ΑΙΣΧΥΛΟΥ ΕΥΜΕΝΙΔΕΣ = THE EUMENIDES OF AESCHYLUS

254 Pages·1885·11.36 MB·English

by  Aeschylus

;
DUBLIN UNIVERSITY PRESS SERIES.
12
20
THE EUMENIDES OF AESCHYLUS.
]V/77/ METRICAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION,
BY
JOHN F. DAVIES, M. ., Univ. Duel.;
Lit.D., Q.U.I.; F.R.U.I.
ProfessorofLafin in theQueen's College,Gahmy.
DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS, & CO., GRAFTON-STREET.
LONDON: LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO., PATERNOSTER-ROW.
1885.
DUBLIN
:
PRINTED AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS,
BY PONSONBV AND WELDRICK.
:
,*«*" 7
1)3
la^c:
'
^(»
"*
-<
}
^^ 6i(/tyovo<; TtT^ct
8<)
ivyjv

' ;;
UNIVE]
...
RE FACE.
rriHIS edition is addressed in the first place to
-*- that limited number of scholars who take an
interest in the restoration of the text of Aeschylus
secondly, to those students who are called upon
to make the Eumenides a subject of special study
in the course of their reading for University dis-
tinctions. Not a fe\v things of which scholars do
not need to be told are to be found in the notes
but the work is very mainly critical, that is,
engaged in the earnest inquiry : ^ What is the true
text, and what does it mean ?
A critical edition is not made to order, nor to
meet a trade demand. It appears whenever the
author has completed his congenial task, without
any hurry, and to his own satisfaction so far as
;
the last can be said of works that are imperfect
in their nature, that only report progress and mark
a new starting-poiut, ' adeo brevis in perfecto est
mora'.
The publication of this text and notes has
been much delayed through various causes. My
first emendation of the play was made in May,
18G3, when I satisfied myself th,at in v. 507,
.
in which form the line then appeared in the only
editions I possessed, Tauchnitz' and Didot's, was a
relic of So the verse became the Jiexapodia
which was required, and the sense vas made per-
fect. A year or two later I acquired Weil's edition,
then Hermann's, Miiller's, and many others. To
take them in the order in which they came under
my notice, Weil's edition, 1861, placed
rightly, and he attributed the emendation to Pauw,
1733, who had edited
'?.
avev
Weil transposed the word on the ground that so
the line is better modulated, and not for the true
critical reasons, that is wrong in sense,
and that the told where the had been.
Then I found that Pauw's conjecture is given by
Hermann, who did not accept it, probably because
it had been adopted by Miiller, 1833, just 100 years
after Pauw's edition. Miiller had the word in
its right place,
'?,
but Weil did not know this, or he would have
acknowledged it. Paley ventured at last, in his
'3rd edition, 1870, to insert the word; but in
Pauw's wrong place. Under the circumstances I
feel justified in regarding this important emenda-
tion as appertaining in some measure to myself.
This and many other corrections of the text
of the Eumenides, which I now propose, were
communicated by me to Mr. Paley at the time
when he was preparing his -itli edition for the
press, about five years ago. I do not think he
approved of any of them: they were not 100
years old, nor had they received the sanction of
that wild innovator Hermann. I have freely de-
my
tailed treatment of the text before classes
of pupils in former years and have discussed
;
particular corrections with parties of friends. In
these ways some of my results may be already
known but in this abs^ence of hurry one's
;
results have time to be sorted, seasoned,
and matured. I have not yet had occasion to
revoke any correction of a text which I have
nuide. The only one of the emendations pro-
posed in this edition about which I retain some
doubt, in spite of the evidence, is that at v. 4-i.
\I
have been Avatching it ever since July, 1875
;
and have read the Lexicon of Hesychius through
for the sake of that passage alone.
I haA^e not heard of anything of any import-
ance done for the text of the Eumenides since
Weil's Pei'sae appeared in 1867, which gave a
valuable 'Addenda' of conjectures by German
savants, and particularly by the very eminent and
illustrious Meineke. The Franco-German war came
on and besides. Professor Weil had really done
;
so much in the way of permanent restoration as
,
hardly to leave it possible for another editor to
arise until after some very considerable interval.
I find that I have adopted, like one of
Athana's Areoj^agites, no fewer than 45 of AVeil's
emendations, which appear to me to be convincing
and conclusive.
Discredit is thrown upon exact and careful
Avork, in a very regretable way, by harum-scarum
attempts at imitation, such as the edition of the
Agamemnon which appeared this year. Things of
that kind will not be fairly allowed to prejudice
the genuine critical work of Stanley, Markland,
^
Heath, Musgrave, Tyrwhitt,Wakefield, and Elmsley,
wdio form the true old Eno'lish school. It Avill be
'
observed that I omit Bentley's name and Poison's,
although I must assign three corrections of this text
to the former, and fourteen to the latter, in the list
,
which I shall presently give. Of Bentley's tliree^
only one^ for v. 963, shows
that he was caring about the poem. Person's
fourteen are suc,h as ylyverai for)y,tverat, for
avTjp, viv for for etc., things
which do not affect the meaning of the text, or
very slightly, and were, therefore, not deemed
worthy of notice by such men as Auratus, Scaliger,
Casaubon, and the rest. There is not one of all the
fourteen in which Person has shown that he was
caring about the poem.
It is with much unwillingness that anything is
said derogatory to the reputation of these great
scholars, whom everyone delights to honour; but
there is no doubt that their influence has been
pernicious in proportion to its supremacy. The
spectacle of a scholar of Bentley's rare talents and
profound learning, being so seldom able to arrive at
a true result in criticism, has led the English people
to think that nothing good can be achieved.
It is an a fortiori of the most vigorous and con-
vincing kind : ' Do you suppose that ?/ou can
effect anything where Bentley and Person failed ?
Mr. Paley has been encouraging this sentiment for
forty 3'ears and now the free criticism of a Greek
;
text is looked upon with disfavour, or rather Avith
aversion and intolerance so that every new editor
;
hastens to assure his critics and readers that he
lias made no changes in ihe text except some
four or nve, at most, which are of no conse-
quence whatever.
Some discrimination ouglit to be used. Bentley's
mind was wanting in two requisites of the first
importance a sympathy Avith poetic sentiment and
:
expression, and a respect for his author such as
was felt by Scaliger and H. Stephens. He feels
that he is Master not only of Trinity College,
Cambridge, but also of all the Greek poets, and
so has a poor opinion of them and their words,
from first to last. Porson did not concern himself
at all with the meaning. Greek books presented
him with a convenient occasion for exhibiting the
accuracy of his grammatical knowledge, and his
acquaintance with some Greek metres. There was
no ground for expecting that either could become
a true critic. The one could not, because of some
radical defects of mind and the idea never occurred
;
to the other that a Greek text is anything more
than a child's exercise, from Avhich faults in ortho-
graphy liaA^e to be removed.
AVe envy them their superior endowments. Our