyKciv, Plat. Legg. 788c 6Eiypara ~ [ E V E ~ K ~ V T ~ cLe qWc, Xen. Cyr. 5.2.7” ( k ~ q i p ~ v r+v Ouyaripa). “This is the most convincing interpretation so far, but in the context of victory it is difficult to understand t t c p i p ~ ~ a i in any other sense than ‘win’.’’ I go on to prefer Wakefield’s punctuation: pkya ri uOivoc u Kvnpic’ kKqPpcrai vlitac uci , “Mighty strength is Kypris; she ever bears away victories”. G. comments that “both the context and ancient ronoi show that (my) strange assertion (that in the context of victory trcqipperai should mean ‘win’) is without any foundation”. His first witness is again Masqueray’s translation, which agrees with Hermann’s. Then “in the context under discussion the poet first says ‘Cypris exhibits, manifests (kKqipcrai ) her great power’, and he proceeds immediately to list all the ‘victories’ . . . achieved by Cypris, i.e. all the cases where Cypris’ great power became manifest, i.e. Sophocles lists all the gods and humans” (?) “ who, because of their having been manifestly defeated by Cypris, prove that the assertion made in 496” (i.e. 497) “is true and correct. As for the ronoi, Cypris is kpaxoe (i.e. she has the strength which gives victory) and she is kvapy+r virtGua ‘manifestly victorious’ in Ant. 795, 800, cf. Campbell ad loc. The corresponsion in roroi between Trach. 497 and Anf . 71 8 ff. has already been underlined by Campbell” (on Trach. 498) and others.

In fact, G. does not meet my point at all. Of course Cypris is Upaxoc, as Eros is U V ( ~ ( ~ T E p u x a v (Ant . 781 ; the awesome power of Aphrodite is the only point of comparison mentioned by Campbell in the note to which G. refers); the theme has already been stated in the previous episode (438 ff.);23 and of course Aphrodite manifests her power in the victories over gods (not here humans, save that Heracles is the cliniax of the priamel) which the poet lists - that is why he lists them. As to Ant. 795 viK6 6 ’ i v a p y + c P h ~ q i p w v I &poc EWKTPOU vvppzc, rGv pcyahwv n a p d p o c iv a p x u k I OeupWv, it means that the victory is that of Desire made manifest, an epiphany of the goddess who is “partner in authority of the great ordinances”: for the goddess Aphrodite is unbeatable when she has her sport. The idea of divine epiphany (tvapyi7c is typical in such contexts; cf. 11. 20.13 1 Xahcnoi 66 Oeoi ipaweuOai i v a p y c i c ) is striking here; it is not matched by, nor does it very clearly illustrate, tKq6perai “brings out into the open”, used of someone displaying his wares or bringing something to light. The translation “manifests”, which G. adopts throughout, introduces a religious connotation which is not there in the Greek.

The prominent feature of this context is not that of divine epiphany, which is not directly present even if Hermann’s interpretation is right, but its evident link with the epinician genre, as both BurtonZ4 and Easterling (on 487-530) remark. Easterling makes the point clear: “. . . although the subject-matter and style are reminiscent of Pindar and Bacchylides the tone is quite different, and Sophocles’ epinician echoes only point the contrast. His victorious athlete is not a magnificent mortal but the goddess Aphrodite, who turns out also to be ‘sole arbiter’ of the contest”. This is why I said that in this context “it is difficult to understand kKqPpcrat in any other sense than ‘win’.’’ We should indeed pay attention to context and relevant rdnoi; but the principle feature of the context is its epinician tone, and the relevant ronoi are to be sought in the epinician poets. Ant . 781 ff. , the only ronoc G. brings to bear, i s nothing to the point.

42 BlCS 32 (1 9 8 5 )

I t may be added that although the middle ~ K & ~ E T U ~ , for the active used by other authors in the sense “exhibit“, is n o great difficulty in Sophocles, since he sometimes uses the middle where other authors use the active,25 the middle is standard, and more frequent than the active, in the sense “win”, another fact which makes i t easiest to take the work in this sense here. It is a principle of criticism that the standard usage should always be preferred if possible.

This is not a case of emendation, but of re-punctuation, which involves no change. It does, however, involve what I have called “eccentric Greek”, the predicative o ~ i u o c in p i y a ri a&!uoc u K u n p i c (for K u n p i c i x ~ r p k y u oO&oc), which differs, as I explain, from other abstract predicates, for example KPUTOC,

which is individuated, or “God is Love”, which is a statement of identity. G. thinks this enough to dis- qualify my interpretation. But the analogy here, as I point ou t , is with Homeric periphrases such as nO&oc ‘16oyw.fjoc, “which gives one context a t least in which such words tolerate individuation”. Now the antistrophe begins with just such a periphrasis, 0 FPY fiv norapofi oOiuoc, evidently modelled on the Homeric pattern, which corresponds in structure as well as strophically with p i y a ri o8kuoc h K v n p i c . 1 tentatively concluded: “this is 1 think an adequate defence of Wakefield’s punctuation, though the question remains open Wakefield’s interpretation seems to me less difficult, a t least, than any of the others”. G. fails to see the difficulty of ~ K ~ P ~ E T U L = “exhibit”, seizes on the abnormality of 08&0c as predicate without noticing the special justification for it in this context, and dogmatically asserts that I-lermann is right. I can only envy his confidence.

E. lid. 783 EX. {KELT a ~ X m o e kpno6civ Qoic yapoic. Me. ;7 y u p yap& ric rap’ i@uXr@q hkxq; EX. v p p w 8’ $PL‘{EW d c ljp’, i v ljrhqv i y d . M E . i6ljr OO&WV T K $ r ~ p a ~ u ~ u w u xeovdc; EX. oc yfic uvaooEi TTiU8E Ilpwriwc youoc.

793 EX. naUT’ O h o ’ a p ‘ , C b C €OlKUc, hpq’ €/A& yU/JWU.

ME. EX.

015’. Ei 6; X ~ K T ~ U Giiqvycc ra6’ O ~ K h w . U ~ L K T O V ebvjfu ib& mi a ~ c i ~ a ~ k u q v .

In 783 Helen explains why Menelaus is in danger: he is an unexpected hindrance to her marriage. The difficulty is in 785, of which I said: “795 in codd. means ‘and to commit violence upon me. which I endured‘: and in this context the violence could only be rape. Menelaus’ undisturbed answer shows that tlclen has not said this.” G. explains that $p ic against women does not always mean rape but in general an outrage, an insult, such as gaining access to a woman in her own apartments without the permission of the man responsible for her, “just as Theoclymenus forcibly approached Helen, in the absence of her husband”. I did not however say that $p ic against wonien always means rape, but that i i ~ [h is c o r l f a t i t must do so. G.’s interpretation gives the following sequence: “Did someone really want to take over my bed-mate, to make her his own‘!” ~- “Yes, and (he wanted) to inflict an insult on me (sc. by forcing his presence on me), which I had to endure”, a ludicrous anticlimax. U/~PL‘{ECU depends on ipovX~@q, and G. has not noticed that this makes it very difficult -- Kannicht would say, impossible - t o understand the u p p i c of any definite act which Helen in fact endured. Hence Kannicht rejects outright the inter- pretation of Paley which G. follows.

$ p ~ , then, means rape or forced union, and if Helen had said, as codd. make her say, that she had actually endured this, Menelaus woiild not have replied as he does. Hence the many emendations of f iu Z T A ~ V +. M Y own version, i j f i pw 8 ’ b f i p i c c i u ~ i ‘ c p c , K&V l j r ~ q u iyd.26 G. rejects on the following grounds. The unfulfilled conciitional “would indicate that Iielen had definitely not suffered rape, because her husband’s arrival saved her; therefore . . . Menelaus’ question in 794” (“did you avoid bed?”) “would be inconceivable”. I then “fall from the frying-pan into the fire” by arguing that 785 is ambiguous: i t could be understood to mean “and to take me by force, which I should have endured (if 1 had resisted)”. i.e. rather than “if you had not turned up”. But then, says G., I “would have the honourable wife tell, of all people, her husband that there had been n o violence because she, instead of honourably resisting Theoclymenus’ attempts to dishonour her, had been a consenting partner in adultery.” Not quite. 1 had not meant that 1Ielen might be understood by Menelaus to be saying that, since rape was inevitable, she had

43

just lain back and enjoyed it, but that she had avoided rape by consenting t o marriage. This can scarcely be called adultery. If Penelope might presume her husband dead and marry again after an absence of twenty years (Od. 1.9,75), Helen could hardly be accused of infidelity if she consented, under duress, to marry again after seventeen years. Now Helen has told Menelaus that his arrival is “an unexpected hindrance to her marriage”, and this would naturally mean (as is in fact so) that he had arrived in time to forestall it. But this too would make nonsense of his doubts in 794. i pmFch is also ambiguous, and must be so on any interpretation of 785: Menelaus is “a hindrance to her ydpouol”, but what worries him is that lie is not certain how far the @poi have got. A reasonable man would no doubt draw the right conclusion from 783, but Menelaus’ anxiety is not amenable to reason. So I conclude: “in any case Menelaus’ wish t o be doubly sure is psychologically appropriate, and serves dramatically to introduce the exchange about her asylum and his danger.” G. seems t o think it enough for Menelaus’ doubts t o be aroused by Helen’s report tfiat she had had Theoclynienus force his presence upon her - what happened then? But if Helen’s words left Menelaus in any doubt about what happened then, it would make neither dramatic nor psychological sense for him to wait until 794 to have his doubts settled.

It is the duty of a textual critic to try and understand the paradosis, and to consider all possibilities. including linguistic and conceptual analogies, before emending. But he must be prepared to use his judge- ment in altering a text which lie has good grounds for thinking is not what his author wrote. The toneless conservatism advocated by Professor Giangrande recalls the attitude of those critics who incurred flousinan’s strictures for their blind adherence to the “best” MS. Mutaris nmtawdis, his words apply: “Chance aiid the coninion course of nature will not bring it to pass that the readings o f a manuscript are right wherever they are possible and impossible wherever they are wrong: this needs divine intervention; and when one con- siders the history of man and the spectacle of the universe 1 hope one may say without impiety that divine intervention might have been better employed e l ~ e w h e r e . ” ~ ~

Wadliatri College, 0.uford

NOT1.S

I .

2.

3 .

4 .

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

“Notes on Greek tragedy”, J f f S 96 (1976) 121 -45 (I) and 97 (1977) 129-53 (11).

“On understanding the Greek tragedians”. Corolla [.oridrriicrrsis 4 (1 983) 57-67.

i y C v c i o , y ~ y o u e u ~ T C , it came to pass that, is found in classical Greek, e.g. Isocr. 6.40 nohhaur yi?orw~u &JTC tiui TOIK pc;rw 6uuup~v ? X O U T U C . . . xpaTqO.iluat, but the impersonal use is restricted to this type of expression; the niatheniatical usage ~ C ~ O U ~ T U (Euclid 6.23, al.) may be left out of account. yryuio8w i t , t f / t u s u h j c ~ r IS of course found. e.g. D.8.9 Cniw, yryoioUw iu i j iu , obti LurLh fyu (concessive); cf. o p~ T ~ V U L T U , Ij.IO.27, al.; S. Mil. 324 Oupoti r i u o t ~ o x c q i nhqp3oui K O T C , where the infinitive i s the subject (see A.C. Moorhouse, The, ,yi‘rrra.r of Sop/rocks 11 9821 241). as in OC 608 p d ~ x x c oil y i y u t i u t / @ c o b ; y f ipnr obht ticlrlfuvriv n07(.

W. Hauer. 1 4 Grc,i~X-l:’rrglis/r Icsicorr o f r / r c J ,Vcu rcstarrri,rrr, e t ~ . ~ (1959, rev. Arndt-Gingrich-L)anker 1979) S.V.

yllJo/.luL.

I<. Ziegler, Do prccationis oprrd G r a w o s ,forttiis (1 905) 2 I .

The text is that of A. Kurfess, ed. Tusculuni (1 953); so also Rzacli, apart from his conjecture tiui i-yLi1~10, riirac, taken by G. f rom tlie Thesaurus, nukes n o sense hcre, as the addressee in this p Cf. Dan. yevCn0w ~ U T W C , yevioew tiuriI 76 pcpQ m u ; 3 Kings 1.36 y i u o t i o oUiwc, with Herodas 4.85-6 Lht i ~ v ’ ~ ’ E ~ V . - riq y a p ; Epictetus 5.20 €6 not yiuotio. with Hdt. I .8.2 )(pqi~ y&p Kuubadhg yr14oOut m i i &

and esp. A. Ag. 21 7 €6 y a p c i i (see Fraenkel ad loc.). Schutz in fact proposed to alter four: “Languere videtur haec vcrboruin compositio: ohscqui cr f i a r . Quid’.! si Aeschyluni scripsisse conicininus: net@cj T&(L 8’ knto8w.

According to G., it is my “guiding principle that the ‘ground of economy’ is ‘specious”’ and that to ignore it “is not ‘an error in nietliod’.” I was commenting ( J / I S 97 1 1 9771 130) on S. f</. 129=145. where rcsponsion can be restored by one change, but at tlie cost of either retaining a manifest interpolation in 129 o r introducing an unparalleled metrical feature. I preferred to avoid both by a further slight change. Of coursc economy is in general desirable. but the principle is not sacrosanct.

Cf. Pearson on S. fr. 339.

age is hunian not divine

44 BfCS 32 (1985)

I I . 12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20

21

22

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

CQ 4 ( I 954) 9 1. I revert to this passage again elsewhere.

JMS 96 (1976) 128 n. 33; P. Janni, Quaderni L’rhinari 3 (1967) 7-25.

Muscwm I’hilologirrn f.ondiniense 4 (198 1) 6 1 ff.

Cf. A C 4 2 (1973) 524-5.

Cf. AC vol. cit. 525, Xu Sprachgehrauch . . . dcs Apollonios Khodios (1973) 37-8; F. Vim, in his Bud6 edition, prefers to take T p i + a i o = unoTphGaio, on the ground that Apollonius sometimes uses simple verbs where we might expect a compound, cl. e.g. 3.205 (oTELXauTec = nepio7Eihau~ee), 4.901 ( Z h o u ~ o = a p i h o u ~ o ) .

kl. Frankel, Noteti ZU den Argonautica [ 19681 543 and n. 178) sees the ship as a metaphorical rider, pointing to another technical equestrian use, K O R T E ~ W T ~ U auaparqu, “jolt the rider” (Xen. E9. 1.4, 8.7, Hippocr. AWP 21). Since the ship is presently compared to a ball tossed from one nymph to another as in the ball-game of Nausicaa and her handmaidens, I am not so clear that either metaphor is appropriate, or that napqopiqu K O ~ T E U does not simply mean “knocked her askew”, cf. A. Ag. 223 nupartonu.

ACloc.cit. (n. 15).

X a p b , found in K , allows KUKAOCUW to have its normal transitive sense. The simile is interwoven with the coinparand, as at Trach. 51-3.

The point is clearly made by Lloyd-Jones, op.cir. n. 11. Campbell paraphrases “somewhere on the seaboard of Europe or of Asia”, and justifies the “condensation” bv El. 1320 O ~ ) K a u 6uoiu qpapTou, “i.e. Gwiu BaTipou”, followed by a disjunction. Rather 6uoiu means “both” - “I should not have failed in both” (for either X or Y), The same is true of Thuc. 1.33.3 and Andoc. 4.11, which he compares on El. loc.cit., and D. 19.15, in all of which buoiu is governed by negatived h p a p ~ a v e t r , and followed by a disjunction (cf. Steup’s Appendix on Thuc. 1oc.cir.).

G. claims that “such locatives are very frequent in Sophocles”. Apart from named places and equivalent phrases and the stereotyped Gopore, I find nine locatives in S.: Trach. 698 K a 7 i $ Q K T a L XBouL; cf. U T 1266-7 yfi / ? K F ( T O ;

El. 174-5 Cri phyac obpauq 1 Z e v e ; ib. 3 13 uijv 6 ’ aypoiut Tuyxauer, cf. Ud. 1 1.187-8 abrO0c p i p w t , / a y p q ; ib. 1331 uruOpotot r o i a 6 e . . . puhauowu; OT 20 ayopaiut Oartei; ib. 1451 ?a pe uariru opeotu, cf. 11. 4.166; Hes. Op. 18 aieipt uaiwu: OC 41 1 uoic o ~ a u oT3utu ~ a p o t c ; ib. 700 Q ~ c 6 e Oahher p i y t u ~ a x w p p . This is hardly “very frequent”, and none of them is an adequate parallel for Gtooaiotu anet;ootc. M.L. West, who takes Khl&iq

to mean “reclining”, a t rest or at a meal (BfCS 26 [1979] 110), relies on 7kach. 1152 ’1’lpuuOc . . . ?xctu &pau and from the foregoing ayopaiut Onrtei -yfi / L ~ K ~ L V J and (Ca f i e ) u a k t u opeutu. The first two, being particular places, are clearly irrelevant. “He lay on the ground” and “let me live in the mountains”, i.e. anywhere in the mountains. in the wilds, are as far removed from “reclining in/on the two continents” as they would be from “reclining in/on the Old and the New World”. West’s alternative explanation of the dative as instrumental, cf. f l . 3.135 Zamt . . . / huniui K E K ~ ~ ~ L ~ U O L , makes sense only on Lloyd-Jones’ interpretation (see above). Masaracchia, Srudi Urhinari 39 (1965) 125 ff.

As Jebb rightly says in his comment on Paley, who explicitly takes 70 with PLOTOU nohunouou, separated from it by “hyperthesis”: “such ‘hyperthesis’ of the art. is impossible: T O , placed as it is here, can be only a pronoun” (Appendix on 116 f., p. 189). Paley seems, as often, to be partly following Hermann, who paraphrases: “ita quasi Creticus quidam pontus Herculein tenet augetque, scilicet laboribus: h.e. rou ‘Hparthha TO p i u nohunouov nhhayoc 7pi9pcc. TO f i ’ ai;[tt. Jebb reasonably comments: “This is not clear: but augct lahorihus ought to mean ‘magnifies’ (glorifies) by labours”’. (Appendix, p. 188). The main trouble with Hermann’s paraphrase. apart from lack of the contrast required by theellipse, is that he appears to be taking (70 peu) , TO 6; in hyperbaton with p t o ~ o u nohunouou . . . niha-yoc; but this is not clear either.

I;or similar topoi see J H S 96 (1976) 135 n. 58, to which add f l . 14.199, Anacreon fr. 375.

R.W.B. Burton, The choral odes o f Sophocles (1982) 55.

Cf. Campbell, Essay on Language, ed. i.52-3; A.C. Moorhouse, up.& (n. 3) 177

Dr J . Diggle suggests k c >pi, an improvement I gladly accept.

A. E. Housinan, M. Marrilii Asrrononiicoti liber prinius (1 903) p. xxxii.