We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
In C.Q. XXVI. 45–51 I contended that in Aesch. Agam. 1227–30 Cassandra describes Clytemnestra in terms of a Greek proverb, the proverb of the Treacherous Hound; and I restored the passage thus:—
νεŵν δ' ἔπαρχоς 'Ιλ⋯оν τ' ⋯ναστ⋯της
оὐκ оἶδεν оἵα γλŵσσα μισ⋯της κνν⋯ς
λε⋯ξασα κα⋯ σ⋯νασα φα⋯δρ', оἷоν δ⋯κоς
Ατης λαθρα⋯оν δ⋯ξεται κακῇ τ⋯χνῃ.
page 25 note 1 The interpretation did not originate with Headlam but with Blomfield, who collected most of the illustrations. The label ‘Treacherous Hound’ comes from Verrall, J. Phil. X. (1882) 299.
page 26 note 1 Kock had also anticipated me in the series (wrongly claimed by me, p. 47) λε⋯ξασα, σ⋯νασα δ⋯ξεται. For this knowledge I am indebted to Wecklein's Addenda; I have not yet found K.'s n.
page 26 note 2 This use might or might not be low, and might be as old as Archilochus, see Bergk on fr. 185.
page 26 note 3 But renders unhappily; ‘loathsome bitch’ —both terms give quite wrong suggestions; ‘laid back a joyful ear’ —English cannot support so literal a translation of the hypallage.
page 26 note 4 I withdraw my objection to κλ⋯νασα φαιδρ⋯ν оὗς not so much for T.'s reason, as because in Plato Rep. 613c (cited by T.) the phrase τ⋯ ὦγα ⋯π⋯ τŵν ὣμων ἔχоντες, applied as it there is to human beings, includes the head with the ear, cf. Photius ap. Adam. I take it that during 914–929 Clyt. would have ‘inclined her ear’ in ironical deference.
page 27 note 1 I follow those who omit 360, both words being very objectionable here.
page 27 note 2 The purpose of 1330 is to emphasise this contrast and to show that the pathos of mortal destiny transcends even this. I follow Lawson for sense, but I read κоὐ for κα⋯ instead of his оὐ; that is better Greek as well as gentler surgery; and cf. Suppl. 296, Eur, . I. T. 901Google Scholar, I. A. 396, all certain. For my part I should add Soph. Tr. 1046.
page 28 note 1 I have not the least doubt, and hope soon to show, that Sept. 33 is another instance; and there is a detailed case behind Wecklein, on Sept. 263Google Scholar.
page 28 note 2 Pearson on Eur. Hclid. l.c.
page 28 note 3 They can translate correctly when they like; see them all emphasise the tense of μоλ⋯ντоς at 34.
page 28 note 4 γὐναι, σὺ … μ⋯νων κτλ. But (i) μ⋯νων cannot agree even with the most scornful γ⋯ναι—whose scorn it destroys); (ii) a woman cannot in this sense αἰσχὐνειν εὐν⋯ν ⋯νδρ⋯ς. γ⋯ναι σὺ was the metrical adjustment of σὺ, γ⋯ναι, and what the poet wrote was σὺ γ⋯ννι, … cf. Fr. 61. σὑ is more scornful as first word, and that it had that place is rendered probable by the corresponding taunt. 1617 σ⋯ κτλ.
page 29 note 1 φρ⋯νωμα, 830, is my correction of φρ⋯νημα; vid. 831–850, cf. 788–809. You cannot ‘agree with’ a φρ⋯νημα. For the dramatic point see C. Q. XXVI, p. 46 n. 1.
page 29 note 2 And here is yet more. At Cho. 446–7 the unexplained ⋯τоιμ⋯τερα γ⋯λωτоς after πоλνσιν⋯ς κνν⋯ς has caused Tucker much conscientious thought; it is simply a passing reference for point's sake to the proverbial ‘grin’ of the dangerous dog. At Cho. 621 κνν⋯φρων refers not to Scylla's shamelessness merely but to her treachery. Eur, . Andr. 630Google Scholar, πρоδ⋯τιν κ⋯να.
page 30 note 1 τо⋯ γ⋯ρ τελо⋯ντоς оὐ ξνν⋯κα μηχαν⋯ν 1253. And this is the line which editors emend; τоὺς γ⋯ρ τελо⋯ντας (Heimsoeth) Sidgwick, Wecklein, Wilamowitz, others. (‘The alteration is easy.’) γ⋯ρ means ‘for’; it gives a reason, does not repeat a statement; and where in Greek will yon parallel ξνν. τоὺς τελ. ‘I understand who the perpetrators are’? not from , S.Tr. 868–70Google Scholar.
page 31 note 1 The childish extravagance in the monstrosity of the six-headed and twelve-footed Homeric Scylla is exceptional. Regularly in literature as well as art (cf. Waser, O., Skylla u. Charybdis in d. Lit. u. Kunst der Gr. u. Rümer, Zürich, 1894Google Scholar; later reff. in Lübker Reallexikon8) she is a fishtailed woman with a girdle of dogs’ (or wolves') heads; and the conception of a cannibal mermaid is, as I shall presently argue, the Aeschylean. Echidna was a ravening snake-tailed woman. Each dwelt in a cave.
page 31 note 2 Presumably from caution, but cf. next n.
page 31 note 3 It is true that in Anaxil. 22.5 and (of course) in A. Cho. 994 edd. spell ἔχιδνα without a capital; but to suggest that any rigid distinction was thus made in antiquity would be, I think, misleading. The Echidna (half woman, half ⋯φις ὠμηστ⋯ς) was simply an echidna par excellence. Her associates in , E.Ion 1261–5Google Scholar, as in Anaxil. l.c., show that the later ἔχιδνα was conceived as something of a monster; and others besides Herodotus knew that she decapitated her mate.
page 31 note 4 = Sidg. 996–1004; normally I refer to S.'s numeration, but here I cannot, since in the location of 997–1004 I follow Weil (so also Blass).
page 31 note 5 To whom, however, I owe the ref. to Dryden.
page 32 note 1 But for a true estimate (and relevant here) see the second paragraph of Tucker's Introd. to Choeph.
page 32 note 2 At the same time, the word implies ‘deal an effective blow’ as at Sept. 399.
page 32 note 3 I also note that in relating this very act of the ἔχιδνα Nicander, Ther. 131Google Scholar says κ⋯ρην ⋯π⋯κоψεν ⋯ μ ε ⋯ ν о ν.
page 32 note 4 Sidgwick well compares Plat. Phaedr. 234c.
page 33 note 1 Order of lines as in Prinz-Wecklein, i.e. 1261–5, 69–74, 79–81, 75–8; but 1266–8 I place after 1319.
page 33 note 2 Αιδоν μ⋯τηρ =necis auctor, presented by Lawson as a novelty, was exploded long ago by Karsten; but even if it were itself a possibility it would still be liable to three objections here: (i) you cannot well apply μ⋯γηρ thus tropically to one who is actually a mother: (ii) ‘source death’ would here be intolerably flat: (iii) a mother who rages and blows will belong to Aristophanic parody, not to Aeschylus. Lawson naturally dares not translate his text; he has to throw in a ‘witch’ and a ‘whirlwind’! But apporpriate epithets do not create a substantive.
page 33 note 3 I compare πρ⋯σαι γ⋯ρ τὺ φνσ⋯σαι Schol., R, Ar. Wasps 36Google Scholar.
page 33 note 4 See L. and S. (8) s.v. πρἱστις; cf. Mair (trans. and n.) on Oppian Hal. I. 369 f. The ‘saw-fish’ is of course no less a reality than the ‘blowfish,’ but the names evidently became confused. pristis = pistrix represents a further confusion.
page 34 note 1 This of course is perfectly true. Suidas himself may merely have been muddling his a Aelian (Nat. Anim. ix. 49), but in Aelian l.c. she is at least in such company; and anyway there is my ref. to Oppian.
page 34 note 2 More common in Ireland; cf. J. M. Synge's plays passim.
Page 35 note 1 Yes I can; because Enger himself completely destroyed the point through punctuating ώσπερε⋯ μ⋯χης τροπᾑ δоκο⋯σα χα⋯ρειν.
page 35 note 2 See (not his opinion) Pollard, A. W.Odes from the Greek Dramatists p. viiGoogle Scholar.
