605.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-11
Line 605
πρῶτα μὲν γὰρ †αὐτῆς ἦρξεν† Φειδίας πράξας κακῶς·
The text presents a significant crux: the phrase 'αὐτῆς ἦρξεν' (he began it) is transmitted in some manuscripts with the particle 'μὲν' following the verb, while the critical edition (following Wilamowitz and others) brackets 'αὐτῆς' as a corruption or dittography, or emends 'ἦρξεν' to 'ἦρξε' with 'αὐτῆς' referring to the Parthenon. The most serious issue, however, is the presence of the dagger symbol (†) in the prompt's text, indicating a lacuna or a word deemed spurious by editors. The standard reading, supported by the context of the 'Peace' (421 BCE) and the historical timeline of Phidias, requires identifying what 'αὐτῆς' refers to. If 'αὐτῆς' refers to the war, it is a bold irony, as Phidias is the sculptor of the statue of Athena Promachos, not a general. The scholia suggest the text might be corrupt, possibly reading 'πρῶτα μὲν γὰρ αὐτῆς ἔργον ἦρξεν' (he began her work) or referring to the statue's construction. The phrase 'πράξας κακῶς' (having done badly) is also problematic; Phidias was accused of embezzlement and died in prison, but the connection to 'beginning' (ἦρξεν) is syntactically tight yet historically opaque without resolving the textual corruption regarding the object of the verb. The critical edition (e.g., Kock, Arnott) often treats 'αὐτῆς' as an interpolation or emends the verb to 'ἔθηκεν' (placed), making the sentence 'Phidias first placed it, having done badly,' which is a clumsy but possible reading, or accepts the emendation 'ἔφθειρεν' (he ruined) or similar. The dagger in the prompt likely signals the word 'αὐτῆς' or the entire clause as suspect. A robust commentary must address the textual instability: does Phidias 'begin' the war (ironic?), the statue, or is the text simply corrupted? The most accepted scholarly view (e.g., by Dover or Arnott) is that the text is corrupt and that the intended meaning is likely that Phidias was the first to be accused or punished, or that the statue's construction was the 'beginning' of his troubles. The specific crux here is the identity of 'αὐτῆς' (her) and the verb 'ἦρξεν' (began), which together create a historical and grammatical puzzle that cannot be resolved without textual criticism. The phrase 'πράξας κακῶς' is a standard idiom for 'doing badly' or 'failing', but its connection to the 'beginning' of the action is the core issue.
607.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-12
Line 607
τὰς φύσεις ὑμῶν δεδοικὼς καὶ τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον,
The term αὐτοδὰξ (auto-dax) is a hapax legomenon in Aristophanes, formed from αὐτός and the rare adjective δακτός (biting/aggressive). In this context, it functions as a substantive noun referring to the Athenians' 'inherently biting' or 'self-biting' character—specifically their tendency toward internal strife (stasis) and litigation. The compound's rarity and the specific semantic nuance of 'biting' (associated with both physical aggression and the sharpness of legal rhetoric) require the reader to recognize it as a pointed critique of Athenian civic pathology rather than a generic description of temperament.
609.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-13
Line 609
ἐμβαλὼν σπινθῆρα μικρὸν Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος,
The phrase 'Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος' (a Megarian decree) refers specifically to the famous decree attributed to the Megarians, which, according to the scholia and the broader context of the play, prohibited the export of Megarian goods to Athens and barred Megarian women from entering the Athenian marketplace (or forced them to leave). This is a direct allusion to the 'Megarian Decree,' a major diplomatic incident often cited by ancient sources (e.g., Plutarch, *Life of Pericles*) as a primary cause of the Peloponnesian War. In this context, Aristophanes uses the 'spark' (σπινθῆρα) of this specific decree to ignite the larger fire of the war, metaphorically treating the diplomatic sanction as a literal ignition source for the conflict. The use of the genitive 'Μεγαρικοῦ' with 'ψηφίσματος' is standard, but the specific historical weight of the decree is the crux here, as it is the precise historical event Aristophanes is mocking as the trivial 'spark' that started the war.
612.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-14
Line 612
ὡς δʼ ἅπαξ †τὸ πρῶτον ἄκουσʼ† ἐψόφησεν ἄμπελος
The text contains a textual crux marked by Bekker's dagger (†) in the phrase '†τὸ πρῶτον ἄκουσʼ†'. While the transmitted text reads 'ὡς δʼ ἅπαξ τὸ πρῶτον ἄκουσʼ ἐψόφησεν ἄμπελος', scholars such as Meineke and later editors have noted the redundancy and metrical awkwardness of 'ἅπαξ' (once) combined with 'τὸ πρῶτον' (for the first time). The dagger indicates a suspected interpolation or corruption; some conjectures suggest the removal of 'τὸ πρῶτον' to yield 'ὡς δʼ ἅπαξ ἄκουσʼ ἐψόφησεν ἄμπελος' ('when the vine had once rustled'), which aligns better with the comic hyperbole of the vine reacting immediately to the sound of the chariot wheels. The variant reflects the difficulty in establishing the precise moment of the vine's personified reaction in the comic narrative.
616.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-15
Line 616
οὐδʼ ὅπως αὐτῇ προσήκοι Φειδίας ἠκηκόη.
The construction οὐδʼ ὅπως... ἠκηκόη (aorist of ἀκούω with the particle ὅπως in a negative clause) is a rare and idiomatic usage meaning 'not even so that he might have heard' or, more naturally in this context, 'not even [had] Phidias heard'. The use of the aorist indicative ἠκηκόη (a contracted form of ἠκήκοα) within a clause introduced by ὅπως, following the negative οὐδʼ, creates a specific syntactic tension: ὅπως typically introduces a final or potential clause requiring the subjunctive or optative, yet here it introduces a factual statement in the indicative to express a hypothetical counterfactual scenario ('even if Phidias had heard'). This construction is characteristic of Aristophanic comedy, where the poet often bends standard Attic syntax for comic effect or metrical necessity, creating a crux for the reader expecting a standard optative of potentiality.
628.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-16
Line 628
ἐν δίκῃ μὲν οὖν, ἐπεί τοι τὴν κορώνεών γέ μου
The phrase ἐπεί τοι τὴν κορώνεών γέ μου presents a syntactic crux. While ἐπεί (since/since then) typically introduces a causal clause, the particle τοι here functions as an emphatic address to the preceding interlocutor (the judge or the chorus), while the genitive κορώνεών (of the 'crow-like' or 'sly' ones) lacks an explicit governing noun, forcing the reader to supply a concept such as 'account' or 'charge' from the context of legal proceedings. The particle γέ adds a restrictive or emphatic force to the pronoun μου, suggesting 'my share of the crow-like ones' (i.e., my portion of the blame or accusation), a construction that is highly elliptical and dependent on the specific satirical context of the trial scene in the parabasis or the character's defense.
640.
mvp-tlg0019-tlg005-sanjaya-com-eng1-17
Line 640
αἰτίας ἂν προστιθέντες, ὡς φρονεῖ τὰ Βρασίδου.
The phrase ὡς φρονεῖ τὰ Βρασίδου is a strikingly elliptical and idiomatic construction. While φρονέω typically governs a dative or takes a prepositional phrase with εἰς/ἐπί to indicate the object of one's thoughts or intentions, here it takes a direct accusative object (τὰ Βρασίδου) meaning 'to have the same intentions as Brasidas' or 'to be of Brasidas' mind.' This usage, particularly the neuter plural accusative functioning as the object of mental state, is rare in Aristophanes and reflects a specific colloquialism or perhaps a metrical necessity that obscures the standard syntactic expectation. The construction implies a shared political or military mindset, likely alluding to Brasidas' aggressive expansionist policies in the north, which the Chorus or characters are accusing the Athenians of emulating through their current diplomatic posturing ('adding reasons'). The phrase τὰ Βρασίδου is not a standard genitive of possession but a substantive neuter plural meaning 'the things/intentions of Brasidas,' a usage that requires careful parsing to avoid misinterpreting it as a simple attribute.
