A note on Aeschylus, 'Agamemnon' 403-5, 420-2.

Aeschylus' constant metrical practice shows that either Ag. 404/5 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (v-- v-v- -v- v--) in the strophe, or 421/2 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (v-v- -v- -v- v-,), correspondingly in the antistrophe, is corrupt in the manuscript tradition.(1) G. Hermann observed this and proposed to read [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 421/2.(2) Most editors after Hermann agreed that there was corruption, but notabout where it was or how to repair it. H. L. Ahrens proposed reading [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 404/5.(3) R. Enger proposed [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].(4) Most editors adopted one of these three emendations before Fraenkel's edition of the play appeared.(5) Fraenkel's chief contribution was to show that neither Ahrens nor Enger had solved the problem. But he also argued that 403-5

404/5 [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

was the locus of corruption. He inferred this from the fact that the word order [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] (attributive adjective + substantive + attributive adjective + [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]) is found nowhere else in Aeschylus or Sophocles. He did not investigate Euripides.

Fraenkel's analysis suggested an impasse, but A. J. Beattie shortly after found a way out.(6) He proposed simply replacing [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in 404/5 with [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII], hinting, very plausibly, that the sight of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] in the mind of the copyist as he reached so that he misread it. Then P. Maas argued that [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] was not only a hapax, but perhaps in itself suspect.(7) He also pointed out that Theodor Heyse had already hit upon [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] some years before.(8) Thereafter [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] has often been adopted by editors, including Fraenkel.(9)

The weight of opinion now in favour of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] might seem to have closed the matter. But questions remain. If [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] is right, does it mean `marshalling companies' here or `lying in ambushes'?(10) The consensus seems to follow Beattie in choosing the former. But in an ode that works by alluding to evocative details, I do not find the marshalling of companies notably evocative. Surely some analysis of the context is in order before deciding which sense fits best. Also, Fraenkel's argument against the soundness of 404/5 does not hold up. There is nothing obviously impossible about the word order Fraenkel questioned, and Euripides uses it at least twice, perhaps four times.(11) This shows that it is a possible word order, even if rare, and cannot be excluded in Aeschylus. So further investigation is required to determine whether there is anything else in 404/5 open to well grounded suspicion, and it may be useful to reconsider Hermann's proposal to emend 421/2. I shall take up the sense of [GREEK TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] …