Table Of ContentAI5XYA0Y IKETIAES
THE
'SUPPLICES'
OF
AESCHYLUS
A REVISED TEXT
WITH INTRODUCTION, CRITICAL NOTES, COMMENTARY
AND TRANSLATION
BY
\V"*G?TUCKER, M.A.,
PROFESSOR OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE,
LATE FELLOW OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
Ionium
MACMILLAN AND CO
AND NEW YORK
1889
[The Right of Translation is reserved]
&
(M-
PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
THIS BOOK
IS AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED
TO
WILLIAM EMERTON HEITLAND,
M.A.
TUTOR AND FORMERLY CLASSICAL LECTURER
OF ST JOHN'S COLLEGE
IN TOKEN OF A GRATEFUL AND ADMIRING RECOLLECTION
OF HIS
SINGULAR POWER, THOROUGHNESS AND UNSELFISHNESS
AS A TEACHER.
TA TOY APAMAT02
IIPOSQIIA.
XOPOS AANAIAON.
AANAOS
'.
HEAASrOS (BASIAEYS APrEION).
KHPYH1
.
1 The parts of Danaus and the herald were probably taken by the same
person.
PREFACE.
A NEW
edition of the Supplices of Aeschylus has long been
required. I could wish that some more experienced hand had
produced it. Though full of beauties ofthought and expression,
the play has the reputation of being unusually corrupt, and is
therefore comparatively little read. But it is cause for some
wonder, that so few scholars of eminence seem to have thought
it a duty to emend and explain a work which is so important
for a proper comprehension of Aeschylus.
It is a fact not seldom commented upon, that critical study,
especially with English scholars, is apt to confine itselfto certain
narrow fields, which it ploughs over and over again, while it
leaves sentasitu domains of literature which might be reclaimed
to great advantage. If this concentration were the consequence
of a paucity of labourers, or if such avwnok'r)<si,<i produced more
profit than progressive reclamation can do, there could be no
objection to the practice. The former excuse no one will urge.
Nor can it be maintained that the literary value of the Supplices
is small. Conington, led by his poetic instinct, was much at-
tracted to a special study of the play; and Mr Morshead, in his
scholarly translation, quotes in its praise critics 'as competent
and as diverse' as Keble, Browning and Swinburne. The first-
named calls it truly 'dulcissimae illae 'I/cen&e<s' and the last
asserts that it is neglected 'for no fault but its misfortune.' An
editor ofthe Supplices is not engaged in an attempt to galvanise
a dead thing into life. When the play receives its due share of
attention it can trust to its own lively virtues, to the unequalled
beauty,and sweetness ofits choral odes, the simplicity and grace
T. S. b
PREFACE.
viii
of its language, the clearness and healthiness of its moral
bearing. It is moreover, as I believe, impossible to fully know
the development of the 'mind and art' of Aeschylus without,
this, his earliest extant production. (See Introd. 'Date of the
Flay-')
No separate studyofthe playhas, so far as I know,appeared
in England during the last half-century, and, exceptfor the wild
work of Burges, I have seen the commentary of no English
editor whatever but Paley. Even in Germany separate editions
have been rare. In the matter of exegesis my obligations are
principally to Paley, Weil and Oberdick. I hope, however, to
have contributed much. Where I have totally differed from
other editors Ihave not felt it becomingto indulge in expletives,
remembering that my own first impressions have afterwards
appeared to me equally deserving of an inepte or a.perperam.
Of Hermann's work I cannot bring myself to entertain
such a high opinion as his reputation would seem to warrant.
To avoid a charge of presumption I will quote Madvig (Adv.
Crit. cap. II. adJin.) for an estimate of Hermann, to which I
have of my own judgment come, but which perhaps only a
Madvig may confidently enunciate, 'non maximum numerum
bonarum emendationum obruit innumerabili inanium et levium
opinionum festinanter iactarum multitudine, rursus non raro, ubi
libido aut obtrectatio abripuerat, strenuus pravorum defensor.'
For the text of the Medicean I have followed Vitelli's re-
cension (1885). Merkel's has also been in my hands. These,
together with the apparatus criticus supplied by Wecklein's
indispensable collection, practicallyplace the antipodean student
on an equality ofequipment with the European. I feel strongly
how grateful oneshould be for so helpful a compilation. Before
obtaining Wecklein I had in a laborious and unsatisfactory
manner collected an apparatuscriticusfrom any availablesources,
but his work has enabled me in many cases to correct the attri-
bution of conjectures, as well as to add many valuable modern
suggestions to my lists.
In selecting previous conjectures for mention I have been
guided generally by the measure of their apparent plausibility,
but sometimes by a wish to shew the necessity of some point of
the commentary or translation.
PREFACE.
ix
The translation !s intended to be readable in itself, but
chiefly to bind together the observations of the commentary, so
that the wood may be seen as well as the trees.
The notes may be thought full, but not, I hope, verbose.
Exegesis of Aeschylus, even in his best edited plays and in
his soundest parts, is far from complete. We have not upon
Aeschylus any of that thorough work in this kind which Pro-
fessor Jebb is supplying so luminously upon Sophocles. Than
the poetry of Aeschylus there is no more concise or sinewy
diction to be found in antiquity. If, for instance, strength and
absolute justice of epithets are any criterion of vigorous style,
it should be seen that in Aeschylus there is no such thing as an
otiose epithet or part of an epithet. When editors explain
olotpptov irerpa as an instance of a compound in which the latter
element adds nothing, they wrong the poet and their own judg-
ment. There is here, as a matter of fact, a strikingly condensed
metaphor. The peak is 'haughty' 'reserved,' minded to stand
aloof from inferior heights, like a haughty man apart from and
above the mob. The irirpa is endowed with (ppovrjfia 'pride.'
So when an army 6%vwpq>pot,<Ti fipi/Aei iv alj^taK (P. V. 423), the
advanced line of spears is compared to a naval squadron ready
for the 6>/8o\97 with its sharp prows.
A careful study of such writing is often necessary for deter-
mining whether or not emendation is required, and, if required,
of what nature it should be. Any 701/^09 iroirfr^ is best ex-
plained from himself, and hence no exeg«tical study can be too
painstaking for a critic of the text. In P. V. 680
dirpoa-S6K7]TO<; avrov al<pvl8io<; fiopos
tov tyjv airea-reprjaev,
to say nothing of the metrical difficulty, no careful student of
Aeschylus could bearthe flagrant tautology aTrpoo-So^To? atyvi-
Sto?. In emending therefore he would not accept any word of
merely the same sense as a'upvtSux:. The true reading I should
restore with a'nretvk (Homer's alwvs oXedpos). This differs from
alcpvLSios and from am-poahoKyTo*; in the metaphor.
On the other hand take Cho. 698
vvv S' ??Ve/3 iv So/ioto-i /3a«%eta? koX.^
iWp^o? iX-n-U nv irapovaav iyypafat,.
b2
•
PREFACE.
x
It is the personified 'Apa who is apostrophised. She has over-
come and carried off one by one the ^tkrara of Clytaemnestra,
'and now' says C. 'you record as present, the only hope that
was left.' The text irapovaav iyypdfai requires not emendation
but explanation. The metaphor is from one calling a muster-
roll or checking an inventory. One who should appear, a thing
which should be forthcoming, is either irapaov or dirwv. The
recorder therefore iyypd<perai irapovra or dirovra. So the 'Apd,
taking the inventory of rd $L\a of Clytaemnestra, which are to
be registered as slain, records each as she gathers it in. Finally
she secures the last hope of the house and irapovaav airrjv
iyypd<f>erai.
Every new editor is expected to stand and deliver his prin-
ciples in the matter of conjectural emendation, and perhaps in
somewhat more definite manner than that adopted by Professor
Gildersleeve {quern honoris causa nomino), who (Pref. Pindar)
contents himselfwith saying that he uses his 'best judgment.'
In the present work there have been assumed as axioms:
(i) that, as possession is nine points of the law, and in the
matter of MS. reading ninety and nine points, the reading in the
text must hold its place until such cause to the contrary can be
shewn as will satisfy a rigidly impartial tribunal. The onuspru-
bandi lies entirely with the impugner ofthe text. Unfortunately
the impartial tribunal can, for the purpose of an editor, only be
erected in his own mind,which is liable to err both in knowledge
and judgment. Yet, if he is assured of his own conscientious-
ness, he is justified in giving his verdict so far as his own
edition goes, and leaving possible lapses ofknowledge and judg-
—
ment to be corrected by the collective wisdom of his readers:
(ii)that the conditions ofdispossession are these. It must either
be proved that the reading is an impossibility, or else that in
point of grammar or usage it is so abnormal, or in point of re-
levance so manifestly inappropriate, as to produce a thorough
conviction that the MS. is in error. This naturally involves ex-
haustiveexamination ofthe possible significations ofthe passage
—
as a whole and of the suspected words in particular: (iii) that
the reading substituted on conjecture must approve its claims
—
by satisfying the conditions of palaeography as a most natural
—
source of the incorrect reading: of sense as being best suited
