Qimmik wrote:In line 1322, it should be ἤ instead of οὐ. Murray, Fraenkel, Denniston & Page, Page (OCT), West and Sommerstein (Loeb) all have ἤ with no indication of a variant reading.
I now see that Fraenkel in his commentary mentions that ἤ is a conjecture by Hermann, "adopted by Mazon among many others." (Murray in his apparatus notes this conjecture too.) Fraenkel rejects the conjecture as unnecessary, and so, apparently, do the other editors cited above.
I am having a hard time following this. If they all reject ἤ ... a conjecture by Hermann why do they all read ἤ in their text. Perhaps οὐ is the conjecture not ἤ. That would resolve the problem and makes sense out of the following paragraph.
Qimmik wrote:He also mentions that by adding ἐμὸν τὸν αὐτῆς "Cassandra points to the peculiarity of her situation, for it is in itself contrary to the nature of things that anyone should sing or speak his own dirge." That's the reason for the emphatic τὸν αὐτῆς after ἐμὸν, and that reinforces ἤ as the correct reading: she's going to make a last speech, or rather sing a dirge--her very own, for herself. It doesn't make much sense for her to say she's going to make a final speech but not her very own dirge. The pathos lies precisely in the fact that she knows beforehand exactly what's coming--her speech will be her very own dirge.
I have noticed in translations for reading pleasure and easy comprehension, textual problems like this are sometimes solved by just ignoring the particle altogether:
One thing left.
I want to sing my own dirge.
— Ann Carson
I'd like a few more words, a kind of dirge,
it is my own.
— R. Fagles