Digital transcription derived from Wikisource for the Perseus Multitext Viewer.
Morshead wording and verse divisions are preserved from the archived Wikisource HTML. Verse xml:id values count translation lines, not Greek lines. Speech corresp pointers refer to the Smyth perseus-grc2 edition. Card milestones mark reference navigation boundaries. Front matter remains in the source archive. The source appendix is encoded in text/back, separate from the dramatic text.
Speech correspondence was established by comparing content with Smyth, preserving Morshead speaker attributions. All 87 reference card milestones are present. Internal boundaries were located by content, retaining whole English verses where possible; they are not assertions of word-for-word equivalence. Morshead assigns 255–263 to Electra and differs from Smyth in several Electra/Orestes attributions at 380–422 and 466–475. The repeated Smyth refrain 942a–945a is not repeated by Morshead; its card contains an explicitly attributed editorial notice, without a fabricated repetition. His final refrain at 972 is abbreviated.
Verse-group corresp pointers refine the speech links to the intersection of the speech and reference-card spans. These are passage ranges derived from the reviewed card boundaries, not claims that each English verse matches one Greek verse.
Each dramatic verse line has an independent Morshead citation in l/@n, numbered consecutively from 1 in each play in source order. These are editorial numbers assigned for this digital edition, not printed source numbers or Smyth Greek numbers. Speakers, stage directions, footnotes, appendix prose and editorial omission notices are not numbered. Existing xml:id values remain stable extraction identifiers and are not the citation numbers. Card milestone numbers and corresp pointers continue to refer to Smyth for alignment.
Cite the Morshead edition URN followed by its own verse line number.
Those unacquainted with the original of this play may yet possibly detect in the translation, here and there, something of an alien element—alien, I mean, in a special degree, to the spirit of Greek tragedy. I may briefly explain to such readers the origin of this deficiency.
The play is "confessedly the most difficult of the tragedies that have come down to us from Grecian antiquity" (Con., Choeph., Pref., p. i); and the difficulties are not, as elsewhere in Æschylus, mainly owing to a certain abruptness of style and profundity of thought. These qualities are abundantly present in this play; but its difficulty is immensely increased by the condition of the text, which is mutilated in several places, and corrupt, beyond hope of certain restoration, in many others.
The worst case of all is that of the chorus, ll. 784–837; where Conington suspects that the text of the MSS. has been "extensively tampered with, so as entirely to obliterate the original reading." But the same kind of obscurity besets the translator in many other passages. Let the reader imagine a person, well acquainted with French, dictating a play in that language to a scribe only partially acquainted with it—able, that is, to spell any word that he recognizes, but unable to follow intelligently the thought of whole passages, unless they are abundantly clear and very deliberately dictated; let him imagine such a scribe losing the cue given by the metre or the "strophe," and copying words or syllables imperfectly heard; then let him imagine the result, as a piece of French literature, and he will have, mutatis mutandis, a fairly accurate idea of the condition, in several places, of the text of The Libation-Bearers.
I would guard myself from giving an opinion that such is the origin of these famous corruptions. A knowledge of the conditions under which MSS. were transcribed, if accessible at all, is not so to me at this time. (I would, however, remark that Conington—App. II, p. 166—to some extent endorses a friend's suggestion that dictation is the source of many corruptions in the Greek dramatists.) But my present purpose is rather to explain the way in which this translation endeavours to deal with the textual problem.
In the first place, wherever, as in the opening speech, gaps of uncertain extent, of whole lines or paragraphs, are found or strongly suspected, no attempt has been made to supply them. Except as an exercise of private ingenuity, such attempts would be reprehensible in a translator, even if he possessed the Æschylean scholarship of Paley or Conington, and the genius and versification of Marlowe.
Where, however, as in l. 369, we know by the structure of the metre that only a few syllables are lost, the case is different. It seems idle to leave a vacant space in the English where the Greek is, by consideration of the context, pretty clear; and in such cases I have followed the explanation, and sometimes translated the conjecture, of Conington or others.
Secondly, wherever, as in the chorus above specified, it is known, by metrical laws and by the unintelligible text, that the original has been in some way corrupted, I have followed a plan which may need excuse. To reproduce Æschylus in an unintelligible form is a sin against Æschylus himself. Whatever he may actually have written, one thing is certain; it was intelligible, it was metrical. We may note, also, that in many places where the text is indubitably corrupt, ungrammatical and unmetrical, the thought and meaning are pretty clear. Such, e.g., is the case in ll, 415–417, ὅταν—καλῶς. In such cases I have followed the apparent cue of the context, after consulting the best commentators. πρὸς τὸ φανεῖσθαί μοι καλῶς is not Æschylus' Greek for "to the new dawn of gladness." But we know from the metre that the Greek is corrupt; the words as they stand are probably a gloss, explaining, in inferior Greek, some metaphor representing hope or joy as a dawn—a metaphor very familiar to all readers of Æschylus (cf. Agam. ll. 101, 253, 1182, etc.) very suitable to the context, and very closely indicated by the gloss. I do not conceive it to be any part of a translator's duty to render literally Greek words which are known, with absolute certainty, to be wrong. Yet to elucidate by means of the context and other comparisons, is, I am well aware, "a dim and perilous way." All I can say is that I have never done so except in three or four cases where it seemed absolutely inevitable; and that, in those cases, care and pains have not been spared to do it as well as, to me, was possible.