Aristophanes Acharnians 1037

Table of Contents

Search the Perseus Catalog for:

← Previous Next →

Acharnians. Aristophanes. . 2026-09-08.

Current edition Experimental

Commentary (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (English) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.)

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (1)
Ἀχαρνῆς Perseus (Aristophanes. Aristophanis Comoediae, Vol. 1. Hall, F. W. and Geldart, William M., editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1906.) — 1069-1173 focus
Translations (2)
Acharnians (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Anonymous; Liveright, 192?). Migrated from Perseus legacy XML; source wording and notes retained. See TEI header and migration inventory.) — 1037 focus
English (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) Experimental (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) — 1037 focus

Commentary

Commentary (Sanjaya, generated; selected passages) (OCR draft) (Source: pnadelofficial/aristophanes-sanjaya, commit c319590c139e5603e71f0699caa0663d823af8ad. Machine-generated source annotations retained; see Sanjaya import audit for coverage and limitations.) focus

1037. mvp-tlg0019-tlg001-sanjaya-com-eng1-61

Line 1037

ἁνὴρ ἀνηύρηκέν τι ταῖς
The text presents a crux: the manuscript tradition is divided between ἁνὴρ (a dialectal or metrically lengthened form of ὁ ἀνήρ) and the more standard ὁ ἀνήρ. The reading ἁνὴρ is attested in some late medieval manuscripts but is widely regarded by modern editors (e.g., Sommerstein, Kock) as a metrical corruption or a scribal attempt to accommodate the iambic rhythm of the line, as the article is usually elided or elided with the following word in Aristophanic verse. The verb ἀνηύρηκέν (perfect active indicative of ἀνευρίσκω) is correctly parsed, but the syntax of the following phrase 'τι ταῖς' is problematic; 'τι' (neuter singular accusative) cannot govern the dative plural 'ταῖς' directly without a missing noun or a preposition, suggesting a lacuna or a severe corruption in the transmitted text where a noun like 'γυναιξί' (women) or a prepositional phrase was likely lost or misread.