Abstract

Sidgwick describes this strophe as ‘locus corruptus, coniecturis nondum sanatus.’ Mazon, who prints απεύχεται in 1. 625, leaving the rest as it stands, says ‘texte douteux.’ Of the three principal attempts to amend or otherwise interpret it, that of Hermann is too radical and far-fetched, requiring an excessive parenthesis. That of Headlam involves the strange theory that the chorus suddenly divides itself into two, and that one half indulges in a sort of disorderly interruption of the other. That of Wilamowitz , while leaving the worst textual difficulty to stand, supposes that the chorus accuses itself of weakness and subservience to Clytemnestra, which, in view of Wilamowitz's own convincing interpretation of the Parodos, is highly improbable