Notes on the Text of Seven Against Thebes

Vayos L iapis NOTES ON THE TEXT OF SEVEN AGAINST THEBES  A BSTRACT: This paper offers a detailed textual discussion of six problematic passages in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes (203-7, 211-13, 219-22, 223-25, 271-80, 282-84), draws attention to undeservedly neglected variant readings, and proposes new emendations. T he text, line-numbering and apparatus criticus are based (with occa- sional changes) on those of M. L. West, Aeschylus: Tragoediae (Stuttgart and Leipzig 1990, corr. edn. 1998). I. 203–7 χο. ὦ φίλον Οἰδίπου τέκος, ἔδεισ’ ἀκού- σασα τὸν ἁρματόκτυπον ὄτοβον ὄτοβον, ὅτε τε σύριγγες ἔκλαγξαν ἑλίτροχοι, 205 ἱππικῶν τ’ ἄπυον πηδαλίων διὰ στόμια πυριγενέται χαλινοί. 205 ὅτε τε Hermann : ὅτι τε fere codd. 206 ἄπυον Lachmann : ἀύπνων Σ Ω 207 διὰ στόμια Lachmann : διὰ στόμα Ω πυριγενεταὶ (sic) χαλινοί Heimsoeth : πυριγενετᾶν χαλινῶν Ω In 206–7 (ἱππικῶν ... χαλινοί), construe πυριγενέται χαλινοὶ ἄπυον διὰ στόμια ἱππικῶν πηδαλίων, ‘the fire-born bridles sounded through the equestrian rudders’ bits’. ἄπυον is Lachmann’s emendation of the unmetrical and point- less ἀύπνων.1 Lachmann (n. 1) is also responsible for διὰ στόμια, which 1. K. Lachmann, De choricis systematis tragicorum Graecorum libri quattuor, Berlin 1819, 88 n. The imperfect tense here is virtually indistinguishable from the aorist, hence the conjunction with ἔκλαγξαν; cf. J. Wackernagel, Lectures on Syntax, ed. and transl. D. Langslow, Oxford 2009, 235–6. ❧ LogeΙoΝ Α Journal of Ancient Theatre 7 (7) 14-20 ☙ 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 14 5/7/18 3:49 PM  NOTES ON THE TEXT OF SEVEN AGAINST THEBES 15 restores responsion with πόλεος in 215. Heimsoeth’s πυριγενέται χαλινοί provides a subject for ἄπυον.2 It seems that χαλινοί here = ‘bridle and bit’ (cf. Herodotus 3.118.2, 4.64.2; IG i3 476.174–5), hence the distinction from the στόμια (for which see also Herodotus 1.215.2, 4.72.4). The refer­ ence is to the clinking noise produced by the metal bridles (πυριγενέται, lit. ‘born in fire’, means ‘forged by fire’, cf. Euripides, Hippolytus 1223 στό- μια πυριγενῆ) as they strike against the metal bridle-bits; the noise is thus transmitted ‘through’ (διά) the bits. It might be possible to keep the transmitted πυριγενετᾶν χαλινῶν by emending ἀύπνων into αὐονά, ‘cry’ (αὔω): ‘and the cry of equestrian rudders (sounded, ἔκλαγξεν) through the bits of the fire-born bridles’. ΑΥΟΝ- will have been corrupted into ΑΥΠΝ-, and the ending changed under the influ- ence of ἱππικῶν . . . πηδαλίων. With this arrangement, στόμια . . . χαλινῶν would be an accurate description of the bit being part of a bridle.3 Admit- tedly, however, αὐονή in this sense occurs only in Semonides, fr. 7.20 West (of a dog’s yapping). II. 211–13 χο. ἀλλ’ ἐπὶ δαιμόνων πρόδρομος ἦλθον ἀρ- χαῖα βρέτη, θεοῖσι πίσυνος, λιθάδος ὅτ’ ὀλοᾶς νειφομένας βρόμος ἐν πύλαις· 212 θεοῖσι πίσυνος Blomfield, Seidler : πίσυνος θεοῖς Ω λιθάδος Naber (cf. 159) : νιφάδος Ω In 213, the paradosis (ὅτ’ . . . βρόμος ἐν πύλαις) involves a harsh ellipsis of the imperfect tense of the copula in a subordinate clause, for which I can find no adequate parallels.4 It is impossible to supply the copula without major rearrangement of the word order, e.g. Schmidt’s ὅτ’ ὀλοᾶς | νιφομέ- 2. F. Heimsoeth, Die Wiederherstellung der Dramen des Aeschylus, Bonn 1861, 259. 3. X. Eq. 6.7–8, 10.6–10; J. K. Anderson, Ancient Greek Horsemanship, Berkeley 1961, 50–2. 4. Cf. R. Kühner and B. Gerth, Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, ii: Satz- lehre, vol. 1, Hannover and Leipzig 31898, 41. Note also Italie’s remark: ‘De weglating van ἦν is zeer ongewoon’ (G. Italie, Aeschylus’ Zeven tegen Theben, Leiden 1950, ad 212). For the (rare) omission of ἦν in principal clauses cf. E. Ba. 436 ὁ θὴρ ὅδ’ ἡμῖν πρᾶιος; Pl. R. 503b ὄκνος γάρ, ἔφην, ὦ φίλε, ἐγὼ εἰπεῖν τὰ νῦν ἀποτετολμημένα (with M. Schanz, Novae commentationes Platonicae, Würzburg 1871, 33). The one example known to me where ἦν needs to be understood in a subordinate clause is A. Ag. 445–6 εὖ λέγοντες ἄν-| δρα τὸν μὲν ὡς μάχας ἴδρις. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 15 5/7/18 3:49 PM  16 V. L i a p i s νας νιφάδος (lege λιθάδος) <ἦν> βρόμος, largely accepted by Page in his OCT.5 As a ten­ta­tive solution I suggest ἦν πύλαις,6 with πύλαις as locative dative.7 III. 219–22 χο. μήποτ’ ἐμὸν κατ’ αἰῶνα λίποι θεῶν ἅδε πανάγυρις, μηδ’ ἐπίδοιμι τάνδ’ 220 ἀστυδρομουμέναν πόλιν καὶ στρατὸν τυφόμενον πυρὶ δαΐωι. 221–2 καὶ στρατὸν | τυφόμενον π. δ. Meineke : καὶ στράτευμ’ | ἁπτόμενον (τυφόμενον Mγρ Y gl ) π. δ. Ω : καὶ στρατοῦ | δαπτομέναν πυρὶ δαΐου Prien (unde κἀκ στρατοῦ . . . δαΐωι Hutchinson) Although τυφόμενον has scant MSS support, it seems to be the correct reading (with Meineke’s στρατόν for στράτευμ’ in 221):8 the ‘population’ (στρατόν, cf. 184, 302) of a city set on fire by its captors is ‘smoked out’ of it, as wasps or bees might be smoked out of their nests;9 hence the image of frenzied flight evoked by ἀστυδρομουμέναν. The paradosis καὶ στράτευμ’ | ἁπτόμενον entails the grotesque notion of setting the entire population on fire, rather than e.g. killing them or taking them as slaves. No further tampering with the para- dosis is advisable. Prien’s καὶ στρατοῦ | δαπτομέναν (sc. πόλιν) πυρὶ δαΐου is awkward,10 even though δαπτομέναν is idiomatic,11 and στρατοῦ . . . δαΐου is paralleled in 147: the separation of δαΐου from στρατοῦ, further aggravated by the intervening δαπτομέναν looking back to πόλιν, makes for impossibly tor- tuous phraseology; and the bare genitive στρατοῦ is inelegant. Hutchinson’s κἀκ στρατοῦ δαπτομέναν πυρὶ δαΐωι does remove the inelegance, but parallels suggest that in similar contexts ‘fire’ is the subject of δάπτειν (cf. n. 11).12 5. M. Schmidt, “Zur Kritik der Sieben gegen Theben”, Zeitschrift für die österreichischen Gymnasien 16 (1865) 553–85, at 570. 6. The conjecture is attributed to Voss by N. Wecklein (Aeschyli Fabulae, vol. 2, Berlin 1885, 63), but not to be found in H. Voss, Curarum Aeschylearum specimen I, Heidelberg 1812. 7. Cf. e.g. S. OT 20 ἀγοραῖσι θακεῖ, El. 313 ἀγροῖσι τυγχάνει (Kühner and Gerth [n. 4], 441–2). 8. A. Meineke, ‘Bemerkungen zu Aeschylus’, Philologus 20 (1863) 51–75, at 55. 9. Wasps: Ar. V. 457 τῦφε πολλῶι τῶι καπνῶι. Bees: A.R. 2.134 καπνῶι τυφόμεναι. 10. C. Prien, [Review of G. Hermann, Aeschyli tragoediae, 2nd edn., vol. i/2, Berlin 1852], RhM 9 (1854) 217–40, 392–421 (at 235–6 with n.*) 11. Cf. Il. 23.183 πυρὶ δαπτέμεν; ?A. PV 368 ποταμοὶ πυρὸς δάπτοντες. 12. See G. O. Hutchinson, Aeschylus: Septem contra Thebas, Oxford 1985, ad 221f. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 16 5/7/18 3:49 PM  NOTES ON THE TEXT OF SEVEN AGAINST THEBES 17 IV. 223–5 ΕΤ. μή μοι θεοὺς καλοῦσα βουλεύου κακῶς· Πειθαρχία γάρ ἐστι τῆς Εὐπραξίας μήτηρ, † γυνή † σωτῆρος· ὧδ’ ἔχει λόγος. 225 225 γύναι G Fpc Tr In 225, σωτῆρος is commonly taken to refer to Ζεὺς Σωτήρ, and Sommerstein adduces a 4th-century inscription (IG ii2 4627) mentioning another personi- fied abstraction (Good Fortune) as Zeus’ wife.13 But Hutchinson offers two decisive objections to the communis opinio:14 (i) ‘(ὁ) Σωτήρ does not seem to be used alone of Zeus save in the proverb τὸ τρίτον τῶι Σωτῆρι and ex- pressions derived from it’; (ii) for Eteocles to bring in the supreme god here would spoil the chorus’ counter-argument θεοῦ δ’ in 226, as well as (we may add) vitiating the overall antithesis between the polis-centred Eteocles and the prayerful chorus. It seems best to take σωτῆρος as a qualification of Εὐπραξία (cf. Σ 224c τῆς σωτῆρος εὐπραξίας, 225g τῆς σωστικῆς).15 As a result, γυνή can no longer stand, nor can the vocative γύναι at this position, esp. in view of the fact that Eteocles never uses the vocative to address the chorus, except disparagingly (cf. 182). Hermann’s γονῆς σωτῆρος (‘offspring of a deliverer’) clumsily introduces two genitives in succession.16 Read perhaps ξυνῆς σωτῆρος, ‘(Welfare,) assurer of common safety’: *ΥΝΗΣΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ with the first letter erased would be almost inevitably supplemented as <Γ >ΥΝΗΣΣΩΤΗΡΟΣ, hence γυνὴ σωτῆρος. For κοινὸς σωτήρ cf. Strabo 17.2.3 (C822) κοινοὺς ἁπάντων σωτῆρας, and the catchphrase κοινὴ σωτηρία in inscriptions and the orators.17 13. A. H. Sommerstein, Aeschylus: Persians, Seven against Thebes, Suppliants, Prometheus Bound, Loeb Classical Library 145, Cambridge, MA, 2008, 174–5 n. 27. 14. Hutchinson (n. 12), ad 225. 15. For σωτήρ in the feminine cf. A. Ag. 664 Τύχη δὲ σωτήρ, S. OT 80–1 τύχηι . . . | σωτῆρι; E. El. 993 τιμὰς σωτῆρας. For nomina agentis qualifying feminine nouns without change of grammatical gender, esp. in tragedy, see Ernst Fraenkel, Geschichte der griechischen Nomina agentis –τήρ, –τωρ, –της (–τ–), vol. 2, Strassburg 1912, 49. 16. G. Hermann, Opuscula, vol. IV, Leipzig 1831, 335. 17. e.g. IG ii2 680.13, 682.32–3; Isoc. 4.85, 8.39, Lycurg. 46, 88, 139; Din. 1.2. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 17 5/7/18 3:49 PM  18 V. L i a p i s V. 271–80 ἐγὼ δὲ χώρας τοῖς πολισσούχοις θεοῖς, πεδιονόμοις τε κἀγορᾶς ἐπισκόποις, Δίρκης τε πηγαῖς ὕδατί θ’ Ἱσμηνοῦ λέγω, εὖ ξυντυχόντων καὶ πόλεως σεσωμένης μήλοισιν αἱμάσσοντας ἑστίας θεῶν 275 { ταυροκτονοῦντας θεοῖσιν ὧδ’ ἐπεύχομαι } θήσειν τροπαῖα { πολεμίων δ’ ἐσθήματα } λάφυρα δάιων δουρίπληχθ’ ἁγνοῖς δόμοις. 278 { στέψω πρὸ ναῶν πολεμίων δ’ ἐσθήματα } 278a τοιαῦτ’ ἐπεύχου μὴ φιλοστόνως θεοῖς μηδ’ ἐν ματαίοις κἀγρίοις ποιφύγμασιν 280 273 πηγαῖς] πηγῆς I Y W V K alii ὕδατί τ’ Geel : οὐδ’ ἀπ’ Ω (unde οὐδ’ ἀπ’ Ἰσμηνόν Abresch) Ἱσμ- Groeneboom : Ἰσμ- Ω 276 ταυροκτονῶν τε I uer- sum del. Ritschl 277 θύσειν O δ’ ] τ’ I Rb : om. X ἐσθήματα codd. plurr. et ΣM277j : ἐσθήμασι M (in textu) et cognouerat ΣI278o : ἐσθημάτων Y 278a habent M Pac Ξaac et cognouerat ΣI278o : sola uerba στέψω πρὸ ναῶν praebent Q Δpc : om. rell. δ’ M (in textu) : τ’ M (supra lineam) : om. rell. Lines 276–278a are heavily corrupt; I have indicated above the parts that seem to me most likely to be interpolated.18 Line 276 is almost certainly suppositious,19 and seems to have ousted a genuine line. Following hard upon μήλοισιν αἱμάσσοντας (275), ταυροκτο- νοῦντας seems idle, and is at any rate unacceptable without a connective (e.g. ταυροκτονοῦντάς τε; cf. the clumsy attempt in I to supply one): it was prob- ably suggested by ταυροσφαγοῦντες . . . ταυρείου φόνου (43–4). Likewise, θεοῖσιν so shortly after θεῶν is offensive, while the pointless ὧδ’ is probably a filler to make up the metre. Finally, ἐπεύχομαι, which can only mean ‘I boast that’,20 is inapposite in this context, and appears to have been concocted from 279 (ἐπεύχου) with the purpose of supplying a verb to govern θήσειν (277). That such a verb was contained in the genuine line ousted by 276 is highly likely; I suggest, exempli gratia: 18. For a detailed account of earlier attempts to emend see S. Novelli, Studi sul testo dei Sette contro Tebe, Amsterdam 2005, 177–84. 19. See F. Ritschl, Kleine philologische Schriften, vol. 1, Leipzig 1866, 367–70. 20. Cf. A. Ag. 1262 with E. Fraenkel, Aeschylus: Agamemnon, vol. 3, Oxford 1950, ad loc. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 18 5/7/18 3:49 PM  NOTES ON THE TEXT OF SEVEN AGAINST THEBES 19 καλόν τ’ ἐπευφημοῦντας ὕμνον ἔλπομαι θήσειν τροπαῖα ‘and intoning, in addition (ἐπ-), a beautiful hymn, I expect us to set up trophies For καλὸς ὕμνος cf. Aeschylus, fr. **204b.9 Radt κα̣λ[̣ ὸ]ν̣ δ’ ὕ̣μνον̣ . . . μολ- |πάσε̣ιν̣ [ἔ]ο̣λ [̣ π’ ἐγ]ώ̣ (suppl. Lobel); for ἐπευφημεῖν denoting the singing of hymns to accompany ritual offerings cf. Persae 619–20 χοαῖσι ταῖσδε νερτέρων | ὕμνους ἐπευφημεῖτε. In 277, πολεμίων δ’ ἐσθήματα (or the minority readings ἐσθήμασι / ἐσθημά­των) will not do: even if it could mean ‘enemy armour’ (thus Σ 277j, 277o, p), it would be otiose before λάφυρα δάιων (278). Its repetition in 278a (in a few MSS) bespeaks the interpolator’s hand in one of the two passages, or even in both. The only parallel I could find for this peculiar use of ἐσθή- ματα (which elsewhere means only ‘garments’) is in the 4th-century orator Demades, a notorious practitioner of linguistic affectation (‘a word-hunting sophist’, Athenaeus 99e), who is credited, inter alia, with the recherché meta- phor ἐσθὴς τῆς πόλεως, ‘raiment of the city’, meaning ‘the city walls’ (Athen- aeus 99d). It is conceivable, then, that πολεμίων δ’ ἐσθήματα started life as an overeager, ‘word-hunting’ interpolator’s expansion of λάφυρα δάιων. Line 278a is, again, almost certainly interpolated; it is found only in three MSS, and its first half-line alone in two more. Hutchinson (n. 12, ad 275–8a) plausibly argues that στέψω πρὸ ναῶν was misguidedly devised to supply 278 with a verb, and that πολεμίων δ’ ἐσθήματα was then pilfered from 277 to make up the line. In particular, πρὸ ναῶν looks like a scholiastic banalization of ἁγνοῖς δόμοις (278), and the rough-and-ready στέψω, prompted no doubt by the lack of a verb to govern λάφυρα in 278, was devised apparently on the basis of μνημεῖά . . . | . . . ἔστεφον (49–50); cf. Sophocles, Ajax 93 στέψω λα- φύροις; Euripides, Troades 574–6 σκύλοις τε Φρυγῶν δοριθηράτοις | . . . | στέ- ψει ναούς. A standard term for dedicating spoils to temples is πασσαλεύω,21 and the text may be emended accordingly as follows: θήσειν τροπαῖα καὶ λάφυρα δαΐων 277 <προσπασσαλεύσειν> δουρίπληχθ’ ἁγνοῖς δόμοις 278 21. Cf. A. Ag. 579 θεοῖς λάφυρα ... | δόμοις ἐπασσάλευσαν; [E.] Rh. 180 θεοῖσιν αὐτὰ πασσάλευε πρὸς δόμοις. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 19 5/7/18 3:49 PM  20 V. L i a p i s ‘(I hope) to set up trophies and peg up spoils won from the enemy with the spear’s stroke (as dedications) to the holy temples’ (of the gods, cf. 275 θεῶν). For προσπασσαλεύω + dative cf. Prometheus Bound 20 προσπασσαλεύσω (sc. σε) τῶιδ’ ἀπανθρώπωι πάγωι; Herodotus 9.120.4 σανίδι (Scaliger : σανίδα(ς) codd.) προσπασσαλεύσαντες (cf. 1.144.3). VI. 282–4 ἐγὼ δέ γ’ ἄνδρας ἓξ ἐμοὶ ξὺν ἑβδόμωι ἀντηρέτας ἐχθροῖσι † τὸν μέγαν τρόπον † εἰς ἑπτατειχεῖς ἐξόδους τάξω μολών 282 δέ γ’ anon. in editionis Aldinae exemplari Cantabrigiensi : δ’ ἐπ’ Ω ξὺν Brunck : σὺν Ω 283 τὸν μέγαν τρόπον glossema sapiunt 284 ἑπτατείχους Q pc P γρ λ In 283, τὸν μέγαν τρόπον, ‘in the grand manner’, makes no sense in this context, and the article is particularly offensive. Hutchinson (n. 12, ad loc.) posits a lacuna after 283, which would have contained a dative plural parti- ciple qualifying ἐχθροῖσι, with τὸν μ- τρ- meaning ‘in that proud manner of theirs’. However, μέγας tout court is not ‘proud’, nor have we witnessed, as yet, examples of the attackers’ insolence. A more promising line of argument would be to take τὸν μ- τρ- as a corruption of, e.g., οὐ σμικρῶι τρόπωι (cf. 465 ἐσχημάτισται δ’ ἀσπὶς οὐ σμικρῶι τρόπωι) or οὐ φαύλωι τρόπωι (cf. [Euripides] Rhesus 599 μολόντα Ῥῆσον οὐ φαύλωι τρόπωι).22 The modal datives would then attach to ἀντηρέτας: ‘opponents in no negligible fashion’. Open University of Cyprus [email protected] 22. See V. Liapis, A Commentary on the Rhesus Attributed to Euripides, Oxford 2012, ad 598–9. 1 PART_pp001-215_Logeion7 2017.indd 20 5/7/18 3:49 PM