HEARD AND UNHEARD STROPHES IN THE PARODOS OF AESCHYLUS’ SEVEN AGAINST THEBES
Martin Steinrück
Studia Humaniora Tartuensia, vol. 3 (2002)
Abstract
In this paper I would like to suggest a metrical interpretation of the parodos of the Theban girls in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes. I shall begin with the metrical part, then I should like to take a closer look at the semantic impact of this interpretation and, instead of a conclusion, show how this proposal would fit into the whole context of the play. Editors agree that the third part, i.e. verses 151–180 consists of two pairs of iambodochmiac strophes and antistrophes. The underlines you find in the appendix drawn between corresponding units of the same metric structure should convince you that there is no reason to contradict this interpretation.
The same editors disagree completely about the second part: On one side, Mazon, Murray, Page, and West hold for a strophic interpretation. They argue that there are too many corresponding and similar metrical patterns in verses 108–149 to consider them as a mere astrophic series, even if strophes are reconstructed at the cost of several textual changes. Others such as Kraus, Wilamowitz, and Hutchinson cannot accept this view because in their eyes strophic structure implies an almost complete identity of the corresponding cola and this is, as a brief look at the appendix will show, obviously not the case. The letter s between the two stanzas means “similar but not identic”, the letter d means that the corresponding lines are of different metrical structure. As a good Swiss I will try to show that both sides are right.
HEARD AND UNHEARD STROPHES IN THE PARODOS OF AESCHYLUS’ SEVEN AGAINST THEBES
Martin Steinrück
Studia Humaniora Tartuensia, vol. 3 (2002)
Abstract
In this paper I would like to suggest a metrical interpretation of the parodos of the Theban girls in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes. I shall begin with the metrical part, then I should like to take a closer look at the semantic impact of this interpretation and, instead of a conclusion, show how this proposal would fit into the whole context of the play. Editors agree that the third part, i.e. verses 151–180 consists of two pairs of iambodochmiac strophes and antistrophes. The underlines you find in the appendix drawn between corresponding units of the same metric structure should convince you that there is no reason to contradict this interpretation.
The same editors disagree completely about the second part: On one side, Mazon, Murray, Page, and West hold for a strophic interpretation. They argue that there are too many corresponding and similar metrical patterns in verses 108–149 to consider them as a mere astrophic series, even if strophes are reconstructed at the cost of several textual changes. Others such as Kraus, Wilamowitz, and Hutchinson cannot accept this view because in their eyes strophic structure implies an almost complete identity of the corresponding cola and this is, as a brief look at the appendix will show, obviously not the case. The letter s between the two stanzas means “similar but not identic”, the letter d means that the corresponding lines are of different metrical structure. As a good Swiss I will try to show that both sides are right.
Click here to read this article from Studia Humaniora Tartuensia
Sponsored Content