A. Ag. 1055-56

[Paul Derouda]

1055-56
οὔτοι θυραίᾳ τῇδ᾽ ἐμοὶ σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν. [...]

I don't have any problem with this. But I don't understand the way Loeb prints it:

οὔτοι θυραίαν τῇδέ μοι σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν. [...]
"I don't have any more time to waste staying out here." (Sommerstein/Loeb)

How should θυραίαν be interpreted here? Is an adjective that goes with an unexpressed substantive? (but χρόνος is masculine)

[C. S. Bartholomew]

1055-56
οὔτοι θυραίᾳ τῇδ᾽ ἐμοὶ σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν. [...]

I don't have any problem with this. But I don't understand the way Loeb prints it:

οὔτοι θυραίαν τῇδέ μοι σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν. [...]
"I don't have any more time to waste staying out here." (Sommerstein/Loeb)

How should θυραίαν be interpreted here? Is an adjective that goes with an unexpressed substantive? (but χρόνος is masculine)

You are following the Loeb text?

Ed. Murray, G.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955
{Κλ.} οὔτοι θυραίᾳ τῇδ' ἐμοὶ σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἑστίας μεσομφάλου
ἕστηκεν ἤδη μῆλα πρὸς σφαγὰς πάρος.

Perseus at U. Chicago
οὔτοι θυραίᾳ τῇδ’ ἐμοὶ σχολὴ πάρα
τρίβειν· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἑστίας μεσομφάλου
ἕστηκεν ἤδη μῆλα πρὸς σφαγὰς πάρος,
ὡς οὔποτ’ ἐλπίσασι τήνδ’ ἕξειν χάριν.

θυραίᾳ τῇδ’ is adverbial, she is τρίβειν wasting time τῇδ’ here θυραίᾳ out of doors where women don't belong, see Klyt. abuse of Electra in S. Electra for spending too much time out of doors. Women belonged inside the house, mansion, palace. And there were preparations to take care of for the great sacrifice to honor the safe return of Agamemnon, irony here, difference between what she intends to do and how she intends to be understood.

[Paul Derouda]

I checked the apparatus criticus; θυραίᾳ is a conjecture, θυραίαν the original reading. I'm not the only one to find it difficult then. According to the old commentary by Verrall, θυραίαν is a substantive in the accusative, originally an adjective with ellipse of the substantive, that has "become stereotyped and thus formed a popular substantive θυραία gadding, staying out of the house". So probably the Loeb also accepts an explanation of this kind.

Yes, I'm reading the Loeb text. As far as I'm a judge, to me is seems an improvement over Page/OCT; it also adopts some readings from the most recent edition by West (which I haven't seen but at least according to BMCR's review of R-T is superior), and it seems to me a sound text in other respects too. But the basic reasons I'm reading it are that 1) the Loeb is hardback, easy to keep open at the same time with R-T or D-P, 2) it includes a good literal translation.