No CrossRef data available.
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.
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 this article I deal with difficulties, textual and exegetical, in ten passages of the Agamemnon. In some passages there is wide agreement on the sense required, but not on the remedies proposed for a corrupt reading: here I venture to put forward fresh proposals that seem to possess a reasonable1 degree of palaeo-graphical probability (1347, 1659). In another passage I argue for a new interpretation with its appropriate emendation (1339). In some cases where the sense is hardly in doubt and the text not certainly corrupt, I propose what seems on linguistic or other grounds a preferable reading (496,966,1409,1630), or I argue in favour of some other scholar's proposal (319). Finally, where there can be little, if any, likelihood of successful restoration, I offer a tentative suggestion which may give at least an approximation to the original text (1657).
page 310 note 1 After all the labour expended on the text of the Agamemnon it is unlikely that absolutely convincing emendations will be forthcoming
page 311 note 1 1096, 1217, 1242. Atreus' sin is referred to twice: 
(1185), 
(1197), and in 1223 the punishment for it is foretold. It is probable that in 1340 
is an echo of 
.s in 1223. In both passages I believe the punishment is said to fall on Agamemnon.
page 311 note 2 In 1500ff. the murder of Agamemnon is regarded as punishment for Atreus' crime, and naturally so, since from 1468 the theme has been the 
. Earlier in the scene Clytemnestra thinks of Agamemnon's murder as justice realized for her child (1432), whose sacrifice (1417) called for another sacrifice (that of Agamemnon, 1509).
page 312 note 1 For 
of the MSS. I think we should read in P.V. 187).
page 313 note 1 Fraenkel exaggerates the number of those [in favour of immediate action’ (p. 644). Speakers 8 and 9 should not be counted in, and, as will be seen later, I would exclude also 4 and 5.
page 316 note 1 Lindau had proposed irpos 
.