previous next

[76] 76-77. “Ζηνόδοτος τοῦτον μὲν” (77) “οὐκ ἔγραφε, τὸν δὲ πρὸ αὐτοῦ μόνον οὕτως “τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνιστάμενος μετέφη κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων”” An. “οὕτως” (as text) “καὶ παρὰ Ἀριστοφάνει, ἐν δὲ τῆι Μασσαλιωτικῆι καὶ Χίαι “τοῖσι δ᾽ ἀνιστάμενος μετέφη κρείων Ἀγαμέμνων, μῆνιν ἀναστενάχων καὶ ὑφ᾽ ἕλκεος ἄλγεα πάσχων”” Did. The question is complicated by the interpretation of 79-80, which has been the subject of a lively and voluminous controversy (especially between Boeckh and G. Hermann), owing most of its importance to the light that the use of “ὑββάλλειν” might throw on the sense of “ἐξ ὑποβολῆς” in a well-known passage of Laertios Diog. (see Prolegomena, vol. i. p. xvii.). We must first distinguish two main lines of interpretation. (1) 77 is omitted, 79-80 mean ‘it is well to listen to the speaker, and it is not fair to interrupt him; for that (sc. to be interrupted) is a difficulty even for a skilled orator.’ This is free from difficulty, ἑσταότος being as we say ‘him who is on his legs. ’ Such an explanation is not possible when we have the preceding line to say that Ag.was not on his legs. (2) 77 is retained; Agamemnon is unable to stand up, and will not speak through the mouth of a third party deputed to repeat his words to the assembly; he means therefore ‘though one ought to speak standing, yet I will do my best to speak sitting down rather than put words in another's mouth: for that is hard to the most skilled.’ This second explanation is so obscure, farfetched, and indeed perverse, that it is hard to believe, though the scholia assert, that it was supported by Ar.; except the existence of l. 77 there is nothing in its favour. Even so there still remains the obvious difficulty that Agam.'s wound was in the arm, and thus could be no reason why he should not stand up. Yet that this is the idea is shewn by the emphasis laid on the wound in 52-53. With regard to ὑββάλλειν it is clear that it simply means ‘to throw in’ a word, and thus may equally well be ‘to interrupt’ or ‘to prompt, dictate’ (so “ὑποβάλλειν” often in Attic, see Lex.). The former best suits “ὑποβλήδην” 1.292. (But this adverb was taken otherwise by Ap. Rhod.i. 699, iii. 400, where there is no question of interrupting, and the only possible sense is ‘replying.’) The difficulty with (1) is how to account for the existence of 77. Alexander of Kotyaia (in Schol. A) asserted that it had been interpolated by Ar. in order to support his view of the passage. This statement is demonstrably false, as we know from Did. that Aph.had the line (compare note on 18.604). It is clearly of respectable antiquity and older than Zen., and apparently arises from an early and mistaken attempt to explain 79-80. As a last resource it is just possible to retain 77 consistently with explanation (1), by taking ἐν μέσσοισιν as parenthetic, and joining αὐτόθεν ἐξ ἕδρης with ἀναστάς, standing up where he was sitting, and not in the midst. We must then suppose, though with no warrant elsewhere, that it was usual for the speakers to leave their seats and come forward to some sort of rostrum in the midst. Agamemnon, we may imagine, was too nervous to do this — see Lendrum in C. R. iv. 47.

The Iliad, edited, with apparatus criticus, prolegomena, notes, and appendices. Walter Leaf. London. Macmillan. 1900.

The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (4 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (4):
    • Homer, Iliad, 19.79
    • Homer, Iliad, 1.292
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 1.699
    • Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica, 3.400
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: