Sophocles: Second Thoughts 9783666252006, 3525252005, 9783525252000

Citation preview

HYPOMNEMATA 100

V&R

HYPOMNEMATA UNTERSUCHUNGEN ZUR ANTIKE UND ZU IHREM NACHLEBEN

Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle / Siegmar Döpp/ Christian Habicht Hugh Lloyd-Jones/Günther Patzig

HEFT 100

V A N D E N H O E C K & R U P R E C H T IN G Ö T T I N G E N

Sophocles: Second Thoughts

By HUGH LLOYD-JONES and NIGEL G. WILSON

VANDENHOECK & RUPRECHT IN GÖTTINGEN

Gedruckt mit Unterstützung des Förderungs- und Beihilfefonds Wissenschaft der VG W O R T

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaujnahme Lloyd-Jones, Hugh: Sophocles: second thoughts / by Hugh Lloyd-Jones and Nigel G. Wilson. Göttingen : Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1997 (Hypomnemata; Η. 100) ISBN 3-525-25200-5

©Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1997 Printed in Germany. — Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmung und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck: Hubert & Co., Göttingen

RVDOLPHO KASSEL SEPTVAGENARIO

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

9

Ajax

11

Electra

30

Oedipus Tyrannus

48

Antigone

66

Trachiniae

87

Philoctetes

103

Oedipus at Colonus

114

Corrigenda in Sophoclea

139

Appendix

143

Index

147

INTRODUCTION The Nurse in Euripides' Hippolytus remarks that second thoughts are somehow best for human beings, and those who like us have published an edition of Sophocles are likely to agree with her. The manuscripts contain a great deal of corruption, as even conservative critics can hardly refuse to admit, and the difficulties of the language are such that even if we possessed a text corrected by the author no living scholar could be confident that he could translate it without error. Although for centuries the text has been studied intensively by many scholars, including some of very great ability, there are still many problems of which more than one solution is possible. Our Oxford Classical Text of Sophocles and its companion volume, Sophoclea, were published in 1990, and have been reviewed in a number of learned periodicals. The study of these reviews has prompted new reflexion, and has aroused a desire to correct errors and to communicate some new suggestions. Some of our reviewers have complained of our occasional sharp criticisms of other scholars. It would be pleasant if scholars were always nice about one another, but such a state of affairs would have its bad as well as its good side. One is often told that Housman and other scholars noted for severe criticism of their colleagues have been neurotics working off their personal repressions, but even if true this would not mean that all severe criticism was discredited. Classical scholarship is closely linked with education, and anyone concerned with education must aim at the elimination of certain common faults. An editor or commentator who buries his head in the sand and ignores the well-established fact that the manuscripts in which classical texts are preserved are often corrupt is failing in his professional duty, even if he can be credited with having collected some useful information. So too, though less culpably, is an editor or commentator who is handicapped by bad taste and defective appreciation of literature, as may be the case even with scholars of admirable energy and ingenuity that entitle them to respect. Against these failings a teacher has a duty to warn his pupils, and a scholar has a duty to warn his readers. We hope that these pages show that we are not unaware of our own shortcomings and are capable of trying to correct them. In general we are grateful to our reviewers, including even those who are least in sympathy with our aims and methods. Among them we

10

Introduction

particularly thank Professor Robert Renehan, whose review article in Classical Philology has greatly helped us. We owe a special debt of gratitude to Professor Rudolf Kassel, unus instar milium, whose masterly comments on our draft has done much to improve the work.

Reviews of OCT of Sophocles and Sophoclea MTS-.

STP:

B.-K.: Mrs. Easterling: Günther, ES: Kirkwood: Kopff: Renehan: West: Zimmermann:

Luigi Battezzato, Daniela Colombo, Matteo Curti, Franco Ferrari, Salvatore Lavecchia, Leone Porciani, Sonia Stelluto, Rivista Italiana di Filologia Classica C X X (1992), 'In Margine al Testo di Sofocle', 386-410. Sophocle: le texte, les personnages, ed. Albert Machin and Lucien Pernee (Actes du Colloque International d'Aix-en-Provence, Janvier 1992 (1993). Jan Maarten Bremer and A.Maria van Erp Talman Kip, Mnemosyne vol. XLVII, Fasc.2 (1994), 236-244. P. E. Easterling, Journal of Hellenic Studies C X I V (1994), 186-188. H.-C.Günther, Exercitationes Sophocleae (Hypomnemata 109, 1996). G. M. Kirkwood, Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2.1 (1993), 22-31. E.Christian Kopff, American Journal of Philology Spring 1993, vol.114, no. 1,155-163. R. Renehan, Classical Philology vol.87, No. 4, October 1992, 335375. M. L.West, Classical Review 41 (1991), 299-301. Bernhard Zimmermann, Gnomon, Band 65, 1993, 100-109.

Sophoclea p. 4; Johannes Vahlen should have been mentioned not in the second paragraph on this page, but in the paragraph dealing with 'the reaction against excessive emendation'. As Rudolf Kassel has reminded us, the notes on the Electra and the Antigone originally prefaced to the Indices Lectionum of the University of Berlin and later printed in the two volumes of his Opuscula Academica (1907-8, reprinted 1967) are an important contribution to Sophoclean criticism, with a decidedly conservative orientation. P. 6, paragraph 1: the seventh printing of the Bude edition, with revisions and corrections by J. Irigoin, has begun to appear (vol.i, 1994). Paragraph 3: other commentaries on individual plays have been produced by O. Longo, Ο. Τ. (1972), R.G.Ussher, Philoctetes (1990) and M.Davies, Trachiniae (1992); there is also L.Lanza and L.Fort, Sofocle: problemi di tradizione indiretta (1991). Together with the contributions of Reeve, Stinton and West we should have mentioned Franco Ferrari's Ricerche sul Testo di Sofocle (Pisa, 1983). Paragraph 4: the notes on Fraenkel's seminars on the Ajax have now been republished in Pindaro Sofocle Terenzio Catullo Petronio: corsi seminariali di Eduard Fraenkel, Bari 1965/69 (Sussidi Eruditi 43, Rome, 1994, ed. Renata Roncali).

AJAX 1. Ajax 25-7: έφθαρμένας γαρ άρτίως εύρίσκομεν λείας άπάσας και κατηναρισμένας έκ χειρός αύτοϊς ποιμνίων έπιστάταις. Renehan 341 argues persuasively that έκ χειρός is not equivalent to cornminus, but 'means roughly slaughtered by a hand·, "butchered"'. H e might have cited Fraenkel on Aeschylus, Ag. 1495 f., who remarks of the Ajax passage 'the emphasis is on the strange fact that the herds have been killed by a human hand (not by wild beasts)'. Fraenkel carefully considers R. Enger's suggestion that in the Aeschylean passage δολίωι μόρωι δαμεΐς έκ χερός άμφιτόμωι βελέμνωι the word δάμαρτος should be inserted after δαμεΐς, but finally 'cannot reach a final decision', though he prints the supplement in his text. Page (1972) does not even mention Enger's conjecture; West (1990) mentions it, but does not place it in the text. Without Enger"s supplement, the passage surely offers a parallel to the usage in the Ajax, and Fraenkel's note contains other relevant material.

2. Ajax

51-2:

έγώ σφ' άπείργω, δυσφόρους επ δμμασι γνώμας βαλοϋσα, της ανήκεστου χαρας. The note in Sophoclea does not face up to the difficulty presented by ανήκεστου. Jebb renders it by 'baneful', Stanford by 'fatal'. Both are assuming that a word whose derivation indicates that it should properly mean 'incurable', as it does at Ο. T. 98, Phil 186, Α., Cho. 515, and E., Med 283 and Hipp. 722, is being used with a considerable degree of vagueness. R. P. Winnington-Ingram, BICS 26 (1979) 1 - 2 sought to explain this by finding a medical metaphor in the passage; the word δύσφορος was sometimes used of diseases, therefore the 'delight' felt by Ajax was being compared to a disease.

12

Ajax

There is no doubt that ανήκεστος can be used to mean 'irreparable', and that by a slight extension of this sense it might mean little more than 'disastrous'. But it can also on occasion mean 'irresistible'. At Thucydides 3,45, 4 Diodotus, explaining how men come to take appalling risks, says ή μεν πενία άνάγκηι την τόλμαν παρέχουσα, ή δ' εξουσία υβρει την πλεονεξίαν και φρονήματι, αί δ' αλλαι ξυντυχίαι όργήι των ανθρώπων ώς εκάστη τις κατέχεται ύπ' άνηκέστου τινός κρείσσονος εςάγουση* εις τους κινδύνους. K.W.Krüger in his edition of 1860 translates άνηκέστου τινός κρείσσονος by 'von irgend einem unwiderstehlichen nicht zu beseitigenden Einflüsse'; Gomme renders it by 'under the influence of an overmastering feeling'; Classen - Steup say 'ανήκεστος nimmt hier, da unter dem κρεΐσσόν τι eine heftige Begierde (z.B. nach Rache oder Ehre, oder, wie der Schol. erwähnt, nach Liebesgenuss, oder, wie im gegenwärtigen Falle, nach Unabhängigkeit) zu verstehen ist, die Bedeutung: "nicht zu befriedigen, nicht zu stillen" an, nach dem Sprachgebrauch άκεΐσθαι παθήματα'. If the word άνηκέστου conveys this nuance here, we get excellent sense; Athena keeps Ajax far from the irresistible delight which he feels at the thought of murdering the Atreidae. It is worth asking whether it is not present also at El. 887-8, where the manuscripts give ές τί μοι βλέψασα θάλπηι τώιδ' άνηκέστωι πυρί. In that passage Bergk's άνηφαίστωι seems to us the best solution of the problem (see Sophoclea, p.60); but Dawe preferred Meineke's άνεικάστωι. The same word occurred to Turnebus in connection with Ajax 52, for in the margin of his edition of 1552-3 he wrote άνεικάστωι. That word occurs in cod. L as a variant to άνήκεστος at Demosthenes 8, 46, where Demosthenes is urging the Athenians to την . . . ύπερβάλλουσαν και άνείκαστον ραθυμίαν άποθέσθαι. In Demosthenes, Neun Philippische Reden, ed. C.Rehdantz, revised by F. Blass, though not in the first volume of S. Η. Butcher's Oxford text of 1903, άνείκαστον is printed in the text. Yet according to the 'Grammatischer und Lexikalischer Index' to that work (Zweites Heft, II. Abteilung, p. 46) the word 'kommt bei Klassikern sonst gar nicht und überhaupt selten wieder vor'; it seems nowhere to occur in verse. There are only three occurrences in authors earlier than A.D. 100. One is in the speech of Phidias in the Olympicus of Dio Chrysostom (12,59), where the sense is quite different, since it denotes what cannot be depicted in art in contrast with what can be depicted. The second is at III Maccabees 1,28, where the uproar resulting from the shouting (κραυγή) of a large crowd is described in the words άνείκαστός τις ήν βοή, rendered by Η . Anderson in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. J. H. Charlesworth, II (1985), 518 as 'an indescribable uproar'. The third instance is at Hermapion 658 F G r H 1 = Amm. Marc. 17, 4, 21, where the word means 'incomparable'; Jacoby dates this author in the time of Augustus. Just so Rehdantz - Blass

Ajax

13

took άνείκαστον in the Demosthenic passage to mean 'ohne Mass und Gleichen', oddly finding this a better description of Athenian laziness than 'incurable'.

3. Ajax 68-9: θαρσών δέ μίμνε, μηδέ συμφοράν δέχου, τον άνδρα. Renehan 341-2, who accepts our punctuation and strengthens the case for it, truly says that it is not easy to decide whether the words mean 'and do not expect disaster' or whether they mean 'and do not take it as a misfortune'. He somewhat inclines to the second view, being impressed by the frequency of expressions like συμφορήν (σ. μεγάλην) ποιεΐσθαί (τι) and συμφοράν νομίζειν, κρίνειν, ήγέΐσθαι (see L.S.J, s.v. συμφορά, II 2), but we still prefer the first.

4. Ajax 77: τί μή γένηται; πρόσθεν ούκ άνήρ δδ' ήν We judged Athena's sentence to be unfinished. But Fraenkel, DSR 5 and Pindaro Sofocle Terenzio Catullo Petronio: Corsi Seminariali di Eduard Fraenkel, Bari, 1965-9 (ed. Renata Roncali, Bari, 1994), p. 40, accepted the view of Lobeck, who wrote 'nonne hie vir antea fuit tecumque versatus est sine ullo tuo periculo?', expressing this concisely by saying 'Non esisteva prima, quest'uomo?'. However, the point which has to be conveyed is not that Odysseus has confronted Ajax in the past, but that in the past Ajax has been his enemy, and this is shown by Odysseus' reply. When a speaker in a one-to-one stichomythia has something to say that cannot easily be expressed in one line, the poet can use the device of letting the other speaker interrupt and complete his sentence.

5. Ajax 81-2: Αθ. μεμηνότ' ανδρα περιφανώς όκνας ίδείν; Οδ. φρονοϋντα γάρ νιν ούκ αν έςέστην δκνωι. Defending γάρ νιν, the reading of most MSS, and seeking to explain γάρ ταν, the reading of a lemma in the scholia in L, we wrote 'γάρ is needed to give the sense "No, for ... "'. But what is needed is not 'No, for ...', but, as Jebb said, 'Yes, for"; see Denniston, GP 73. But Odysseus can hardly be saying that he is afraid to look on Ajax mad because he

14

Ajax

would not have been afraid to look upon him sane. We mentioned Blaydes' conjecture ταν νιν, but in his edition of this play (1875) he suggested γ' άν νιν. This gives the sense 'Yes! When he was sane, I would not have stood out of his way in fear!' This is what is needed, and ΓΑΝΝΙΝ could easily have led both to ΓΑΡΝΙΝ and to TANNIN and hence by a conflation to ΓΑΡΤΑΝ. The translation in the Loeb edition, 'Why, when he was sane . . . !', dodges this issue.

6. Ajax 172-181: ή ρά σε Ταυροπόλα Διός "Αρτεμις ώ μεγάλα φάτις, ώ ματερ αίσχύνας έμας 175 ωρμασε πανδάμους επί βοΰς άγελαίας, ή πού τίνος νίκας άκαρπώτου χάριν, ήρα κλυτών ένάρων ψευσθεΐσ', άδώροις εϊτ' έλαφαβολίαις; η χαλκοθώραξ σοί τιν' Ένυάλιος 180 μομφάν εχων ςυνοΰ δορός έννυχίοις μαχανάΐς έτείσατο λώβαν; That is the text we printed, except that we have now placed a comma after ψευσθεΐσ' in 1.178. Mrs. Easterling (188) and L.Porciani ( M T S 393, n. 10) rightly point out that on 177 we misquoted Lobeck, and that not ή ρα but η ρα is transmitted; not that manuscripts have any authority in matters of word-division and accentuation. But Hermann was right in saying that η ρα does not occur 'in altero orationis membro'; Od. 21, 3979, cited by Porciani, is no exception, because in 397 modern editors rightly read not η but ή, so that 398 does not contain the 'alterum orationis membrum'. II. 2 1 , 6 2 , also cited by Porciani, is irrelevant. It seems clear that the Chorus is asking a question; is it Artemis (1.172) or Enyalios (1.179) who is the cause of Ajax' madness? If it is Artemis, she has done it, presumably (ή που) because she has been denied an offering due after some victory (176) or a trophy after the shooting of a deer (178). 'Victory' must mean a victory in battle; after such a victory, one might reward a divinity with a share of the spoils, as at the end of the Doloneia (II. 10, 5 7 0 - 1 ) Odysseus rewards Athena with the εναρα βροτόεντα Δόλωνος. T o make this clear, the words ήρα κλυτών ένάρων have been inserted; they mean not 'defraudata per le sontuose spoglie' (Porciani), but 'cheated on account of the glorious spoils'. Once this is clear, there can be no doubt about the readings or the punctuation.

Ajax

15

7. Ajax 223-6: οι'αν έδήλωσας ανδρός αΐθονος άγγελίαν άτλατον ούδέ φευκιάν, ιών μεγάλων Δαναών υπο κληιζομέναν, τάν ό μέγας μϋθος άέξει. Why 'the great Greeks'? The expression is unusual; the loyal sailors of Ajax may speak of 'the great kings' (188), but are not likely to credit the generality of Greeks with greatness. N o one has adduced a parallel; the nearest thing to one is Euripides, I.A. 1377 'Ελλάς ή μεγίστη, but there Iphigeneia is speaking proudly of Hellas, which makes the choice of the expression understandable. Also, as we wrote in Sophoclea (p. 16), 'the presence of μέγας in the next line arouses some suspicion'. Kamerbeek is the latest of many who have thought the expression referred to the Greek commanders; but where else are Greek commanders referred to in this way? Jebb thought it meant 'the Greek army at large'; Stanford supports this view by suggesting that 'Sophocles presumably chose this vague phrase deliberately to sustain the emphasis on greatness which pervades this part of the play', an argument which it is hardly necessary to refute. Can the text be corrupt? Reiske conjectured την μέγα τών Δαναών υπο κληιζομέναν and Blaydes τών μεγάλων βασιλέων: neither conjecture is attractive. But Li.-J. in the Loeb edition has printed τών μελέων Δαναών. Rather than call them 'great' the loyal sailors of Ajax are likelier to apply to the Greeks the adjective they apply to the Atreidae at 620.

8. Ajax 245-250: ωρα 'στίν άρμοϊ κάρα καλύμμασι κρυψάμενον ποδοϊν κλοπάν άρέσθαι, η θοόν είρεσίας ζυγον έζόμενον ποντοπόρωι ναι μεθεΐναι. 245 'στίν αρμοί L1.-J.: τιν' ήδη τοι Lrpa: τιν' ήδη pat κάρα t: κρατα cett.

No conjecture in the O C T has incurred more disapproval than ωρα'στΐν άρμοϊ for ωρα τιν' ηδη. Ferrari, Μ TS 388-389 calls the transmitted text 'ineccepibile'; Zimmermann 106 calls the conjecture 'brillant und scharfsinnig, aber eher unwahrscheinlich', remarking, like Kirkwood 28, that other ways of obtaining responsion are perhaps preferable. West finds the alteration 'quite gratuitous, and dubious Greek'. It is true that the transmitted text makes sense. But none of the ob-

16

Ajax

jectors seems to have remarked that although some manuscripts read simply τιν' ηδη, others, including L and the Roman family, read τιν' ηδη toi. The train of thought that led to the conjecture was initiated by the wish to explain the presence of the unmetrical and unnecessary toi, hardly an unreasonable wish. Unfortunately West does not explain why it gives 'dubious Greek'. But Renehan 342-3 questions whether ώρα άρμοΐ is synonymous with ώρα ηδη, which as he says is the sense required; άρμοΐ, he says, is an 'already' which looks back, whereas ηδη is an 'already' which looks forward. T h a t is true in some instances of άρμοΐ, but not in all. The word is indeed glossed with νεωστί, άρτίως, άρμοδίως, but in some instances it seems to refer to present time. Note Pindar fr. 10 έλπίσιν άθανάταις άρμοΐ φέρονται and Lycophron 106-7 (of Helen, carried off by Theseus while sacrificing to the nurses of Dionysus and to Ino): Θύσηισιν άρμοΐ μηλάτων άπάργματα φλέγουσαν έν κρόκηισι και Βύνηι θεαι. In the latter passage, Holzinger translates 'das eben Opfer an dem Strande dargebracht' and Mair 'even while upon the beach she burns the firstlings of the flock'. DGE cites Hipp., MuL 1,36 for the meaning 'en seguida, de immediato'; see Littre 8, 88, p. 130 in Grensemann, Hippokratische Gynäkologie (1982); ib., p. 118 (these texts have been assigned to the early fourth century). Renehan thinks the conjecture was 'too long a shot to be received into the text', though he would record it in the apparatus. In the Loeb edition LI.-J. has placed it there; but even an editor who fights shy of ωρα 'στίν άρμοΐ should consider ώρα 'στΐν, suggested by Bergk. Renehan has added two examples to those cited by Fraenkel, Beobachtungen zu Aristophanes (1968), 28-9; the one cited from Philyllius is now fr.3, 2 K.-A.

9. Ajax 339-343: Αι. ίώ π αϊ παΐ· Τε. ώμοι τάλαιν'· Εύρύσακες, άμφί σοι βοαι. τί ποτε μενοιναι; ποϋ ποτ' εί; τάλαιν' εγώ. Ai. Τεϋκρον καλώ. ποϋ Τεύκρος; ή τον εΐσαεΐ λεηλατήσει χρόνον, έγώ δ' άπόλλυμαι; Renehan 344 in a note of very high quality has shown that 339 means 'Ah, my son, my son!', that Tecmessa in 340 says, 'Eurysaces, it is about you that he is calling!', and that in 342 Ajax is calling for Teucer so that he can protect the boy. In the O C T η is a misprint for ή, corrected in the Loeb edition.

Ajax

10. Ajax 372/387: 372 ώ δύσμορος, δς χεροΐν

17

387 ώ Ζεΰ, προγόνων πάτερ

372 χεροΐν t: χερσί μεν Lrpa: χερί μεν Hermann 387 πάτερ t: προπάτωρ vel προπάτορ cett.

Matteo Curti, MTS 398-9 makes an excellent statement of the case for doing as Jebb and Dawe did, as well as Wilamowitz, GV 506, and adopting Hermann's χερί μεν in the strophe while retaining προπάτωρ in the antistrophe. He observes that προπάτωρ is often used of the founder of a family. Even if one does not agree with Campbell that 'the feeling of Sophocles and his age required that the Divine source should seem more remote', one may well feel that Ajax could call Zeus the 'forebear' rather than the 'father 5 of his father and his grandfather. The readings that Triclinius found in a manuscript may have been due to conjecture by an ancient scholar who, as modem scholars have done, objected to the inexactitude of this. Triclinius' statement may be trusted; he was so proud of his own ideas that he seldom gave credit to others.

11. Ajax 378: ού γαρ γένοιτ' αν ταϋθ' δπως ούχ ώδ' εχοι εχοι Herwerden, Blaydes (cf. sch. οπως ταύτα μή ούτως σχοίη): εχηι C: εχειν cett.: εχει Chalcondylas

Curti, MTS 394-5 defends εχειν, the reading adopted by all modern editors except Pearson and ourselves. Jebb argued that 'two modes of expression are here mixed: (i) ούκ αν γένοιτο τοϋτο ούχ ώδ' εχειν . . . and (2) ούκ άν γένοιτο δπως τοϋτο ούχ ώδ' εςει. Jebb offers no parallels, but Curti offers parallels from Xenophon and more 'approximative' parallels, or rather similarities, at O C 385: ήδη γαρ εσχες έλπίδ' ώς έμοΰ θεούς ώραν τιν' εξειν, ώστε σωθήναί ποτε; and Ajax 281: ώς ώδ' εχόντων τώνδ' έπίστασθαί σε χρή. Xenophon, according to Wackernagel (Vorlesungen über Syntax ii 208) 'kein reines Attisch schreibt', and in the words of V. Bers, Greek Poetic Syntax in the Classical Age (1984) 13 'he is eccentric and unreliable as a guide to Attic prose usage'; the fact is fully documented by the works enumerated by Sarah Pomeroy, Xenophon's Oeconomicus (1994), 9-20. As a guide to Attic poetic usage, he is still more unreliable. N o r are the Sophoclean passages adduced by Curti like enough to this to be con-

18

Ajax

sidered real parallels. The construction in question must be considered together with that of ούκ εστίν δστις with the optative, as it is by Fraenkel on Α., Ag. 620 (ούκ εσθ' όπως λέςαιμι τά ψευδή καλά), who refers to Goodwin, The Syntax of Greek Moods and Tenses, s. 241 and K.-G. ii 429. When Curti denies the relevance of the Agamemnon passage and of Ε .Ale 52 εστ' ούν δπως "Αλκηατις ές γήρας μόλοι; on the ground that they refer to a future possibility, whereas our passage refers to a present fact, he is ineffectively splitting hairs. It is often hard to judge just how far Sophocles can strain the language, and what is unique is not always corrupt. But δπως, unlike ώς or ώστε, is not suited to introduce a consecutive clause with its verb in the infinitive, and this seems to us to indicate that change is necessary.

12. Ajax 379-82: ίώ πάνθ' όρων, άπαντ' άίων, κακών δργανον, τέκνον Λαρτίου, κακοπινέστατόν τ αλημα στρατού, ή που πολύν γέλωθ' ΰφ' ηδονής άγεις 379 απαντ' άίων nos: απάντων τ' άίων pXs: άπάντων τ' άεί cett.

Curti, MTS 396-7 is mistaken in thinking that in our note in Sophoclea we intended to take 1.379 as an address to a divinity, Zeus or Helios. We meant that πάνθ' όρων by itself was suspect, because to see all things was an attribute of Zeus or Helios, but that to say to Odysseus 'you who see all things and hear all things' was easier, because it was clear that 'all things' meant 'all things happening around him'. Curti does not persuade us that a parallel to πάνθ' όρων is furnished by Phil. 1013-4 άλλ' ή κακή σή δια μυχών βλέπουσ' άεί ψυχή, and we do not see that ιδοιμι at 384 or ίδοίμαν at 1113 give much support to πάνθ' όρων here. In defending the vulgate reading Curti seems to assume that the copyists knew how to correct dochmiacs; the unusual verb άίων does not look like the product of a corruption; and the pair of participial expressions give a more forceful sense.

13. Ajax

418-20:

ώ Σκαμάνδριοι γείτονες ροαί εΰφρονες Άργείοις . . .

Ajax

19

That is the paradosis. It makes εΰφρονες respond with a dochmiac with resolved first element at 403 (όλέθριον), and since in Book 21 of the Iliad Scamander showed himself notably hostile to the Greeks, we had the idea of obtaining exact responsion and eliminating the apparent discrepancy with Homer, and with 1.459 of this play, by reading κακόφρονες. Renehan 344-5 has reminded us that in Homer Scamander is finally forced to cease to support the Trojans, and B.-K. 237 argue that 'the immediate context is more important'. They remind us that in his last speech (862) Ajax says to the rivers and the plains of Troy χαίρετ', ώ τροφής έμοί, but τροφής may not imply the same degree of good will as εΰφρονες, and indeed may have a touch of irony. Still, there is something to be said for their view that the conjecture might be worth mentioning in the apparatus, but should not be in the text. The freedom of responsion could be eliminated by means of Hermann's έύφρονες at 420, or of Dindorf s όλέθρι' or Wunder's οΰλιον at 403. But Renehan may be right in concluding after a careful discussion that a freedom of responsion may be permitted, though we know no example of this particular freedom.

14. Ajax 475-6: τί γαρ παρ' ήμαρ ήμερα τέρπειν εχει προσθεΐσα κάναθησα τοΰ γε κατθανέΐν; 'This is the text given by Herodian i 543, 14 Lentz, Stobaeus 3, 7, 2 and 4 , 5 3 , 2 2 , the Suda s.v. ήμαρ and the manuscripts, except that Lrec Asl N a c offer κάνεθέΐσα . . . L originally had τοΰ δε (as does Stobaeus 4 , 5 3 , 2 2 ) ...': West, BICS 25 (1978), 109. In fact what is printed in Lentz's Herodian is simply the Suda's article put into 'Arcadius' by Lentz. Jebb translated 'What joy is there in day following day, - now pushing us forward, now drawing us back, on the verge - of death?' 'The note accompanying this bizarre translation', writes West (I.e., p. 110), 'assumes a curious mixture of imagery from the racetrack and the gamingboard'. Against this West objects that 'our knowledge of the principles of πεσσοί is very incomplete, but we know nothing of a line on the board that represents a fearful terminus'. However, the ιερά γραμμή was important enough to give rise to a proverb that referred to the making of a last desperate fling; see Gow on Theocritus 6 , 1 8 . But though the board-game doubtless suggested his manner of expression, the poet is not tied down to the exact details of the game. Even although West is 'quite unable to understand in what way additional days of life move a man both forward and back away from death', the poet has an imagination, and is free to imagine the way

20

Ajax

in which one day brings a man nearer to death and another moves him away from it, rather as if there were a board on which one could move one's pieces forward and backward, either towards or away from a line that stands for death. In the game of πεττεία or that of κυβεία one moved one's pieces according to the throw of the dice (see Fraenkel on Α., Ag. 32 and Pearson on Sophocles, fr.947; cf. Lamer s.v. lusoria tabula in R.-E. 13, 1970), and the fortune each day brings may correspond to the fortune given by each throw, so that one day may bring a man nearer to death, and another bring him further from it. As West remarks, άνατίθεμαι is used of retracting a piece in such a game, and it is not unlikely that the active verb as well as the middle might be so used; see the evidence assembled by Diggle, Euripidea (1994), 264-5. In the O C T we adapted Blaydes' emendation of τοΰ γε to πλην τό and read πλην τοΰ. But now we are content to accept the paradosis and to explain it along Jebb's lines.

15. Ajax 571: μέχρις οΰ μυχούς κίχωσι τοΰ κάτω θεοΰ. Renehan 346 has refuted the attempt to emend μέχρι, thus strengthening the case for cutting out this line.

16. Ajax 589: αγαν γε λυπείς. γε] με HPc ut videtur, coni. Elmsley

Renehan 347 has strengthened the argument for reading γε.

17. Ajax 636: δς εις πατρώιας ήκων γενεάς αριστα πολυπόνων 'Αχαιών. είς L1.-J.: έκ codd.

Β.-Κ. 237 think that 'a mention of είς in the app. crit. would have been sufficient'; and Kirkwood 28, though he finds the conjecture 'attractive', writes that 'it is not certain that έκ with the genitive is wrong here'. But as we wrote in Sophoclea 'we need not "from his family", but "with respect to his family", and no parallel indicates that έκ πατρώιας γενεάς

Ajax

21

could mean this'. The conjecture is approved by West 300, Mrs. Easterling 187, Kopff 155 and Zimmermann 106.

18. Ajax

646-7:

απανθ' ό μακρός κάναρίθμητος χρόνος φύει τ' αδηλα και φανέντα κρύπτεται We should have mentioned in the apparatus criticus Herwerden's conjecture φαίνει, accepted by Nauck, which is attractive, though not compelling.

19. Ajax 7 0 2 - 3 / 7 1 5 - 6 : 'Ικαρίων δ' ύπέρ πελαγέων μολών ανας 'Απόλλων 702 πελαγέων] κελεύθων?

κούδέν άναύδητον φατίςαιμ' αν, εύτέ γ' ες άέλπτων 715 φατίςαιμ' Lrpa: φατίζαιμ' L ac Ρ ac: φατίσαιμ' Livineius

Renehan's careful discussion of both metre and sense (347-9) encourages us to place our conjecture κελεύθων in the text at 702. Diggle, Euripidea 506 expresses a preference f o r Livineius' conjecture φατίσαιμ' in 715, which presumably means that he would keep πελαγέων in 702. But we suspect that πελαγέων arose from πελαγίων, a gloss intended to explain κελεύθων.

20. Ajax

738-9:

βραδεΐαν ήμας άρ' ό τήνδε την όδόν πέμπων επεμψεν, ή 'φάνην έγώ βραδύς. Renehan 349-50 correctly explains the sense and the dramatic function of the speech. But what worried us about βραδεΐαν was that though the meaning of the sentence seemed clear this seemed a curious way of expressing it. The use of βραδύς to mean 'late' rather than slow is indeed rare in classical literature. But the two senses seem to merge into each other at Tr. 395 συν χρόνωι βραδεΐ μολών and Thuc. 7, 43, 5 και αύτοί μεν εύθύς έχώρουν ές τό πρόσθεν, δπως τηι παρούσηι όρμήι τοΰ (τό Dobree) περαίνεσθαι ων ενεκα ήλθον μή βραδεΐς γένωνται. Attempts at

22

Ajax

emendation (άχρείον F.W.Schmidt, μάταιον Blaydes) seem to assume that a scribe's eye wandered to the word at the end of the second line.

21. Ajax 745-8: Αγ. ταϋτ' έστΐ ταπη μωρίας πολλής πλέα, εϊπερ τι Κάλχας εύ φρονών μαντεύεται. Χο. ποίον; τί δ' είδώς τοϋδε πράγματος πάρει; Αγ. τοσούτον οΐδα και παρών έτύγχανον. 747 πάρει Reiske: πέρι codd.

Β.-Κ. apodeictically defend πέρι. But a closely reasoned defence of that reading is offered by Jean Jouanna, REG 104 (1991), 556-563. Jouanna finds it strange that πάρει should be said so long after the messenger's arrival. True, this verb is often used of someone who has just arrived; but it may also be used of someone who has been present for some time, as it is used of himself by the Guard at Ant. 276. Jouanna argues that the Coryphaeus must be asking what divinely inspired knowledge the prophet has of the affair, and that the answer to his question consists not of 1.748 only, but of the entire speech that follows. But the decisive point is that, as Jebb says, τοσούτον οίδα surely answers answers τί δ' είδώς ...;'. Of course the Coryphaeus wants to know what Calchas said, but his inquiry takes the form of asking what the Messenger knows about it. There is no special significance in the repetition of the same verb παρέΐναι in 748, but we cannot agree with Pearson, PCPS 121-3 (1922), 25 that it is 'awkwardly inconsistent with πάρει'; the Messenger is simply saying that he was there, as another Messenger does at Ant. 1192. However, on either view, there is much to be said for Jouanna's proposal to read ποιόν τι δ' είδώς (cf. Ο. C. 1163 and Ε., I. Τ. 1030).

22. Ajax 770-3: είτα δεύτερον δίας Άθάνας, ήνίκ' ότρύνουσά νιν ηύδατ' έπ' έχθροΐς χείρα φοινίαν τρέπειν, τότ' αντιφωνεί δεινόν άρρητον τ' επος. Renehan 350-1 would indicate an anacoluthon by placing a dash after Άθάνας in 1.771. He feels that 'it is stylistically* awkward to have αντιφωνεί leaping over the preceding ήνίκα to govern the noun in 771'. This, he concedes, may seem too subjective a judgment, which indeed

Ajax

23

is our opinion. So he goes on to argue that if the words είτα δεύτερον . . . Άθάνας . . . αντιφωνεί are conjoined, then the sense must be 'Then a second time Ajax gives a rejoinder to Athena', and this is false, f o r it is the first time Ajax has done this, and what he is doing f o r the second time is displaying his impiety towards the gods. Surely this is clear, even if αντιφωνεί governs Άθάνας; the first time (766) he had spoken ύψικόμπως κάφρόνως, and now, on a second occasion, he utters (773) a δεινόν άρρητον τ' επος.

23. Ajax 774-5: ανασσα, τοις άλλοισιν Άργείοις πέλας ιστω, καθ' ήμας δ' ουποτ' ένρήςει μάχη. ' D e r Text ist unsicher' (Erbse, Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993) 62, n. 11). Kirkwood 29 feels that 'Ajax means that things will not "blow up" where he is stationed'. T h e intransitive use of έκρήγνυμι is not common. At Aristotle, Meteor. 366 b 31 ηδη γαρ σεισμός έν τόποις τισιν γιγνόμενος ού πρότερον εληξε πριν έκρήςας εις τον ύπέρ της γης τόπον φανερώς ώσπερ έκνεφίας έςήλθεν ό κινήσας άνεμος. Η . D. P. Lee in the Loeb edition (p.210) translates 'until the wind . . . has broken out . . . and risen into the upper region', and 'break out' rather than 'blow up' is what we should expect the word to mean; but 'break out' does not make such good sense as 'break in'. A.Allen's conjecture έπαρήςει (Hermes 119 (1991), 465-6, mentioned by Erbse, I.e., seems to us hardly worth refuting.

24. Ajax 797-99: Τε. ποΰ δ' εστί Τεύκρος, κάπί τώι λέγει τάδε; Αγ. πάρεστ' εκείνος άρτι - τηνδε δ' εςοδον (την) όλεθρίαν Αιαντος ελπίζει φέρειν. 799 (την) nos: δλεθρον εις Αΐαντος Blaydes

Kopff 155-6 reminds us of the observation of Jackson, Marginalia Scaenica 32 that 5λεθρ(ον εις Α)ΐαντος easily accounts f o r the reading of the manuscripts; but Blaydes' conjecture can hardly be thought palaeographically likelier than our supplement. B.-K. 238 commend that supplement f o r having given the word όλεθρίαν 'its normal scansion'; but the second vowel of όλεθρος is long at Ο. T. 430, 659 and 1146 and at fr. 352,2. Kopff is not on strong ground when he complains that 'there is nothing in the context to suggest voting, so no Athenian audience could have caught the reference'; voting was such a familiar feature of

24

Ajax

Athenian life, as the similar expressions quoted in Sophoclea help to indicate, that the meaning would surely have been clear enough.

25. Ajax

811-2:

χωρώμεν, έγκονώμεν ούχ έδρας ακμή. [σώιζειν θέλοντες άνδρα γ' δς σπεύδηι θανεΐν.] 812 del. Dindorf αν Lp: recte rpat

θέλοντες rpat: -ας L: θέλουσιν Wunder

post δς add.

Trying to defend 1.812, B.-K. 238 complain that they 'cannot understand how the manner in which it has been transcribed suggests the work of an interpolator'. But Fraenkel, DSR 28 had written 'giä i Bizantini avevano corretto la metrica'. 'If one reads θέλοντας with L', they write, '(or perhaps θέλουσιν with Wunder), the line gives a satisfactory dramatic sense'; but the syntax resulting from their reading seems to us impossible.

26. Ajax 839-42: [καί σφας κακούς κάκιστα και πανωλέθρους ςυναρπάσειαν, ωσπερ είσορώσ' έμέ αύτοσφαγή πίπτοντα - τώς αΰτοσφαγεϊς προς των φιλίστων έκγόνων όλοίατο.] Β.-Κ. 238-9 think that once αύτοσφαγέΐς . . . έκγόνων has been removed, as it was by Pearson, the text 'makes acceptable sense', so that all is well. They do not comment on our argument that 'the appeal to the Erinyes is more powerful if Ajax simply asks them to take note of what has happened and then goes on to pronounce his curse upon the whole Greek army, a curse that was fulfilled when the returning fleet was scattered by the famous storm'. What they mean by calling the scholion 'an objective piece of evidence' is far from clear; it records ancient suspicions, which when no reasons are given are neither more or less valid than modern ones. Surely it is probable that the whole passage that contained the words even B.-K. admit to be impossible is an interpolation.

27. Ajax 852-65: άλλ' ουδέν έργον ταΰτα θρηνεϊσθαι μάτην, άλλ' άρκτέον τό πράγμα συν τάχει τινί.

Ajax

25

[ώ θάνατε θάνατε, νϋν μ' έπίσκεψαι μολών 855 καίτοι σέ μεν κάκεΐ προσαυδήσω ςυνών. σέ δ' ώ φαεννης ημέρας τό νϋν σέλας, και τον διφρευτήν "Ηλιον προσεννέπω πανύστατον δή κοΰποτ' αύθις ύστερον.] ώ φέγγος, ώ γης ιερόν οικείας πέδον, 860 Σαλαμίνος, ώ πατρώιον εστίας βάθρον, κλειναί τ' 'Αθήναι, και τό σύντροφον γένος, κρήναί τε ποταμοί θ' οϊδε, και τά Τρωικά πεδία προσαυδώ, χαίρετ', ώ τροφής έμοί, τοϋθ' ύμίν Αϊας τουπος υστατον θροεί, 865 τά δ' αλλ' εν "Αιδου τοις κάτω μυθήσομαι. 854-8 del. Campe (853,855, 865 del. Geel, 856-8 Jahn, 857 854-65 Zwierlein, 855-65 Bergk)

Radermacher,

B.-K. 239 can see that 854-8 'do indeed seem derivative and verbose', and that they 'do not fit in with what precedes'. But they complain that 'these arguments are all based on stylistic and aesthetic appreciation. The lines do not contain incorrect Greek, and make sense. All editors and commentators accept 854-58 as authentic'. As the apparatus criticus given above shows, this is not quite true. Bergk, it will be noticed, cut out 855-65, and Otto Zwierlein in a letter to LI.-J. dated 9 July, 1990 suggested deleting not only these lines but 854 also. Anyone who thinks that 'stylistic and aesthetic appreciation should have no part in textual criticism' will agree with B.-K. We, on the other hand, believe that Sophocles cannot have written 854-58, and, despite what B.-K. call 'Kamerbeek's fine appreciation of 859 ff.', we would not rule out the possibility that Zwierlein was right.

28. Ajax 866 f.

Α. F. Garvie in a letter of 11 May, 1995 compared the division of the Chorus here to that in the Ichneutai (fr. 314,176 f. Radt, discussed by Ll.-J., SIFC 87, 1995, 140-2).

29. Ajax 900-3: ώμοι έμών νόστων· ώμοι, κατέπεφνες, άνας, τόνδε συνναύταν, τάλας· ώ ταλαίφρων γύναι.

26

Ajax

946-9: ώμοι, άναλγήτων δισσών έθρόησας αναυδ' εργ' Άτρειδαν τώιδ' άχει. άλλ' άπείργοι θεός. E.Medda, SCO 43 (1993) 110 f. wishes to keep άναυδον έργον at 947-8, which means supposing one syllable to be lost after ανας at 901, reading ώ τάλας in 902, and scanning 902/948 as cretic + dochmiac. He is aware that that scansion obliges one to take the first syllable of 'Ατρειδαν as long, something unusual, but attested in Sophocles. At the same time, despite the presence of dochmiacs in other places in this kommos, the dochmiac scansion here seems not quite so natural in this place as the trochaic dimeter. Medda's principal reason for this preference is that, as Wilamowitz, GV 332 argued, by reading αναυδ' εργ' 'si perderebbe la focalizzazione della frase sull' atto specifico degli Atridi cui si fa riferimento nel passo, e cioe la riduzione di Tecmessa ed Eurisace a schiavi'. Would the plural really be so much out of place? The sense may well be that Tecmessa has recalled to the Chorus atrocious actions that show the Atreidae to be capable of the one she is afraid of. Also, what extra syllable is one to supply after ανας in 901? Medda is deterred from accepting G.Wolffs ίώ μοι, αναξ, κατέπεφνες by the objection of Fraenkel, DSR 31 that the emphatic verb should stand at the beginning of the phrase, but this is not an insurmountable objection. Fraenkel, like Schroeder, accepted Hermann's insertion of (σον) after ανας: but surely one says τόνδε σον, and not σον τόνδε.

30. Ajax 1028-39: σκέψασθε προς θεών την τύχην δυοϊν βροτοϊν. "Εκτωρ μεν, ώι δή τοΰδ' έδωρήθη πάρα, 1030 ζωστηρι πρισθείς ιππικών εξ άντύγων έκνάπτετ' αίέν, εστ' άπέψυςεν βίον ούτος δ' εκείνου τήνδε δωρεάν 'έχων προς τοΰδ' δλωλε θανασίμωι πεσήματι. άρ' ούκ Έρινύς τοΰτ' έχάλκευσε ξίφος 1035 κάκεϊνον "Αιδης, δημιουργός άγριος; έγώ μεν ούν και ταϋτα και τά πάντ' αεί φάσκοιμ' αν άνθρώποισι μηχαναν θεούς· δτωι δέ μη τάδ' έστίν έν γνώμηι φίλα κείνος τ' εκείνα στεργέτω κάγώ τάδε.

Ajax

27

B.-K. 240 find it 'hard to understand why Ll.-J. & W. have chosen the radical course of assuming this twelve-lines interpolation'. They remind us that in the matters of the end of the Seven Against Thebes and Medea's final speech before the children leave Ll.-J. opposed a diagnosis of interpolation, as though that committed him to defending the paradosis in all such cases; incidentally, the article about the end of the Seven is not reprinted in his Academic Papers. They truly observe that 'there are no grammatical or metrical oddities in these twelve lines'. Zimmermann 103-4 also feels that 'hier lassen sich die Hrsgg. zu sehr von dem leiten, was sie als "Sophokleisch" ansehen (Sophoclea 32)'. 'Dass dieselben Verse von einem Kenner der griechischen Tragödie wie West gerade im entgegengesetzten Sinn interpretiert werden, zeigt doch, dass man sie - bei der sonst obwaltenden Behutsamkeit - nicht hätte athetieren dürfen'. 'Judgment in such matters must inevitably involve a large amount of the subjective', says Renehan 351, with great truth. His impression, like our own, is that 'the verses are a tasteless interruption and precisely what they are called in Sophoclea - empty bombast'. Textual criticism is not a science, but an art, and in certain cases it is not a matter of knowledge so much as of taste and feeling for style, so that universal agreement cannot be expected.

31. Ajax 1052-4: όθούνεκ' αύτόν έλπίσαντες οίκοθεν αγειν Άχαιοΐς ςύμμαχόν τε και φίλον έςεύρομεν ςυνόντες έχθίω Φρυγών. 1054 ξυνόντες Reiske: ζητοϋντες codd.

Kopff 158 defends ζητοΰντες, citing Nauck on Ph. 452. Nauck cites five passages in which there is question of looking and investigating and then finding something. That there are such passages is beyond dispute; but in order to find Ajax more an enemy than the Trojans the Achaeans did not need to look for him or to investigate, and 'from being in his company' makes far better sense. Günther, ES 106 suggests ςυνόντ' ετ\

32. Ajax

1130-2:

Με. έγώ γαρ αν ψέςαιμι δαιμόνων νόμους; Τευ. εΐ τους θανόντας ουκ έαις θάπτειν παρών. Με. τους γ' αύτός αΰτοϋ πολεμίους, ού γαρ καλόν;

28

Ajax

In 1.1132 the question-mark inserted by Dobree is an improvement; the Loeb edition has it, but not, unfortunately, the OCT. Without the question-mark the sense will be that Menelaus is declaring that it is not proper to allow one's enemies to be buried; with it he will be asking if it is not proper to forbid an enemy's burial, which is a trifle apter, as well as livelier.

33. Ajax

1164-6:

άλλ' ώς δύνασαι, Τεΰκρε, ταχύνας σπεΰσον κοίλην κάπετόν τιν' ίδεΐν τώιδ' . . . Renehan 352 takes σπεΰσον as transitive and ίδεΐν as epexegetic; but can one hasten on a trench? The transitive use of this verb is comparatively rare in tragedy. Renehan cites for it Solon fr. 39 West, where text and context are uncertain. More effectively, he points out that at 1403-4 ταχύνειν, a verb whose sense is similar to one often borne by σπεύδειν, has κάπετον for its object; but ίδεΐν as epexegetic infinitive is wretchedly feeble.

34. Ajax

1274:

έρκέων . . . έγκεκληιμένους Diggle, Euripidea (1994) 346 has made a strong case for deleting Phoen. 448-51, thus eliminating είσεδέςω τειχέων at 451, which had seemed to offer something that might justify this. Mastronarde does not delete, but concedes that 'Diggle's proposal has considerable attraction and is perhaps to be accepted'.

35. Ajax

1291-2:

ούκ οίσθα σοΰ πατρός μεν δς προΰφυ πατήρ τάρχαΐον δντα Πέλοπα βάρβαρον Φρύγα; 1292 τάρχαΐον nos: άρχαιον codd. West 300 and Zimmermann 106 approve; but Kirkwood 28 thinks that the conjecture 'no doubt improves on the style of the paradosis, but it is not clear that improvement is needed'. It is not just a question of style.

Ajax

29

The poet obviously meant to say not 'was an ancient Phrygian', but 'was originally a Phrygian', and without this slight alteration the words will not bear what is the obvious meaning.

36. Ajax

1356-7:

Αγ. τί ποτε ποήσεις; έχθρόν ώδ' αΐδήι νέκυν; Οδ. νικαι γαρ άρετή με της έχθρας πλέον. 1292 πλέον C et interpr. in quibusdam codd.: πολύ cett.

V.Tammaro, Eikasmos 3 (1992) 109 remarked on the similarity to fr. 188: φιλέΐ γαρ ή δύσκλεια τοις φθονουμένοις νικαν έπ' αίσχροϊς ή 'πΐ τοις καλοϊς πλέον. But it is a superficial similarity; in the Ajax passage the presence of με makes all the difference. Tammaro takes the fragment to express 'un' opposizione tra la δύσκλεια che deriva agli invidiati inevitabilmente, dalle loro cattive azioni, e Ι'εΰκλεια - non menzionata ma facilmente integrabile in una struttura al mio parere brachilogica - che i medesimi acquisterebbero per le buone azioni'. This is too complicated, and we do not find that εΰκλεια is 'facilmente integrabile'; we prefer the interpretation of E. Degani, who writes (Eikasmos 2 (1991) 96 'per coloro che sono oggetto di invidia (τοις φθ.: dativus incommodi) la cattiva fama suole affermarsi (v. usato assolutamente, come ad esempio in Aesch. fr. 201b 2 νικαι δ' έν πόλει τά χείρονα) piu se Ιο sono a causa di malvage azioni (per φθ. con επί ed il dativo, cf. Eur. fr. 814,2 Ν. φθονέΐσθαι δέ θέλοιμ' άν έπ' έσθλοΐς) che se Ιο sono a causa delle loro buone azioni'.

37. Ajax

1366:

ή πάνθ' δμοια· πας άνήρ αύτώι πονέΐ. Μ.Gronewald, ΖΡΕ 107 (1995) 58-9 has shown that at Menander, Samia 366 it is desirable to place a stop after ποήσαι, so that at 364-6 the reading of the Cairo papyrus gives the following text: άστεϊον πάνυ εί τάς λοπάδας τάς έν μέσωι μου κειμένας όστρακα ποήσαι. πάνθ' δμοια. Thus we acquire another example of the proverbial saying found in the Ajax passage.

ELECTRA 1. EL 1-3:

ώ τοϋ στρατηγήσανιος έν Τροίαι ποτέ 'Αγαμέμνονος παΐ, νΰν έκέΐν' εςεστί σοι παρόντι λεύσσειν, ών πρόθυμος ήσθ' άεί. Kopff 158 insists that 'Haslam showed that the scholium to E., Ph. 1 implies the absence of S., EL 1 in some texts'. The anecdote in the scholium tells how Sophocles reproached Euripides for not having begun the Phoenissae with the two lines that stand first in our manuscripts and Euripides reproached Sophocles for not having begun the Electra with our 1.1. Valckenaer's deletion of the two negatives removes all its wit; surely it implies that each poet adopted the suggestion of the other as to how to start his play. The anecdote is of a frivolous kind, many specimens of which are given by M. R. Lefkowitz in The Lives of the Greek Poets (1981) and in Hermes 112 (1984) 143-153; it supplies no evidence whatever that the openings are spurious. As to the two anecdotes about women quoting EL 2 - not 2-3, as Sophoclea 43, 1.16 mistakenly says - 1.2 was relevant to the quoter's purpose, but 1.1 was not and would obviously have been left out. See now Paolo Carrara, ZPE 102 (1992), 43-51, who has shown that although the authenticity of this line and of E., Ph. 1-2 was questioned in ancient times, we have no good reason to believe the doubters. Probably the lines were questioned because it was noticed that they were easily detachable. Mastronarde in his commentary on the Phoenissae of 1994 still brackets 1-2, having presumably not seen Carrara's article.

2. EL 10-13: πολύφθορόν τε δώμα Πελοπιδών τόδε, δθεν σε πατρός έκ φόνων έγώ ποτε προς σης όμαίμου και κασιγνήτης λαβών ηνεγκα, κτλ. Diggle, Euripidea 156, n. 4 argues that in 1.11 we must adopt Dindorfs φονών, comparing 7V. 558. But note φόνους πατρώιους at 779 and O. C. 990.

31

Electra

3. EL 21-2: ώς ένταϋθ' f έμέν ι'ν' ούκέτ' όκνεΐν καιρός, αλλ' έργων άκμή. ένταΰθα μεν was first conjectured by Raper ap. Kidd p. 9 of the latter's edition of Dawes, Miscellanea Critica. Monk, Mus. Crit. 1, p. 64 conjectured οΰκ εστ' έτ' όκνεΐν, and Wecklein ούκ εστίν όκνεΐν. Even better would be ένταΰθα μεν εστ': someone may have written εστίν, from which iv' could easily result.

4. EL 121-126: ώ παΐ παΐ δυστανοτάτας Ήλεκτρα ματρός, τίν' άεί λάσκεις ώδ' άκόρεστον οίμωγάν τον πάλαι έκ δολερας άθεώτατα ματρός άλόντ' άπάταις 'Αγαμέμνονα κακαι τε χειρί πρόδοτον;

125

123 λάσχεις Schwerdt: τάκεις codd.: τίς άεί τάκει σ' ώδ' ακόρεστος οίμωγά

Kvicala Renehan 352-3, while fully conscious of the difficulty presented by τάκεις ... οίμωγάν, defends the paradosis. Against Schwerdt's conjecture λάσκεις he objects that the word 'basically means to "screech", "scream"'. Electra, he says, is 'moaning in a low tone' (78); but note 88, where she speaks of frequent θρήνοι. Indeed it would seem possible to use λάσκειν of any loud sound; at Euripides, Helen 186 it seems to refer to the utterance of a lament, and at Ale. 346 it is used of singing accompanied by the pipe. All the same, the corruption is, as Renehan observes, not an especially likely one, and it seems desirable to reconsider Kvicala's conjecture τάκει σ' ώδ' ακόρεστος οίμωγά. We remarked in Sophoclea that this 'rendered the following accusative even more difficult'. Instances of a verbal noun governing an accusative are collected by E. Schwyzer, APA W (1940), Ph.-hist. Kl. n o . 7 , 1 3 f . , W.Schulze, Kl. Sehr. 654 and other literature quoted by Fraenkel on Α., Ag. 1090. Among the alleged instances note in particular Α., Sept 289f.: γείτονες δε καρδίας μέριμναι ζωπυροϋσι τάρβος τον άμφιτειχή λεών. Hutchinson ad loc. remarks 'λεών is governed by τάρβοσ', but adds that 'it is more usually said that verb and verbal noun together paraphrase a

32

Electra

simple verb'. Hutchinson rejects this notion on the ground that 'there is no one verb which ζωπυροΰσι τάρβος could paraphrase'; but is it not just because of that that this unusual manner of expression has been adopted? It might be said that in this place τάκει σ' . . . οίμωγά paraphrased οΐμώζεις τακομένα. The corruption would be easy to explain, since after ΤΑΚΕΙΣ the words ακόρεστος οίμωγά may very well have been put into the accusative case. We now, like Blaydes in his edition of 1873, think that this conjecture may very well be right.

5. EL 139: see now Diggle, Euripidea 259, n.35.

6. EL 203-6: ώ νύξ, ώ δείπνων άρρητων εκπαγλ' άχθη· τοις έμός ϊδε πατήρ θανάτους αΐκεΐς διδυμαιν χενροϊν. 205 τοις Johnson, Reiske: τους codd.

We explained our adoption of τοις by saying that with it 'we get a more normal syntax', and B.-K. 240 complain that 'one should not meddle with the text as long as the syntax seems possible'. We should have made it clear that it is the syntactical harshness of the transition that makes the change desirable, a harshness that has a displeasing effect of jerkiness and is surely to be removed by the lightest possible alteration.

7. EL 239-44: μήτ' εϊην έντιμος τούτοις 240 μήτ', εΐ τώι πρόσκειμαι χρηστώι, ξυνναίοιμ' ευκηλος, γονέων έκτίμους ϊσχουσα πτέρυγας όςυτόνων γόων. In 241 Mörstadt conjectured γονέως, feeling that only one of Electra's parents could be in question. But the generalising plural can be defended; Blaydes (on p. 284 of his edition of 1873) cited 146, and E., Hec. 403, where Polyxena says to Odysseus, with reference to her mother, χάλα τοκεϋσιν είκότως θυμουμένοις. Still, Electra's relations with her two parents are so diverse that Morstadt's conjecture has to be considered.

Electra

33

8. EL 314-5: ή δή αν εγώ θαρσοϋσα μάλλον ές λόγους τους σους ΐκοίμην, εΐπερ ώδε ταΰτ' εχει. At fr. 555 b 19 Radt foljows Pfeiffer, Ausgewählte Kleine Schriften 95 in interpreting ΗΔ'ΑΝ as ή δή αν with crasis; but see R. Carden, The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (1974) 105.

9. EL 345-6: έπεί γ' έλοΰ σύ θάτερ', η φρονεΐν κακώς, η τών φίλων φρονούσα μή μνήμην εχειν. Renehan 353-4, while acknowledging that έπεί may be followed by an imperative, finds no examples of an imperative after έπεί γε, and doubts whether this is possible. But if one can have an imperative after έπεί, why not after έπεί γε? Referring to Kaibel (p. 124), Renehan argues that the transmitted επειθ' makes sense, and not surprisingly B.-K. 240-1 find that it gives better sense than the emendation, arguing that 'the parallels quoted f o r the use of έπεί d o not cut ice {sic)'. O n the other hand Blaydes (in his edition of 1873, p. 67) wrote 'The passage is unmistakeably corrupt, as επειθ' alone shows'. It is true that επειθ' makes a kind of sense, but with the emendation the sentence comes across with far greater force, and seems far more like Sophocles.

10. EL 379-82: μέλλουσι γάρ σ', εί τώνδε μή λήξεις γόων, 380 ένταϋθα πέμψειν ενθα μή ποθ' ήλίου φάος προσόψηι, ζώσα δ' έν κατηρεφεΐ στέγηι χθονός τήσδ' έκτος υμνήσεις κακά. R. Seaford, /HS 110 (1990) 79-80 revives Schenkl's emendation of έκτος in 1.382 to έντός. Μ. Davies in his commentary on Tr. argues f o r the reverse corruption of έκτος to ένδον in 1.677 of that play (see pp. 180 and 277 of his book, and p. 86 below). At Theocritus 1, 32 εκτοσθεν, the reading of P. Berol. Inv. 17073 (ed. Wolfgang Müller, Festschrift der Berliner Aegyptischen Museen (1974) 406) is greatly superior to εντοσθεν, the reading of the manuscripts, as was pointed out by J. O'Callaghan,Chronique d'Egypte 50 (1975), 190-4. A . M . D a l e , CR 2 (1952) 129-32 = Collected Papers (1969) well brought out the problem posed by εντοσθεν, and it is strange that she did not arrive by conjecture at the reading later found in the papyrus, which must surely be put in the

34

Electra

text by future editors. But in the Sophoclean passage there may have been a wish to remove beyond the boundaries any object that might cause pollution. Kassel points out to us that H . v a n Thiel in his edition of 1991 records the variant εντός at Od 23,178, where according to most manuscripts Odysseus commands Eurycleia to prepare the bed έκτος έυσταθέος θαλάμου. See Heubeck on 174-6 at p. 304 of the Lorenzo Valla edition (1986) = p. 332 of vol.iii of the English translation (1992) f o r the names of those (Wecklein was the first) w h o have dealt with the obvious difficulty by reading έντός. Heubeck calls this 'un (ardito) mutamento), but it is surely right. Kassel draws our attention to Od 9,235, where εντοσθεν is surely right, and to 9,239, where Von der Mühll rightly printed R u m p f s εντοθεν.

11. EL 388: τίν', ώ τάλαινα, τόνδ' έπηράσω λόγον; On the verb, see Wankel on Demosthenes 18,142.

12. EL 448-52: σύ δε τεμοΰσα κράτος βοστρύχων άκρας φόβας 450 κάμοΰ ταλαίνης, σμικρά μεν τάδ', αλλ' δμως άχω, δός αύτώι, τήνδε λιπαρή τρίχα και ζώμα τούμόν οΰ χλιδαΐς ήσκημένον. 451 λιπαρή schol.: άλιπαρή codd.

Renehan 354-6 stoutly defends άλιπαρή. H e sets out to undermine Kaibel's rule that adjectives in -ρος never have privative alpha; but the only two such adjectives which he can quote from classical poetry are άνελεύθερος and άνίερος, both common words of great antiquity, and not on the same level with the great body of the numerous adjectives formed by the addition of the suffixes -αρός and -ερός. H e then argues that the word άλιπαρής actually exists, citing from Lucian, Rhetorum Praeceptor 9 ( ed. Macleod ii, p. 3 2 1 , 1 9 - 2 1 ) an account of the old-fashioned rhetorical discipline to be addressed to a neophyte: πόνον δέ και άγρυπνίαν και ύδατοποσίαν και τό λιπαρές (άλιπαρές the γ group of MSS) άναγκάΐα ταΰτα και απαραίτητα φήσει. There is a similar list of requirements at Hermotimus 24 (ed. Macleod, iv p. 36, 1.3 σύνεσιν και έπιθυμίαν των καλών και το λιπαρές και το μή ένδοϋναι μηδέ μαλακισθήναι πολλοίς τοις δυσχερέσιν κατά την όδόν έντυγχάνοντα. In the tenth-century man-

Electra

35

uscripts Γ and Ε άλιπαρές, which is also the reading of the eleventhcentury manuscript L, has been corrected to λιπαρές. Renehan takes άλιπαρής to be a negation of λιπαρός denoting foods that are not fatty or greasy, so that by τό άλιπαρές Lucian means in effect 'Spartan fare'; the form, he thinks, was formed on the analogy of άλιπής, 'an exact, and not uncommon, synonym'. W e would have said not 'not fatty or greasy', but 'lacking in moisture'; but as a paraphrase 'Spartan fare' will do. In the first Lucianic passage Renehan argues that άλιπαρές is the correct reading, because 'the idea of perseverance is introduced in Lucian's next sentence as a new and distinct notion, so that τό λιπαρές seems less appropriate in this sentence'. In the second Lucianic passage, as well as in the first, the idea of pertinacity is stressed in the words that follow the list of requirements f o r the aspirant, but does that make against its having already been mentioned as the last of the things mentioned in the two lists? If that had been the sense which Lucian intended, surely he would have mentioned not simply 'Spartan fare', but something like 'a willingness to be content with Spartan fare'. Indeed, 'fatless food' or 'Spartan fare' consorts somewhat oddly with the abstract nouns that figure in the lists. We conclude that Macleod was right to place τό λιπαρές in the text. Renehan's other example of τό άλιπαρές comes from Cyril of Alexandria, Glaphyra in Genesim 3,82 (Migne PG 69. 136 C)· εκπέμπεται τό λοιπόν ή των 'Ιουδαίων συναγωγή, στυγνόν και άλιπαρές έφόδιον έχουσα, αρτον τε και ΰδωρ. This shows that in the fifth century άλιπαρές could be used of food lacking in moisture, but though it may help to explain the presence of the variant άλιπαρές in the Lucianic manuscripts it does not 'confirm the reading in Lucian', where τό λιπαρές makes sense and τό άλιπαρές does not. It is true that words appearing to have occurred only in post-classical texts may on occasion t u m out to have existed earlier, but we d o not find the authority of the instigator of Hypatia's murder sufficient to establish that the word can have been used by Sophocles. If one were to read άλιπαρή in Sophocles, one would be left with the problem of the quantity of the iota; as Renehan says, one can write τήνδε τ' or τήνδε γ', but that necessity does not increase, though it does not greatly detract from, the attractions of that reading.

13. EL 492-3: on the enallage, see Diggle, Euripidea 418.

14. EL 570-6: 570 κάκ τώνδε μηνίσασα Λητώια κόρη

κατεΐχ' 'Αχαιούς, έως πατήρ άντίσταθμον τοΰ θηρός έκθυσειε τήν αΰτοΰ κόρην.

36

Electra

ώδ' ήν τά κείνης θύματ'· ού γαρ ήν λύσις άλλη στρατώι προς οίκον ούδ' εις "Ιλιον. 575 άνθ' ών βιασθείς πολλά τ' άντιβάς μόλις εθυσεν αύτήν, ούχί Μενέλεω χάριν. 571 εως Fröhlich: ώς codd. 575 τ' άντιβάς Walter: κάντιβάς codd.

Bernard Williams, Shame and Necessity (1993) 135 (cf. n. 14 on p. 210, writes 'Electra, speaking, as she says, on behalf of her dead father, says that Artemis produced the calm (as it is in that version, rather than contrary winds) so that he would have to kill Iphigeneia: this puts a straightforward divine purpose in place of the more complex and obscure forces emphasised by Aeschylus, in which Artemis plays one part in a long history'. B.-K. 241 d o not understand why we emend to εως; but if Sophocles had written ώς he would surely have written κατέσχ' rather than κατέϊχ'. With this reading the divine purpose is no less evident, and the stress on Agamemnon's reluctance (note 575-6) is brought out even more clearly. A similar corruption occurred at Aj. I l l 7 .

15. EL 648-54: και μή με πλούτου τοΰ παρόντος ει τίνες δόλοισι βουλεύουσιν έκβαλεΐν, έφήις, 650 αλλ' ώδε μ' αίεΐ ζώσαν άβλαβέΐ βίωι δόμους 'Ατρειδών σκήπτρά τ' άμφέπειν τάδε, φίλοισι τε ςυνοϋσαν οίς ςύνειμι νΰν, εύημεροϋσαν και τέκνων δσων έμοι δύσνοια μή πρόσεστιν η λύπη πικρά. 653 τέκνων] τέκνοις X r s.l. , coni. Benedict

T w o passages have been quoted to support τέκνων in 653, which has been believed to have been attracted into the genitive case by the following word δσων. T h e first is E., Medea 11-13: άνδάνουσα μεν φυγήι πολιτών ών άφίκετο χθόνα, αύτη τε πάντα ξυμφέρουσ' Ίάσονι 12 φυγήι] φυγάς Pierson πολιτών Π Didot (ii a. C.) codd.: πολίταις V, coni. Barnes

Diggle, Euripidea 272>-6 after a detailed discussion placed φυγήι πολιτών between cruces, but in a last-minute note he was able to refer to S.J. H a r -

Electra

37

rison, C Q 36 (1986) 260, who has made a strong case for Pierson's φυγάς with the variant πολίταις. The second passage is Tr. 151-2: τότ' άν τις είσίδοιτο, την αύτοϋ σκοπών πραξιν, κακοΐσιν οίς έγώ βαρύνομαι Α. C. Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles writes 'for κακά οίς: or the alternative is, οίς as indirect interrogative with inversion of οίς κακοΐσιν'. Jebb and Mrs. Easterling both take it as equivalent to κακά οίς, but Jebb considers also the possibility that it stands for οϊοις κακοΐσιν, which Kamerbeek prefers. We conclude that τέκνοις should be in the text; it was probably mistakenly assimilated to the case of the following relative pronoun.

16. El. 683-4: δτ' ήισθετ' ανδρός όρθιων γηρυμάτων δρόμον προκηρύςαντος 683 γηρυμάτων Herwerden: κηρυγμάτων codd.

Diggle, Euripidea 463-4 argues that προκηρύξαντος is the wrong tense; he would presumably accept Blaydes' προκηρύσσοντος. Blaydes may have been right; but can one rule out the possibility that the aorist was chosen because the proclamation was imagined as a single action? Also, observing that when Sophocles uses a non-personal object with αισθάνομαι he uses the accusative, not the genitive, Diggle revives M.L.Earle's conjecture όρθίωι κηρύγματι (CR 17, 1903, 209). ' T h e only permissible translation', Diggle writes, 'is "When he heard the loud proclamations of a man who had proclaimed'". Earle thought that όρθίωι γηρύματι was another possibility, but one must bear in mind Jackson's warning (Marginalia Scaenica 198) that the ancients were less sensitive about repetition than the moderns. True, in the six places where Sophocles uses αισθάνομαι with a personal object that object is in the accusative ; but if Euripides can say αίσθέσθαι βοής (Hipp. 603) and the author of the Rhesus φασγάνου . . . ήισθόμην πληγής one cannot be certain.

17. El. 749-50: στρατός δ' όπως όραι νιν έκπεπτωκότα δίφρων άνωτότυςε τον νεανίαν. άνωτότυςε Herwerden: άνωλόλυςε codd.

38

Electra

Diggle, Euripidea 480 points out that άνωτότυςε at Α., Ag. 1074 is corrupted to άνωλόλυςε in the quotation by Σ Ε. Ph. 1028.

18. El. 757-60: καί νιν πυραι κέαντες ευθύς έν βραχεί χαλκώι μέγιστον σώμα δειλαίας σποδοΰ φέρουσιν άνδρες Φωκέων τεταγμένοι 760 δπως πατρώιας τύμβον έκλάχηι χθονός. Diggle, Euripidea 418 writes Ί believe that μέγιστον is corrupt (Blaydes' φλογιστόν has attracted less attention than it deserves; cf. El 58), but that σώμα δειλαίας σποδοΰ is, in itself, acceptable Greek'. Kassel draws our attention to the convincing defence of μέγιστον by Vahlen, Opusc. Acad ii 509f.; Blaydes' conjecture, Kassel points out, ruins the pathetic antithesis of έν βραχεί and μέγιστον, f o r which Kaibel (189-90) supplies striking parallels. Gtinther's proposal to delete these four lines (ES 1312) merits careful consideration.

1 9 . El. 841:

πάμψυχος άνάσσει The article of A. Henrichs referred to in the note on this line at Sophoclea 58 has now appeared in Fragmenta Dramatica: Beiträge zur Interpretation der gr. Tragikerfragmente und ihrer Wirkungsgeschichte (ed. H . H o f m a n n and M . A . H a r d e r , 1991).

20. El. 837-48 (we give the text printed in the Loeb edition): Xo. οΐδα γαρ ανακτ' Άμφιάρεων χρυσοδέτοίβ ερκεσι κρυφθέντα γυναικών και νϋν ύπό γαίας -

. _

I »Λ

**

V

> *

840 Ηλ. ε ε, ιω. Χο. πάμψυχος άνάσσει. 845 Ηλ. φεΰ. Χο. φεϋ δήτ'· όλοά γ' άρ' - Ηλ. έδάμη. Χο. ναί. Ηλ. οίδ' οίδ'· έφάνη γαρ μελέτωρ άμφί τον έν πένθει· έμοί δ' οΰτις έτ' έσθ' ος γαρ έτ' ήν φρούδος άναρπασθείς. 844 γ' άρ' L1.-J.: γαρ codd.

Electra

39

In 845 the γαρ which is transmitted gives a suspicious short vowel o r period-end, which in the OCT we dealt with by emending έδάμη to δάμαρ ήν. This is rejected by West 300, Zimmermann 106 and B.-K. 241, we now think rightly; the decisive point against it is that it makes the γαρ in the next line hard to understand. For γαρ in 844 Triclinius has γοϋν, doubtless a conjecture, and Wecklein emended it to μάν, West to δ' ούν: none of these seems very probable. A somewhat better conjecture is G . W o l f f s τάρ', which would give the sense Ά destroyer, then . . . ' ; presumably the speaker, but f o r Electra's interruption, would have gone on to say 'was his wife', making a natural inference from the fact, stated by the Chorus at the beginning of the stanza, which Electra has just lamented. A better way of dealing with the problem would be to interpret the paradosis as γ' άρ', a combination of particles which is commoner than was realised - editors often mistakenly preferred τάρα before J. C. B. Lowe published his notable article 'Γ'άρα, γ' άρα and τάρα' in Glotta 51 (1973) 34-64. γ' άρα here gives better sense, since an exclamatory γε suits the context better than a warning τοι: the sense would be Ά destroyer, indeed, then ...' It is still true that, as we stated at Sophoclea 59, 1.4, that Electra, in understanding what the Chorus mean and supplying the correct verb is showing remarkable acuteness, but the subject is one close to her heart.

21. EL 853: εΐδομεν α θροας (responding with 864 άσκοπος ά λώβα) θρηνείς Gernhard post Dindorf: ΐδομέναι θροεΐς Diggle

At Sophoclea 59 we rejected Diggle's conjecture on the ground that it introduced a responsion unparalleled in Sophocles. At Euripidea 472, n. 147 Diggle has replied by enumerating three other unique responsions. But as we remarked 'in dochmiacs - w - ^ - may respond with as at O C 1556/1568 and 1564/1575'.

22. El. 854/865: 854 Ηλ. μή με νΰν μηκέτι παραγάγηις, ϊν' ού - Χο. τί φήις; 865 Ηλ. πώς γαρ ουκ, εί ξένος άτερ έμαν χερών - Χο. παπαϊ. Ε. Medda, SCO 43 (1903) 131 agrees with us in scanning these lines as a cretic dimeter with brevis in longo followed by a lekythion.

40

Electra

23. EL 902-4: κεύθύς τάλαιν' ώς εΐδον, έμπαίει τί μοι ψυχήι σύνηθες δμμα, φιλτάτου βροτών πάντων Όρέστου τοϋθ' όραν τεκμήριον. Ll.-J. in Philanthropia kai Eusebeia (Festschrift A. Dihle, 1993) 300 f. argued that the third clause is consecutive, and that this has not been noticed because δμμα in this place does not mean either 'face' or 'sight', but 'source of light', 'an accustomed source of light' meaning in effect 'an accustomed source of comfort'.

24. EL 913-4: άλλ' ούδέ μεν δή μητρός οΰθ' ό νοΰς φιλεϊ τοιαύτα πράσσειν οΰτε δρώσ' έλάνθαν' άν. Diggle, Euripidea 107, n. 61 decisively refutes Elmsley's argument that the Attic poets do not elide third-person -ε before αν.

25. EL 941: foüx εσθ' δ y'f ε ί π ο ν ού γαρ ώδ' άφρων εφυν εσθ' δ γ' L s.L, Rpa: εσθ' δδ' LG: ές τόδ' ρ: ού τοϋτό γ' Blaydes

Renehan 356-7 shares our liking for Blaydes' conjecture, but offers a different explanation of the corruption. 'Assume Blaydes' conjecture to be correct', he writes, 'and put it into scriptio continua. The verse would begin ουτουτ: haplography would have left out one ουτ. Someone inserted an εσθ' to patch things up (ουτ easily becoming ούκ) and the variant readings arose from that'. This seems rather likelier than our suggestion that someone explained the text by writing ού τοϋτο εσθ' δ είπον and then τοϋτο was accidentally omitted and γ' inserted to avoid hiatus.

26. EL 1009-11: άλλ' άντιάζω, πριν πανωλέθρους τδ παν 1010 ή μας όλέσθαι κάςερημώσαι γένος, κατάσχες όργήν. 1010 κόςερημώσαι] κάςερημοΰσθαι Blaydes

Against Blaydes' conjecture note the words of Kaibel (227): "Chrys. ... und El. sind die letzten des Stammes, also 'bevor wir umkommen und

Electra

41

damit unser Geschlecht aussterben lassen"; γένος fast als örtlicher Begriff, wie πόλιν έξερημοϋν'.

27. EL 1048-57: Χρ. φρονεΐν έοικας ουδέν ών έγώ λέγω. Ηλ. πάλαι δέδοκται ταϋτα κού νεωστί μοι. 1050 [Χρ. άπειμι τοίνυν ούτε γαρ σύ ταμ' έπη τολμαις έπαινέϊν ουτ' έγώ τους σους τρόπους. Ηλ. άλλ' εϊσιθ'. οΰ σοι μή μεθέψομαί ποτε, ούδ' ην σφόδρ' ίμείρουσα τυγχάνηισ - έπεΐ πολλής άνοιας και τό θηρασθαι κενά.] 1055 Χρ. άλλ' εί σεαυτήι τυγχάνεις δοκοϋσά τι φρονεΐν, φρονεί τοιαΰθ'· δταν γάρ έν κακοΐς ήδη βεβήκηις, ταμ' επαινέσεις επη. Zimmermann 104 approves the deletion of 1050-54. Ll.-J. in the third volume of his Loeb edition has printed 1051-4 as a fragment of the Phaedra.

28. Sophoclea, p. 62: K. Itsumi's article on the enoplian referred to in the note on 1058-62 has appeared at BICS 38 (1991-3), 243-261.

29. EL 1082-89: ουδείς των άγαθών (αν) ζών κακώς ευκλειαν αίσχύναι θέλοι νώνυμος, ώ πάΐ π αϊ' 1085 ώς και σύ πάγκλαυτον αιώνα κλεινόν ειλου, άκος καλόν καθοπλίσασα δύο φέρειν (έν) ένΐ λόγωι, σοφά τ' άριστα τε παις κεκλήσθαι. 1086 Bergk: κοινόν codd. καθιππάσασα Hermann

1087 άκος L1.-J.: τό μή codd.

καθοπλίσασα]

Β.-Κ. 241 are right to disagree with our statement that the Chorus call Electra's life πάγκλαυτον because 'the life of a matricide, however glorious, is a life of many tears'. The words d o not relate to the life after the murder, but to the life of lamentatipn that Electra has chosen,

42

Electra

a choice which the Chorus has been protesting against ever since its first utterance, κοινόν makes no sense, but Electra's life of lamentation may well be called κλεινόν. Ν. Β. Booth, Rh, Mus. 119 (1976) 127-33 and BICS 33 (1986) 103-6 would emend κοινόν to παΰσον, but that involves a harsh asyndeton and an improbable corruption. B.-K. 242 reject the emendation ακος, on the ground that if τομή was a gloss, it was never in the text and it cannot possibly contribute to the meaning of ακος; so also Kopff 155 and Zimmermann 106. In the same way, G . W . Most in Orchestra: Drama, Mythos, Bühne (Festschrift H.Flashar, 1994) 129-38 objects that 'in none of the parallels cited in support of this conjecture is a word f o r "cutting" missing from the text'. These critics cannot understand the meaning of 'arming a remedy'; but the original audience was familiar with the notion of an ακος τομαΐον, and would have realised that καθοπλίσασα implied the use of an implement that could cut. At Α., Cho. 539, where the manuscript has ακος τομαΐον έλπίσασα πημάτων, Ll.-J.'s όπλίσασα ( C Q 4, 1954, 94 = A P i 366, n. 1), though not mentioned by West in his edition of 1990, may easily be right, ακος καλόν seems to us a clearer and a more poetical expression than τομήι καλόν, which M o s t suggested.

30. EL 1165-70: 1165 τοίγαρ σύ δέςαι μ' ές τό σον τάδε στέγος την μηδέν ές τό μηδέν, ώς συν σοι κάτω ναίω τό λοιπόν, και γαρ ήνίκ' ήσθ' ανω, ςύν σοι μετέΐχον των ίσων - και νϋν ποθώ τοΰ σοϋ θανούσα μη άπολείπεσθαι τάφου. 1170 τους γαρ θανόντας ούχ όρώ λυπουμένους. Α. Zippmann's deletion of 1.1170 should be mentioned in an apparatus criticus. Blaydes, who like Nauck thought the line 'probably spurious', wrote 'Electra desires to die not so much that she may rest in peace, as that she may be with her brother'. However, Wolff-Bellermann write 'Vielmehr ist der Vers unentbehrlich', and as Kamerbeek says 'there is no disharmony with what precedes'. For the τόπος see Pfeiffer on Call. fr.263,2.

31. EL 1193: Ορ. τίς γάρ σ' άνάγκηι τηιδε προτρέπει βροτών; "What we should expect', we wrote at Sophoclea p. 68, 'is a verb that means "to compel", or else a verb that can mean "to subject to ανάγκη":

Electra

43

προστρίβει (see Fraenkel on Α., Ag. 395) would suit the sense'. In the Loeb edition Wilson's conjecture προστρίβει has been placed in the text.

32. EL 1239: Ηλ. μά τάν "Αρτεμιν, τάν άεί άδμήταν . . . West 301 rightly points out that 'in asseverations of the form (άλλ') ού τον . . . the word μά is regularly interpolated', so that άλλ' ού τάν θεάν is preferable. Steinhart's θεάν seems to us preferable, by reason of the assonance with άδμήταν, to West's θεόν.

33. El. 1273-8: Ηλ. ίώ χρόνωι μακρώι φιλτάταν όδόν έπαςιώσας ώδε μοι φανήναι, μή τί με, πολύπονον ώδ' ίδών Ορ. τί μή ποήσω; Ηλ. μή μ' άποστερήσηις των σων προσώπων άδονάν μεθέσθαι. 1275 πολύπονον J, coni. Hermann: πολύστονον cett.

E . M e d d a , SCO 43 (1003) 112-3 has shown that the best attested reading πολύστονον, preferably to be taken as cretic + dochmiac, is metrically unexceptionable in this context.

34. EL 1322-5: Ορ. σιγαν έπήινεσ'· ώς έπ' έςόδωι κλύω των ενδοθεν χωροΰντος. Ηλ. εϊσιτ', ώ ξένοι, άλλως τε και φέροντες οί' άν ούτε τις δόμων άπώσαιτ' ούτ' άν ήσθείη λαβών. 1322-3 (usque ad χωροϋντος) Hermann, 1322-5 Dawe choro tribuunt (Σ τινές τον χορόν φασι λέγειν ταΰτα)

Ε. Dettori, L'interlocuzione difficile: Corifeo dialogante nel dramma classico (1992), p.24, n.7, p. 118, n. 1 and p. 173 supports Dawe's attribution of these lines to the C h o r u s ; he insists that the injunction to silence and the announcement of a new character's entry must be delivered by the Coryphaeus. But it is dangerous to enforce a rigid rule in these matters. At El. 469, Chrysothemis asks the Chorus to keep silent; at 1238, Orestes makes the same request to Electra; at 1399 Electra asks the Chorus to

44

Electra

await in silence the result of what is happening off-stage. At Ph. 865, Neoptolemus tells the Chorus to be silent, for Philoctetes is waking up. At fr. 679, Phaedra is evidently demanding silence from the Chorus. At Aj. 1223-5 the manuscripts are surely right in giving the announcement of Agamemnon's entry to Teucer, for the sharp words at 1.1225 (δήλος δέ μούστϊ σκαιόν έκλύσων στόμα) suit Teucer better than they do the Coryphaeus; at Tr. 58 f. the Nurse announces the arrival of Hyllus, and at 225-8 of that play Deianeira responds to the Chorus' announcement of the entry of Lichas and his party, and at 594-7 she announces Lichas* return; at O.C. 111-2 Antigone announces the approach of the Chorus and at 310 f. that of Ismene. In each of these cases there is a good dramatic reason why the actor rather than the Coryphaeus should make the announcement. Surely one must decide each question of this kind with reference to the actual situation. The Coryphaeus has said nothing since 1171-2; there has been a tense dialogue between Orestes and Electra for some 150 lines, since the beginning of the anagnorisis. Now Orestes tells Electra to be silent, as he has done at 1238, and Electra, imagining that the supposed corpse is about to be brought in, addresses appropriate words to those whom she imagines to be bringing it.

35. EL 1341: Ο ρ. ήγγειλας, ώς εοικεν, ώς τεθνηκότα. Fröhlich suggested εοικέ (μ'), but as Jebb remarked 'the pronoun με is easily understood; cf. 1200'.

36. El. 1347: Ορ. ουχί ξυνίης; Ηλ. ουδέ γ' f i g θυμόν φέρω^ In the Loeb edition Wilson's conjecture ουδέ γ' ήισθόμην σφέ πω has been placed in the text.

37.

El. 1354-5: Ηλ. ώ φίλτατον φως, ώ μόνος σωτήρ δόμων 'Αγαμέμνονος, πώς ήλθες;

Kaibel was wrong to think Electra is calling Orestes φίλτατον φως (Jebb and Nauck rightly took the word to mean 'day', as in 1224), so that

Electra

45

there should be a colon after φως; and since in both places the words are not an address, but an exclamation, one should accentuate ώ.

38. EL 1357-9: ώ φιλτάτας μεν χ α ρ α ς , ήδιστον δ' εχων π ο δ ώ ν ύπηρέτημα, πώς ουτω πάλαι ξυνών μ' έληθες ούδ' έσαινες, ά λ λ ά με λ ό γ ο ι ς άπώλλυς, έργ' εχων ήδιστ' έμοί; 1359 εσαινες nos: εφαινες codd.

West 300 and Zimmermann 106 approve of the conjecture, but B.-K. 242 defend εφαινες, agreeing with Kamerbeek that it is transitive, 'the object συνόντα σε being supplied by the context'. It would not be at all easy to supply συνόντα σε, and a defender of έφαινες would do better to adopt Kaibel's view that that word goes closely with εργ' εχων ήδιστ' έμοί, the words άλλά με λόγοις άπώλλυς being placed in the middle by a kind of hyperbaton, so that the object of έφαινες would be supplied by εργ'. This cannot be ruled out, but it is somewhat complicated; we get a simpler and clearer expression, without the hyperbaton, if we change one letter and take the words to mean 'you were in my company without my knowing or recognising you'.

39. EL 1367-8: σφώιν δ' έννέπω 'γώ τοΐν παρεστώτοιν ότι νΰν καιρός ερδειν νϋν Κλυταιμήστρα μόνη. 1367 'γώ Hermann: γε codd.

Suzanne Said at STP 326, n. 275 defends γε, quoting Denniston , GP 155, who wrote that in this passage 'δε . . . γε marks a break off, like άτάρ' and adding 'il y a bien la ... une forte opposition: apres s' etre adresse ä Electre (1366), le pedagogue se tourne vers Oreste et Pylade'. Certainly there is 'une forte opposition', but this is better brought out by the personal pronoun than by γε following the not sufficiently emphatic verb έννέπω.

40. EL 1391-4: παράγεται γαρ ένέρων δολιόπους άρωγός ε'ισω στέγας,

46

Electra

άρχαιόπλουτα πατρός είς εδώλια, νεακόνητον αίμα χειροΐν εχων. See Photius α 597 with Theodoridis ad loc.

41. El. 1402-3: Xo. σύ δ' έκτος ήιςας προς τί; Ηλ. φρουρήσουσ' δπως Αίγισθος (ημάς) μή λάθηι μολών εσω. 1403 Αίγισθος] ό θεοΐσιν έχθρόςJackson

Against Jackson's conjecture, see Diggle, PCPS 20 (1974) 36, n. 1. 42. El. 1458-9: οΐγειν πύλας ανωγα κάναδεικνυναι πασιν Μυκηναίοισιν Άργείοις θ' όραν 1458 v. sic restituit Wilamowitz (ο'ίγειν iam Wecklein): σιγαν ανωγα κάναδεικνυναι πύλας fere codd.

Renehan 357 approves, comparing Ο. Τ. 1287-8: βοαι διοίγειν κλήιθρα και δηλοΰν τινα τοις πασι Καδμείοισι, κτλ.

43. EL 1472-3: άλλ' εύ παραινείς, κάπιπείσομαι· σύ δε ει που κατ' οίκον ή Κλυταιμήστρα, κάλει. 1473 ή t: μοι Lpa: om. r

West attributes our preference for Triclinius' ή over the μοι of the manuscripts to our slavish belief in 'whatever we have been told at school', this being presumably that the medial caesura has at all costs to be avoided. He is mistaken; for it is some time since we left school, and we are not unacquainted with such works as G. Stephan, Die Ausdrucksweise der caesura media im iambischen Trimeter der attischen Tragödie (Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, H e f t 126, 1981). But we find that the medial caesura here secures none of the special effects of medial caesura listed by Stephan, op.cit., 86f.; and we prefer to the vague μοι the article used because of what Wilamowitz in the app. crit. of his edition of

Electra

47

Aeschylus, commenting on τό χρυσοφεγγές ... σέλας, called its vis possessiva. Twice in his edition of the Agamemnon (p. 657, n. 2 and p. 750, n.2) Fraenkel lamented 'the regrettable lack of any thoroughgoing investigation of the use of the article in Attic poetry and prose'. The use of the article here in question is briefly discussed and illustrated by K. W. Krüger, Griechische Sprachlehre I (6th. edn.), s. 50,2, n. 3 (p. 97), but it seems not to have been taken proper note of in any of the other grammars. The article in this sense when it stands before a proper name often retains something of its original demonstrative force, giving a sense roughly corresponding to that of the Latin ille used with a proper name; thus at Α., Cho. 954 f. ό Λοξίας ό Παρνάσσιος (-ίας Paley) μυχόν εχων χθονός the article gives the effect of Apollo ille, 'that Apollo whom we know o f . In Sophocles we may compare Ο. Τ497 f.: αλλ' ό μεν ούν Ζευς δ τ' 'Απόλλων ξυνετοί και τά βροτών είδότες. The use of the article with the names of mortals may suggest a different kind of familiarity, a familiar intimacy; one variety of this is the article prefixed to slaves' names (ό Ξανθίας, etc.) dealt with by W. Schulze, Kl. Sehr. 705. Here Aegisthus speaks of his consort in a tone of casual intimacy not calculated to please her children by Agamemnon. Triclinius' ή, like the μοι of the other manuscripts, may be a conjecture, but we believe it to be right.

44. EL 1497-8: ή πασ' ανάγκη τήνδε την στέγην ϊδεϊν τά τ' δντα και μέλλοντα Πελοπιδών κακά; Renehan 357 supports the reading πασ' ανάγκη, showing how very frequently this phrase is found.

45. EL 1505-7: χρήν δ' εύθύς είναι τήνδε τοις πασιν δίκην, δστις πέρα πράσσειν γε των νόμων θέλοι, κτείνειν το γαρ πανοΰργον οΰκ αν ήν πολύ. Renehan 357-8 argues that 'the sequence . . . πασιν . . . δστις, while not unparalleled, is unusual and so far as I know would be unique in tragedy'. One would be glad to be given a further reason for doubting whether three lines that seem so trite and so feeble can be genuine; but Kassel points to the parallels assembled by Bruhn, Anhang, section 16,11. On the idiom exemplified by δι' ελευθερίας in 1509, see Barrett on E., Hipp. 542-4.

OEDIPUS TYRANNUS 1. Ο. Γ 8: άγω δίκαιων μή παρ' αγγέλων, τέκνα, άλλων άκούειν αυτός ώδ' έλήλυθα, ό πασι κλεινός Οιδίπους καλούμενος. Renehan 358-9 supplements our note at Sophoclea p. 79 by observing that 1.8 is there not to identify Oedipus, as Reeve imagined, but 'to show the audience right at the beginning of the play what Oedipus thought of himself. 2. Ο. T. 35-9: δς γ' έξέλυσας αστυ Καδμεΐον μολών σκληρας άοιδοΰ δασμόν δν παρείχομεν, και ταΰθ' ύφ' ημών ούδέν έςειδώς πλέον οΰδ' έκδιδαχθείς, άλλα προσθήκηι θεοΰ λέγηι νομίζηι θ' ήμΐν όρθώσαι βίον. As to Barrett's observation, mentioned in the same note on 1. 8, that in our 1-61 the writer of P. Oxy. 2180 had a text with one line fewer than ours has, Barrett in a letter to LI.-J. dated 30 June, 1990 remarks that 1.39, as well as 1.51 (on which see our note in Sophoclea p. 80), may possibly be the line that was lacking. 3. Ο. T. 52-7: Sophoclea p. 81, (iv). Add to the parallels Pindar, fr.52b (Paean 2) 37-8 άλκαι (Theon: άλκαί P. Oxy. 841 cum Σ) δε τείχος άνδρών υψιστον ϊσταται: despite Radt, Pindars Zweiter und Sechster Paian (1958), p. 46, we prefer the sense 'Durch Tapferkeit der Männer erhebt sich die höchste Mauer' to the sense 'Tapfere Taten der Männer erheben sich als höchste Mauer'. 4. Ο. T. 80-1: ώνας "Απολλον, εί γαρ έν τύχηι γέ τωι σωτήρι βαίη λαμπρός ωσπερ δμμα τι. 81 ομμα τι Wex: ομματι codd.

Oedipus Tyrannus

49

See Ll.-J. in Philanthropia kai Eusebeia (Festschrift A. Dihle, 1993J, 303-4, who takes the words to mean 'May he come with saving fortune, radiant like some source of light'.

5. Sophoclea p. 82, on 120-1, 1.4: Barrett in the letter quoted in n. 2 above corrected the word placed to misplaced.

6. Ο. T. 159-66: πρώτα σε κεκλόμενος, θύγατερ Διός, αμβροτ' 'Αθάνα, γαιάοχόν τ' άδελφεάν "Αρτεμιν, α κυκλόεντ' άγορας θρόνον εύκλέα θάσσει, και Φοϊβον έκαβόλον αιτώ, τρισσοί άλεςίμοροι προφάνητέ μοι ε'ί ποτε και προτέρας άτας ΰπερορνυμένας πόλει ηνυσατ' έκτοπίαν φλόγα πήματος, ελθετε και νΰν. 162 εύκλεα] Ευκλεα Elmsley 163 αιτώ Blaydes: ίώ ίώ fere codd.: ίώ Heath 165 ΰπερορνυμένας Musgrave: ϋπερ όρνυμένας codd.

162: With regard to εύκλέα, Dawe's note in his commentary refutes the somewhat hasty pronouncement of the young Wilamowitz, Aus Kydathen (1880), p. 157, n. 70, exhumed by Kopff 158. On the cult of Eukle(i)a see H.A. Shapiro, Personification in Greek Art (1993), 70f. 163: Sonia Stelluto, in MTS 400-2 sets out to refute Blaydes' emendation of ίώ ίώ to αιτώ. First she questions the statement that the alleged instance of ίώ with long iota at Α., Supp. 162 would be the only such case outside anapaests; while admitting that that case is doubtful, she points to S., El. 150 and 840. At 840 ίώ responds with αίαΐ (826), whose first syllable can be short (Α., Sept. 786, S., Tr. 968 and O.C. 1670). But El. 150 ίώ παντλάμων Νιόβα, σέ δ' εγωγε νέμω θεόν responds with 134 άλλ' ώ παντοίας φιλότητος άμειβόμεναι χάριν, and ίώ is transmitted by all manuscripts (except Paris, gr. 2711, which has άλλ' ώ). At Tr. 1031 Bergk restored responsion by doubling ίώ to make the hexameter begin ίώ (ίώ) Πάλλας, which yields another instance that seems highly probable, ίώ with long first syllable is not common, but one must agree that it is not impossible, at least in anapaestic and dactylic metres. Like Campbell, PS 89, Dr. Stelluto quotes Α., SuppL 40-4, where the sentence which has started with the invocation of Io and Epaphus be-

50

Oedipus Tyrannus

ginning with νΰν δ' έπικεκλομένα, after being interrupted by what seems at first to be a parenthesis, is simply abandoned. We conclude that she is right in arguing that it is not safe to abandon the transmitted text. Dr. Stelluto goes on to defend the manuscript reading in 1.165 against Musgrave's conjecture, taking the words to mean 'in difesa di (contro) una precedente sciagura'. ύπερ- in a verbal compound can mean 'over' rather than 'beyond' ; note Ant. 113, where αίετός ές γην ως ύπερέπτα surely means 'he flew over into our land'. Dr. Stelluto effectively compares the use of υπερ at 187 and at Α., Sept. I l l (where see Hutchinson), and she may well be right.

7. O. 77 193 νωτίσαι: See Renzo Tosi, Studi sulla tradizione indiretta dei classici Greet (1988), 90-1.

8. Ο. T. 220-1: ού γαρ αν μακράν ϊχνευον αυτός, μη ούκ εχων τι σύμβολον W. Müri, Wort- und Sachgeschichtliche Studien (Beiträge zum Jahresbericht über das Stadtgymnasium in Bern, 1931), 49-71 = Griechische Studien: Ausgewählte wort- und sachgeschichtliche Forschungen zur Antike (1976) collects all the material needed to illustrate the meaning of the word σύμβολον, but when he comes to consider this instance of the word (p. 18, n. 17) he follows the commentators on Sophocles who have taken it as equivalent to σημεΐον.

9. Erbse, Illinois Classical Studies 18 (1993) 69-71 defends 11.246-51 against the charge of being interpolated. He argues that the threat of exclusion from society (233-43) is directed both against the murderer and against anyone who knows his identity but will not denounce him ('beide Gruppen, Täter und Hehler', p. 69). But at 236-7 Oedipus introduces this threat with the words τον άνδρ' απαυδώ τοΰτον, δστις εστί, which surely specify a single person. If that person is the murderer, as we argued at Sophoclea p. 86, it is natural to wonder why a separate curse upon the murderer should follow at 246-51. Although κακόν in 248 agrees with viv and αμορον with βίον, and as Erbse has shown the expression κακόν κακώς is possible in elevated language, it is still true that 246-8 are suspiciously perfunctory, and that

Oedipus Tyrannus

51

249-51 look like a feeble attempt to import more dramatic irony. As f o r the concealer, he is sufficiently dealt with by the curse pronounced at 269-72 upon those Thebans w h o fail to aid the search. Erbse contends (71) that the effect of 744-5 and 814-20 is greater if the hearer remembers the curse contained in 246-51; but surely the curse at 236-43 would be sufficient.

10. Ο. T. 420-3: βοής δε της σης ποίος ούκ εσται "}"λιμήν"{·, ποίος Κιθαιρών ούχΐ σύμφωνος τάχα, δταν καταίσθηι τον ύμέναιον, δν δόμοις ανορμον εΐσέπλευσας, εύπλοίας τυχών; 420 εσται λιμήν] εσται 'Ελικών Blaydes, Herwerden

Mrs. Easterling believes in 'the possibility that there might be interaction here with the imagery of 422-3 (which is emphatically recalled at 1208)'. But if the poet is about to say 'the marriage into whose dangerous harbour you sailed', does that explain why he should say 'What harbour, what Cithaeron shall soon echo your laments?', and will the use of λιμήν at 1208 really recall this passage? At Nonnus, Dionysiaca 1 0 , 9 2 - 3 the terrified Ino pursued by Athamas, cries out to her son: ποίον δρος δέχεται σε πεφυγμένον έγγύθι πόντου; τίς σκοτίωι κενεώνι κατακρύψει σε Κιθαιρών; Gisele Chretien in the Bude Nonnus (iv p. 134) follows Meineke, Theocritus, Bion, Moschus (3rd. edn., 1856) in taking this to be a reminiscence of the Sophoclean passage.

1 1 . Ο. T. 430-1: ούκ εις δλεθρον; ούχί θασσον αύ πάλιν άψορρος οϊκων τώνδ' άποστραφεΐς άπει; Renehan 359 reports that he was supplied by a pupil with a reference to Menander, Sic. 343 ούκ εις τον δλεθρον . . . άποφθερεΐ; But 'the language is that of plain speech', he writes, 'the audience would hardly have been reminded specifically of comedy in this context'. Fraenkel on Ag. 1267, whom Renehan quotes, together with Bond on E., H.F. 1290 and Hutchinson on Α., Sept 252, describes εις δλεθρον in this place as 'unkingly'.

52

Oedipus Tyrannus

12. Ο. Τ. 445-6: κομιζέτω δήθ'· ώς παρών σύ γ' έμποδων όχλεϊς, συθείς τ' αν οΰκ αν άλγύναις πλέον. Β.Μ.'W.Knox, GRBS 21 (1980) 321-32 follows Kock, Sophokleische Studien II (1857) 25 in arguing that Oedipus leaves after speaking these words. Kassel agrees with him that 'dass Ο. die ganze lange Rede stumm anhören und auch am Schluss nichts sagen soll, ist kaum glaublich'. H e points out that Adolf Schöll in his translation wished to delete 447-62, that Wolff-Bellermann took the same view as Kock, and that Wilamowitz finally went over to that view, as we see from the posthumous revision of his translation published by Carl Kappus (latest edition, 1949). But it may be argued that Tiresias' speech is most explicitly addressed to Oedipus, w h o is perhaps too angry and too firmly convinced that Tiresias is party to a plot against him to take proper note of the prophet's final utterance.

13. Ο. T. 463-6: τίς δντιν' ά θεσπιέπεια Δελφίς ήιδε πέτρα άρρητ' άρρητων τελέσαντα φοινίαισι χερσίν; 464 ήιδε J.E.Powell: είδε Κ (non legitur Lac) G et fortasse novit Σ L, coni. Gitlbauer: είπε cett.

Renehan 359 defends the paradosis, remarking very truly that είπε makes perfect sense; but K's είδε gives the conjecture a plausibility it lacked when it was first proposed.

14. Ο. T. 478: Kassel's article at Rh. Mus. 116, 109 f., cited at Sophoclea p. 91, is reprinted in his Kleine Schriften (1991), 388 f.

15. Ο. Τ. 483-6: δεινά με νΰν, δεινά ταράσσει σοφός οϊωνοθέτας, ουτε δοκοϋνθ' οΰτ' άποφάσκονθ', δ τι λέξω δ' άπορώ. 483 δεινά με νΰν Bergk: δεινά μεν οϋν codd.

Oedipus Tyrannus

53

Β.-Κ. 2 4 2 - 3 ask whether easing the syntax is a sufficient reason f o r 'meddling with the text'; they are referring to our adoption of Bergk's conjecture. 'Moreover, the cost', they continue, 'seems higher than a single letter, νϋν, though not making nonsense of the text, seems hardly called for, and the elimination of the prospective μεν is not attractive, the less so since μεν ούν is repeated in the first line of the antistrophe . . . This parallelism seems sufficient reason to let the transmitted text alone. N o reader or listener will feel any doubt about the implied subject of the participles'. T o us νϋν seems very much to the point, and the 'parallelism' seems to have no significance whatever. Also we find the sentence appreciably easier to understand if the subject of the participles, to wit με, is in the text.

16. Ο. T. 513-19: άνδρες πολΐται, δείν' επη πεπυσμένος κατηγορείν μου τον τύραννον Οίδίπουν πάρειμ' άτλητών. ει γαρ έν ταϊς συμφοραΐς ταΐς νϋν δοκέΐ τι προς γ' έμοΰ πεπονθέναι, λόγοισιν εϊτ' εργοισιν ές βλάβην φέρον, οΰτοι βίου μοι τοΰ μακραίωνος πόθος, φέροντι τήνδε βάςιν. 516 δοκεϊ τι Blaydes: νομίζει codd. γ' έμοΰ pXrT: τ' έμοϋ KrpaTa et P. Oxy. 2180 ut videtur: de L non liquet: τί τ' έμοΰ Ο: τί μου Härtung (τι ut glossema praebent aT).

Daniela Colombo in MTS 403-6 argues f o r Hartung's πρός τί μου. But the γε is doing useful work, and Hartung's conjecture, like his conjecture at Ph. 700 (see Sophoclea p. 197), gives an undesirable word order. T h e gloss νομίζει will have been written in the margin in order to make it clear that δοκεϊ is not impersonal, but that its subject must be supplied from Οίδίπουν in 1.514. Kassel points out that an apparent parallel f o r the participle standing without the article or τις in a sentence in which the subject is not personal is found at Ant. 687, and that Wolff-Bellermann on that passage and Nauck and Jebb on the passage of the Ο. T. have thought that the two cases supported one another. We have followed Helmreich in deleting Ant. 687, which seems to us a very feeble line; but these scholars may be right.

54

Oedipus Tyrannus

17. Ο. Τ. 523-7: Xo. άλλ' ήλθε μεν δή τοΰτο τοΰνειδος, τάχ' αν δ' όργήι βιασθέν μάλλον η γνώμηι φρενών. Κρ. τουπος δ' έφάνθη ταΐς έμαΐς γνώμαις δτι πεισθείς ό μάντις τους λόγους ψευδείς λέγοι; Χο. ηύδατο μεν τάδ', οίδα δ' οΰ γνώμηι τίνι. Jebb translates 1.527 by 'Such things were said - I know not with what meaning', and so far as we know all editors have written τίνι. But in view of the Chorus' statement in 523-4, in the Loeb edition LI.-J. has written τινί and has translated 'This was said, but I know that it was unconsidered'; but Kassel draws attention to 530, and adds 'Der Chor gibt sich nicht wissend, sondern unwissend'.

18. Ο. T. 540-2: άρ' ούχί μωρόν έστι τοΰγχείρημά σου, ανευ τε πλούτου και φίλων τυραννίδα θηραν, δ πλήθει χρήμασίν θ' άλίσκεται; 541 πλούτου anon. (1803): πλήθους codd.

Mrs. Easterling (187) approves of the conjecture πλούτου, but thinks we should have urged in its favour that 'it helps to recall the opening of Oedipus' speech at 380 ff.' Wealth is so often mentioned among the necessary appurtenances of tyranny that many people must have heard or read this word without being reminded of the other passage.

19. Ο. T. 665-6: άλλα μοι δυσμόρωι γα φθίνουσα τρύχει καρδίαν ... καρδίαν Hermann: ψυχάν και codd.: λήμα και Pearson: κέαρ Arndt: κήρ Page O n t h e f o r m κήρ see Κ . Sier, Die

lyrischen

Partien

der Choephoren

des

Aischylos (1988) p. 149; neither he nor West in his edition of Aeschylus puts it in the text, and Garvie in his commentary rejects it; contra Günther, ES 114-5.

Oedipus Tyrannus

55

20. Ο. Τ. 676-7: πορεύσομαι, σοΰ μεν τυχών άγνώτος, έν δέ τοΐσδε σώς. σώς nos: ίσως rpa: ίσων Blaydes

Mrs. Easterling 187 objects to our conjecture that 'σώς ought to mean "safe in the eyes of these people", not that "he owes it to the Chorus that he is still a free m a n ' " . But we had quoted (Sophoclea p. 96) Aj. 519 έν σοι πασ' εγωγε σώιζομαι: in his note on that passage Jebb cites Ο. 77 314 έν σοι γαρ έσμέν, and Kamerbeek adds Ο. C 247 έν υμμι γαρ ώς θεώι and Ε., Ale. 278 έν σοι δ' έσμέν και ζην και μή.

21. Ο. Τ. 696: τανϋν δ' ευπομπος αύ γένοιο. αύ γένοιο Conradt, Blaydes: εί δύναιο γενοΰ codd.: εί γένοιο Bergk

In the app. crit. of the O C T , γενοΰ has been accidentally omitted. G ü n ther, ES 115 suggests εΰπομπος εί, δύναι (γαρ): but this gives feeble sense.

22. Ο. T. 708-9: έμοΰ 'πάκουσον και μάθ' οΰνεκ' εστι σοι βρότειον ουδέν μαντικής έχον τέχνης. 709 έχον suspectum

At one time we considered the possibility that έχον might be a corruption of όχόν. The only occurrence of this word listed in LSJ is at Philo of Byzantium, De septem mirabilibus i, 5. But at Od. 5, 404 Von der Mühll reads ού γαρ έσαν λιμένες νηών όχοί. The variant has manuscript authority (see van Thiel's edition), as well as occurring in the scholia (ed. Dindorf, I p. 285 I V νηών όχοί] οί συνέχοντες τάς ναΰς. η έφ' ών όχοΰνται και αναπαύονται αί νηες. ΣΕΡ δια τό όχεΐσθαι έν αύτοϊς τάς ναϋς. η οί έχοντες και φυλάσσοντες τάς ναϋς) and in Apollonius Sophista (ed. Bekker, p. 125 δχοι εί μεν βαρυτονοΐμεν, έσται μεταφορικώς τό λεγόμενον, λιμένες νηών οχήματα, δι' ών όχοΰνται (όχεΐται cod.) αί ναΰς. εί δ' όςυτονοϊτο όχοί, έσονται οί συνεκτικοί τών νεών. και πιθανώς έκάτερον έχει της έκδοχής). T h e line is imitated at Orphic Argonautica 1200 ού γάρ οϊ έστι λιμήν νηών όχός άμφιελισσών.

56

Oedipus Tyrannus

23. Ο. Τ. 772-3: τώι γαρ αν και κρείσσονι λέγοιμ' αν η σοι δια τύχης τοιασδ' ιών; 772 κρείσσονι Blaydes: μείζονι codd.

Note that at fr. 682,3 cod. S ac of Stobaeus 4,22, 80 (4, 527, 15 Hense) read μείζον κρεΐσσον: the other manuscripts rightly read κρεΐσσον only. 24. Ο. T. 788-90: . . . καί μ' ό Φοίβος ών μεν ίκόμην άτιμον έςέπεμψεν, άλλα δ' άθλίωι καί δεινά και δύστηνα προύφάνη λέγων . . . 790 προύφάνη] προυφηνεν Hermann

προΰφάνη had seemed to be protected against Hermann's conjecture, put in the text by Wunder, Herwerden and indeed Jebb and Pearson, by E., Hel. 515-6, where editors were accustomed to read: ηκουσα τας θεσπιωιδοΰ κόρας α χρήιζουσ' έφάνη τυράννοις δόμοις, ώς κτλ But now Diggle, Euripidea 424-7 has shown that χρήιζουσ' cannot mean prophesying, and has convincingly emended έφάνη to έπλάθην, thus obtaining four bacchii: α χρήιζουσ' έπλάθην τυράννοις δόμοισ(ιν). Now that we have no reason to believe that προύφάνη λέγων can mean 'openly declared', we must remember that, as Jebb puts it, 'προφαίνειν was a vox sollemnis for oracular utterance' and accept Hermann's emendation.

25. Ο. T. 794-6: κάγώ 'πακούσας ταΰτα την Κορινθίαν άστροις το λοιπόν τεκμαρούμενος χθόνα εφευγον . . . 795 τεκμαροΰμενος Nauck: έκμετρούμενος codd.

Kassel points out that Nauck in his revision of Schneidewin anticipated Housman in adducing the passage of Libanius quoted at Sophoclea 98. B.-K. 243 dismiss the relevance of this with the pronouncement that 'it is hardly relevant that άστροις τεκμαίρεσθαι was a proverbial expression some seven or eight centuries after Sophocles wrote his play'. Libanius knew the ancient classics well, and in this matter carries more weight than many writers nearer in time to Sophocles; Kopff, indeed, thinks (159) that he may be echoing Sophocles, and he may be right. B.-K.

Oedipus Tyrannus

57

somewhat indignantly complain that we have not explained the corruption; but though they seem not to realise that TEKMA is not so very distant from EKMET, others will take the point. They find it hard to see why the participle is in the future, apparently not seeing that it tells us what Oedipus' resolution for the future at the time in question was. It seems clear enough to us that the manuscripts exhibit an intrusive gloss, and that τό λοιπόν coheres better with a future participle.

26. Ο. T. 807-9: καί μ' ό πρέσβυς, ώς όραι, δχους παραστείχοντα τηρήσας, μέσον κάρα διπλοΐς κέντροισί μου καθίκετο 808 δχους Doederlein: δχου codd.: δχον H.Stephanus

D.M.Bain, who at ZPE 79 (1989) 71 had explained καθικόμενοί μου in a documentary papyrus (P.Mich. Inv. 6979), in Sileno 17 (1991) 235-7 makes a good case for the view taken by Jebb and lately by Kamerbeek and Longo that μου is governed by καθίκετο with κάρα as accusative of the part affected, thus avoiding the awkward separation of μου from κάρα by διπλοΐς κέντροισί.

27. Ο. TT 813-6: εί δε τώι ξένωι τούτωι προσήκει Λαίωι τι συγγενές, τίς τοΰδέ γ' ανδρός νϋν αν άθλιώτερος, τις έχθροδαίμων μάλλον αν γένοιτ' άνηρ . . . ; 815 άν Bergk: έστ' Lrp: έστιν at

Renehan 360-1 accepts Bergk's conjecture, but offers a more precise explanation of the corruption. 'Someone took 815 as an integral unit', he writes, 'and could not understand the άν, which seemed to hang in the air'; 'it was not perceived that both verses cohere closely and that the άν in each verse goes with γένοιτ'. Consequently 815 seemed to be ungrammatical, and someone at one fell swoop consciously removed the άν and replaced it by the most obvious word - the expected verb έστ".

28. Ο. Τ. 846-7: εί δ' άνδρ' εν' οίόζωνον αΰδήσει σαφώς, τοΰτ' εστίν ηδη τούργον εις έμέ ρέπον.

58

Oedipus Tyrannus

ζώννυσθαι ('girding oneself up') is what one does before travelling; thus f o r Herodotus (1,72 and 107; 2 , 3 4 ) and Thucydides (2,97) the unencumbered traveller is άνήρ ευζωνος, and according to Plutarch, Vita Pelopidae 3, 3 Epaminondas spoke of a πενία εΰζωνος. Thus as the solitary oarsman is called μονόκωπος (1128) the solitary traveller is called μονόζωνος (Sept. 4 Kings 5,2), μονόζωσ-tos (Hermesianax 7,7). Cf. I.J. F. de Jong, M H 46 (1989), 240-1.

29. Ο. T. 873-82: ύβρις φυτεύει τύραννο ν ύβρις, εΐ πολλών ύπερπλήσθηι μάταν 875 α μη 'πίκαιρα μηδέ συμφέροντα, ακρότατα γέΐσ' άναβασ' άπότομον ώρουσεν εις άνάγκαν, ενθ' ού ποδΐ χρησίμωι χρηται. τό καλώς δ' εχον 880 πόλει πάλαισμα μήποτε λΰσαι θεό ν αιτούμαι. θεόν ού λήξω ποτέ προστάταν ισχων. Kopff 158 finds an inconsistency between the view that 'the king or tyrant cannot be a product of hybris' and the view that 'the child of hybris is a tyrant' (thus Ll.-J., The Justice of Zeus, 2nd. edn., 213, n.23); he has not seen that in the latter sentence 'the child of hybris' is not a person but an abstraction. C . C a r e y , JHS 106 (1986) 175-9 thought that the words denoted 'a type, an extreme example of the heights which human self-esteem seeks to scale'. It seems to us that the 'tyrant' is the new hybris which is begotten by the old, as at Solon fr. 6 , 3 f. Hybris begets Koros and at Α., Ag. 763 f. an old Hybris begets a new. H o w anyone can have failed to understand this view after reading our note at Sophoclea p. 100 is a mystery.

30. Ο. T. 892-4: τίς ετι ποτ' έν τοΐσδ' άνήρ θυμοΰ βέλη τεύξεται ψυχας άμύνων; 892 θυμοΰ pa: θυμώι Lrpa: θεών Hermann (βέλη θεών Kennedy) 894 τεύξεται Hölscher: ερςεται (ερ-) codd.: εΰςεται Musgrave άμύνων Erfurdt: άμύνειν codd.

τεύξεται in the sense of 'succeed' is hardly supported by the parallels adduced by Hölscher at Sprachen der Lyrik (1983), p. 387, n. 31. At Plato,

Oedipus Tyrannus

59

Philebus 50 D ειπών δέ σμικρά οΐμαί σου τεύξεσθαι μεθέϊναί με the sense is Ί shall get your consent to release me* and at E., Phoeti. 615 Eteocles replies to Polynices' request to be allowed to see his father with ούκ αν τύχοις, which means 'Your request cannot be granted'. Neither does the material at LSJ s.v. τυγχάνω II Β help much. It is conceivable that ερςεται got in from 1. 890. H e r m a n n cut it out, emended θυμώι to θεών and read: τίς ετι ποτ' έν τοΐσδ' άνήρ θεών βέλη ψυχας άμύνειν; This he translated 'Quis amplius huiusmodi cum factis satis vir est ut deorum tela a vita sua arceat?'. In that case it would not be necessary to believe in a lacuna at 906-7, f o r this would respond with the text of the manuscripts: φθίνοντα γαρ Λαίου θέσφατ' έςαιροΰσιν ήδη. N o t surprisingly Hermann's way of taking άνήρ . . . άμύνειν was questioned. H ä r t u n g suggested άμύνηι, dubitative subjunctive; G . W o l f f accepted it, but pointed out that one would expect τίς άν άμύνοι o r perhaps πώς τις άμύνηι. Campbell's άμύνοι (potential optative without άν, as at Ant. 604-5) would then seem the best solution. But the case is desperate, and Dawe places cruces against θυμώι and ερξεται.

31. Ο. Τ. 895-6: εΐ γαρ αί τοιαίδε πράξεις τίμιαι, τί δει με χορεύειν; Some critics, including Wilamowitz and D o d d s , have held that in this place the Chorus breaks the dramatic illusion and asks why if Apollo's oracle turns out to have been mistaken choral performances in tragedies should continue. Others, like LI.-J., The Justice of Zeus (1971; 2nd. edn., 1983) 110, Stinton, PCPS 22 (1976) 253, and D . M . B a i n , C Q 25 (1975) 16, n. 2, have pointed out that the gods were very commonly honoured with choruses, so that there is no reason to suppose that the members of the chorus suddenly cease to speak as Theban elders and speak as Athenians taking part in a public festival. The former kind of view has been eagerly espoused by the modern school of critics influenced by the work of J.-P. Vernant and other French scholars, who have been at pains to stress the importance of tragedy's being a religious ritual of the Athenian polis and the pervasive presence in it of the god Dionysus. It has been argued for with much learning and ingenuity by Albert H e n -

60

Oedipus Tyrannus

richs, Arion, 3rd. series, 3.1, Fall 1994/Winter 1995, 56-111, with abundant references to the relevant literature. But we are not convinced; see, for example, Α., Ag. 22-4, S., Ant. 152-4, E., H.F. 763-5, all passages in which we are told that the celebration of a success will be marked by choral dances in honour of the gods. Naturally the old men do not mean that they themselves will dance. Wilamowitz on Ar. Lys. 539 writes, speaking of the Chorus of old women in that play, "Er erwähnt das Tanzen ganz unbefangen, das doch für ihn als komischen Chor, nicht als Rotte von Greisinnen gilt. Ebenso Frieden 326. Die Tragödie erlaubt sich dasselbe, Musterbeispiel tt δα με χορεύειν Soph. Oed. 896'.

32. Ο. Τ. 919-20: οτ' ούν παραινοΰσ' ουδέν ές πλέον ποώ, πρός σ', ώ Λύκει' "Απολλον, αγχιστος γαρ εί, ίκετίς άφϊγμαι τοΐσδε συν κατεύγμασιν. Renehan 361 concurs in rejecting Wunder's κατάργμασιν. συν, he rightly says, 'is here used to express means (LSJ s.v. A. 7) and need not imply the presence of any physical object'; but in the Loeb edition the phrase is rendered by 'with these accompaniments of prayer', and these also are 'physical objects'.

33. Ο. T. 941-2: Ιο. τί δ'; ούχ ό πρέσβυς Πόλυβος έγκρατής έτι; Αγ. ού δήτ', έπεί νιν θάνατος έν τάφοις έχει. 942 ΐάφοις] δόμοις p

δόμοις should be in the text; 'death holds him in his halls'. The two phrases are equivalent, but it is easy to see which is likelier to gloss the other.

34. Ο. T. 957: Οι. τί φήις, ςέν'; αυτός μοι σύ σημήνας γενοΰ. σημήνας LrPa: σημάντωρ Kpat et γρ in L et G

Ernst Fraenkel, Geschichte der gr. Nomina agentis auf -τηρ, -τωρ, -της (-τ-) (1910), i 217 n. 3 thought that the scribe of the Parisinus A had failed to understand the periphrasis and so had changed σημήνας to

Oedipus Tyrannus

61

σημάντωρ. Kopff 158-9 seems to think that because we now know that σημάντωρ is in K, written before the Parisinus, σημάντωρ must be right; but the corruption might have occurred earlier. He adds that 'if a verb common in verse and scholiastic prose is more likely to suffer corruption than a tragic hapax legomenon, we may bid a fond farewell to the concept of lectio facilior' (does he mean difficiliorl). H e seems not to have noticed that in our view it was not the simple word σημήνας but the periphrasis σημήνας γενοΰ that caused the difficulty, nor to have remarked that the fact that σημάντωρ occurs nowhere else in tragedy does not necessarily tell in favour of its lightness.

35. Ο. T. 987: Οι. και μην μέγας (γ') οφθαλμός οί πατρός τάφοι. οφθαλμός means 'a source of light', and hence 'a source of comfort'; see Ll.-J. in Philanthropia kai Eusebeia (Festschrift A. Dihle, 1993), p. 302.

36. Ο. T. 1056-7: Ιο. τί δ' δντιν' είπε; μηδέν έντράπηις. μάτην ρηθέντα βούλου μηδέ μεμνήσθαι τάδε. 1057 μεμνήσθαι: 'Den Medien entsprechen rücksichtlich der Bedeutung z.Th. die Passiva . . . So heisst αίρεΐσθαι wählen und gewählt werden, μεταπέμπεσθαι herbeikommen lassen und herbeigerufen werden': K.W.Krüger, Griechische Sprachlehre, 6th. edn., section 52,10,11 (p. 1 6 6 ) .

37. Ο. Γ 1086-91: εϊπερ εγώ μάντις ειμί και κατά γνώμαν ϊδρις, ού τον "Ολυμπον απείρων, ώ Κιθαιρών, ούκ έσηι τάν αυριον 1090 πανσέληνον μη ού σέ γε και πατριώταν Οίδίπου και τροφόν και ματέρ' αΰςειν . . . 1090 και] τον Wilamowitz

The note in Sophoclea (p. 104) needs one amendment. Wilamowitz was right in taking πανσέληνον to be the subject of αυξειν. But his emendation of και to τον is not needed; the night of the full moon is to glorify

62

Oedipus Tyrannus

Cithaeron as countryman, nurse and mother of Oedipus. The mountain god would indeed be thought of as a male, but the notion that the mountain can be thought of as Oedipus' mother is not impossible. At E., Tro. 1221-2 Hector's shield, denoted by the neuter noun σάκος, is addressed as mother of many triumphs: σύ τ' ώ ποτ' ούσα καλλίνικε μυρίων μήτερ τροπαίων, "Εκτορος φίλον σάκος, στέφανου.

At Ε., Ale. 377 Alcestis tells Admetus that he must be a mother as well as a father to their children. At S., Tr. 833-4 the parents of the poison of the shirt of Nessus are Death and the Hydra, referred to by the masculine noun δράκων (see p. 88).

38. Ο. T. 1111-2: εΐ χρή τι κάμε μη συναλλάςαντά πω, πρέσβεις, σταθμοίσθαι . . . 1111 πρέσβεις ρ: -ει Lpc pa: -υ ρ: -υν rat : de Lac et Κ non liquet

Renehan 361 supports πρέσβεις, pointing out that the plural occurs three times in tragedy, each time in the vocative case and addressed to a chorus of old men. Bruhn had already cited Α., Pen. 831 and E., H.F. 247.

39. Ο. T. 1193: τον σον τοι παράδειγμ' έχων τον σον δαίμονα, τον σόν, ώ τλαμον Οιδίποδα, βροτών ουδέν μακαρίζω. 1193 töv Camerarius: τό codd.

Dain's statement that τον σόν is the reading of the Roman family was corrected by Colonna (ii 54), and implicitly by Dawe.

40. O.T. 1196-8: δστις καθ' ύπερβολάν τοξεύσας έκράτησας ού πάντ' εύδαίμονος δλβου 1197 έκράτησας ού Reisig: έχράτησας τοϋ codd.: έκράτησε τοϋ Ambrosianus L 39 sup., coni. Hermann

Oedipus Tyrannus

63

On responsion between a dragged and a normal glyconic, see Diggle, Euripidea 471-3. B.-K. 242-3 defend έκράτησας τοΰ, complaining that έκράτηασας ού yields a sense inconsistent with 1204. But with Reisig's conjecture πάντ' εΰδαίμονος here means not 'prosperous in all respects', but 'in all ways sanctioned by the gods' (thus the Loeb edition); in their own words, 'Oedipus' seeming happiness . . . is contrasted with the terrible reality'.

41. Ο. T. 1266-7: έπεί δέ γήι εκείτο τλήμων, δεινά γ' ην τάνθένδ' όραν. 1267 γ' D , Τ s.l.: δ' cett.

Craik and Mastronarde also reject apodotic δέ at E., Ph. 47, where see the latter's note.

42. Ο. T. 1275-9: τοιαΰτ' έφυμνών πολλάκις τε κούχ απας ηρασσ' έπαίρων βλέφαρα, φοίνιαι δ' όμοΰ γλήναι γένει' ετεγγον, ούδ' ανίεσαν. [φόνου μυδώσας σταγόνας, άλλ' όμοΰ μέλας όμβρος "("χαλάζης αϊματoςt έτέγγετο.] 1278-9 del. West 1279 χαλάζης αίματος] χάλαζά θ' αίματοϋσσ' Porson: alii alia (αίματος (θ') Z r p c t)

Kirkwood 26 is mistaken in thinking that we placed 1278-9 in brackets simply because of goriness. One reason why we did so is that άνίεσαν makes more satisfactory sense as an intransitive verb that ends a sentence than as a transitive verb with μυδώσας σταγόνας as its object. Even with Porson's emendation, black rain is curiously combined with bloody hail, and έτέγγετο not only feebly echoes the same verb in 1277, but scarcely suits the sense. S. Lavecchia in MTS 406-7 cites the two Pindaric passages which seem relevant, Isth. 5, 50 χαλαζάεντι φόνωι and Isth. 7, 27 χάλαζαν αίματος. He prefers to Porson's conjecture Heath's αίματοΰς, and shows some sympathy with Dawe's χαλαζής (χαλάζηις, apparently the reading of A, had been conjectured by Hermann, and later read by Meineke and Herwerden). As he remarks, 'il problema di έτέγγετο e lasciato in sospeso'. It may well be that that word originated in a mechanical repetition from 1.1277, so that something like Herwerden's έρρήγνυτο may have been

64

Oedipus Tyrannus

right. Once this last point has been recognised, the case for interpolation becomes weaker and that for corruption stronger. If one is prepared to reckon with a large degree of corruption, one may try to deal with the various anomalies of the passage by emendation, but without much hope of obtaining a generally acceptable result. The problem of άνίεσαν could be dealt with by reading in 1278 μυδώσαι σταγόνες, so that the verb could be intransitive; in 1279 one might adopt Porson's χάλαζά θ' αίματοΰσσ' and Herwerden's έρρήγνυτο. But all this is more safely left in the app. crit., with cruces in the text.

43. Ο. T. 1280-1: Ί"τάδ' εκ δυοΐν ερρωγεν ού μόνου κακά")" αλλ' άνδρί και γυναικί συμμιγή κακά. Lavecchia, op.cit., 407-8, boldly suggests πικρά or λυγρά at the end of 1280 and εμφανώς for έκ δυοΐν; he would apparently keep μόνου, whose meaning would not then be easy to grasp. The range of possibilities is so wide that this violent emendation was not worth making. Günther, ES 117 would delete 1281 only.

44. Ο. T. 1287-9: βοαι διοίγειν κλήιθρα και δηλοΰν τινα τοις πασι Καδμείοισι τον πατροκτόνον, τον μητρός, αύδών άνόσι' ούδέ ρητά μοι. L. 1289 is regarded by some as a breach of Porson's Law; see Diggle, Euripidea 456-7. See on Ph. 682 (misprinted in n. 68 on Diggle's p. 457).

45. 0 . 7 7 1330-2: στρ. 'Απόλλων τάδ' ήν, 'Απόλλων, φίλοι, ό κακά κακά τελών έμά τάδ' έμά πάθεα. επαισε δ' αύτόχειρ νιν οΰτις άλλ' εγώ τλάμων. 1350-2: άντ. δλοιθ' όστις ήν ός άγριας πέδας νομάς έπιποδίας μ' ελαβ' άπό τε φόνου (μ') ερυτο κάνέσωσεν, ούδέν ές χάριν πράσσων. 1350 μ' ελαβ' Kamerbeek post Elmsley: ελαβέ μ' V, sch.: ελυσέ μ' Krp: ελυσεν a

Oedipus Tyrannus

65

L. Battezzato, Prometheus 21 (1995) 97-101 observes that with V s ελαβέ μ' in 1350 we get a dochmius kaibelianus in both strophe and antistrophe. Exactly, and we d o not have to worry about interlinear hiatus; see Stinton, C Q 27 (1977) 46 = CPGT 334.

46. Ο. T. 1380: κάλλιστ' άνήρ είς εν γε ταΐς Θήβαις τραφείς The use of γε can be defended; cf. Plato, Protagoras 309 D σοφωτάτωι μεν ούν δήπου των γε νϋν, εΐ σοι δοκα σοφώτατος είναι Πρωταγόρας, and other instances at K.-G. ii, 174, 5. For a word derived from this verb being used not only of early nurture, cf. O. C. 760, where Creon speaks to Oedipus of Thebes as having been σή πάλαι τροφός. But its effect is feeble, and there is much to be said f o r its deletion.

47. Ο. T. 1515-30: See now Davies, Prometheus 17 (1991), 1-18.

ANTIGONE 1. Ant. 1-3: ώ κοινόν αύτάδελφον 'Ισμήνης κάρα, άρ' οίσθ' δτι Ζευς των άπ' Οίδίπου κακών ά, ποίον ούχί νώιν ετι ζώσαιν τελεί; 2 δτι Hermann: ο τι codd. 3 ά, ποίον nos: όποιον codd.

Strangely enough no one has observed that our conjecture in 1.3 requires Hermann's δτι in 1.2; but as we expected, our emendation in such a well-known passage has incurred much disapproval. A.Brown, C Q 41 (1991) 325 finds that we 'have a solution that will win few adherents'. Perhaps it is our fault that Brown has misunderstood the meaning, since he thinks, probably because of our carelessness in not writing δτι, that 'the change of construction is pointless'. But the change of construction is hardly as pointless as the two unfortunate lines of his own composition which Brown inserts after 1.2. According to West 300, the conjecture 'reads like a conjecture'. Zimmermann 106 and Kopff 156 complain that the parallels cited are cases of a different use of ά, that in which it indicates a protest; Kirkwood 29 reckons only with Sophoclean instances, and therefore seems to know only that kind of use. E. Schwentner, Die primären Interjektionen in den indogermanischen Sprachen (1924) 6 writes 'Griech. α 'ach, oh, weh, ha' Ausruf der Verwunderung, der Klage, des Schmerzes, Unwillens und Mitleids, auch des Hohnes'. Kannicht on Ε., Hei. 445 writes ' Der Ausruf kann entweder (1) - wie αίάΐ - körperliche oder seelische Schmerzenempfindung (Rhes. 749. 798; Med 1056) oder (2) - wie εα - Erstaunen ( H F 629, Ba. 586) oder Protest (ΟΛ 1147, Phil 1300, Rh. 687) ausdrücken'. Just so Dodds on Ε., Bacch. 810 writes 'It can be a gasp of astonishment ... or a groan of pain . . . but often it expresses urgent protest. 'Seelische Schmerzenempfindung' - a groan of pain - is well suited to the context here, and so is urgent protest. See Renehan 362-3 for a far more sympathetic comment on the conjecture. We do not claim that it is anything like certain, but we note with pleasure that Renehan thinks that it 'deserves to be taken very seriously'. D. Mervyn Jones, C Q 45 (1995) 237 observes that a scholion on 1.2 explains δ τι by άντί τοϋ όποιον, and suggests that όποιον in 1.3 may have originated as a gloss on δ τι. If that is so, όποιον might have replaced almost any word; Mervyn Jones' own guess is θανόντος.

Antigone

67

But Mervyn Jones does not tell us where the scholion is to be found; it is not in Papageorgius' edition, where on p. 213 we find τό δ τι άντί τοΰ δ. But in Elmsley's edition of the scholia of 1825, p. 97, άντί τοΰ όποιον is cited from "R. Br.", and according to Gaisford's preface, p. vii, these sigla stand for the Roman edition and Brunck. Of the Roman edition of the scholia by Janus Lascaris (1518) Papageorgius writes (p. vi) 'Laurentiani scripturas saepe depravavit, nonnulla omisit, locos corruptos non paucos ex coniectura correxit'. Elmsley in his edition of the play of 1823, p. iii writes 'Romanam scholiorum editionem, quam tanti fecerant Porsonus aliique, in annotatione mea prorsus neglexi, propterea quod scholia ex eodem codice iterum descripta habeo, idque accuratius, ni fallor, quam in impressis leguntur'. At O. C. 84 (see Elmsley's edition of the play, pp.ν and 96) the Roman edition had ώ πότνι' ώ δεινώπες· τό εντελές ώ πότνιαι: and Elmsley wams us that the lemma ώ πότνι' ώ δεινώπες' non nisi editoris coniectura nititur\ It looks as if άντί τοΰ όποιον is an attempt by Janus Lascaris to improve on άντί τοΰ δ.

2. Ant 55-7: τρίτον δ' άδελφοί δύο μίαν καθ' ήμέραν αύτοκτονοΰντε τώ ταλαιπώρω μόρον κοινόν κατειργάσαντ' έπαλλήλοιν χεροΐν. 57 έπαλλήλοιν KSUZf, coni. Hermann: έπ' άλλήλοιν cett.

H.-C. Günther, Hermes 118 (1990) 405-7 argues for Emperius' ύπ' άλλήλων χεροΐν (Boissonade had conjectured ύπ' άλλήλοιν χεροΐν), which he thinks may echo Thebais fr. 3, 4 Davies (p. 21) χερσίν ύπ' άλλήλων καταβήμεναι "Αιδος ε'ίσω. It is true that επάλληλος does not occur again before Polybius, and that there and in later authors it means something different. But when one remembers Homer's frequent use of έπ' άλλήλοισιν in phrases describing how enemies encounter one another (see C.E.Schmidt, Parallel-Homer (1885), 77), echoed by Ar., Lys. 50 έπ' άλλήλοισιν αΐρεσθαι δόρυ, it is not hard to imagine that έπάλληλος could mean what it has been supposed to mean in this passage.

3. Ant. 71: άλλ' ισθ' όποία σοι δοκέΐ. όποία Kt et novit schol.: όποΐά cett.

Kassel adds to the passages assembled at Sophoclea 118 to support όποία Menander, Dysc. 65 and 771.

68

Antigone

4. Ant. 106-9: τον λευκάσπιν "|"Άργόθεν φώτα βάντα πανσαγίαι")" φυγάδα πρόδρομον όςυτόρωι κινήσασα χαλινώι. 1 0 6 - 7 λεύκασπιν . . . πανσαγίαι] λευκάσπισιν . . . πανσαγίαις Günther

106-7: see now H.-C. Günther, Hermes 118 (1990), 407-8, for arguments in favour of his attractive suggestion. 108: Kopff 157 has found όςυπόρωι, conjectured by Musgrave, in S (Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 141), and opines that 'a fast-moving bridle, i. e. one which drives the horses into flight, is what we want'. Does one drive horses into flight with a bridle? A.Brown, C Q 41 (1991) 408 returns to the defence of Blaydes' όςυτόνωι, which is ingeniously derived from Α., Sept. 122 f. δια δέ τοι γενύων ίππίων κινύρονται φόνον χαλινοί. This he takes to refer to 'the wind (or the horses' breath) whistling past the bits as the army retreats in full flight'. With the reading of the manuscripts, as we interpret it, 'the audience', he thinks, 'would hardly have found the metaphor intelligible'. At C Q 7 (1957) 13 = AP i 309 Ll.-J. was at pains to demonstrate that 'whenever the word [χαλινός] is used in a sense wholly or partly metaphorical, its mention implies restraint or compulsion, never acceleration or encouragement'.

5. Ant. 110-6: δς έφ' ήμετέραι γήι Πολυνείκους αρθείς νεικέων ές άμφιλόγων όςέα κλάζων αΐετός ές γήν ως ύπερέπτα, λευκής χιόνος πτέρυγι στεγανός πολλών μεθ' όπλων ςύν θ' ίπποκόμοις κορυθεσσιν. 113 ές γήν (γάν ISt) ώς] ές γήν Hermann: ώς γήν Blaydes

113: In the first sentence of the note on 113 at Sophoclea. p. 120, read 'Hermann obtained a paroemiac by reading ές γήν and Blaydes by reading ως γήν'. 114: on the genitives, see Diggle, Euripidea 417-8.

Antigone

69

6. Ant. 134-40: άντιτύπαι δ' επί γαι πέσε τανταλωθείς 135 πυρφόρος δς τότε μαινομέναι συν όρμαι βακχευων έπέπνει ριπαϊς έχθίστων άνεμων, είχε δ' άλλαι τάδ'· (άλλ') αλλ' έπ' άλλοις έπενωμα στυφελίζων μέγας "ΑΙ 40 ρης δεξιόσειρος. A . F . H . B i e r l , Dionysos und die griechische Tragödie (1991) 63, n.58 believes that because Capaneus is not actually named it must be Polyneices and not he w h o is described here. At Sophoclea, p. 195 we alluded to the fact that 'a mythical personage is often alluded to in a tragic chorus without mention of his name', referring to Malcolm Davies, Z P E 72 (1988) 39 f. Capaneus, he thinks, could be known to the audience only from the version of his story used by Aeschylus in the Seven Against Thebes·, a glance at Hutchinson's commentary on that work could have undeceived him. The early epic Thebaid, which Herodotus (5,67) believed to be the work of H o m e r , was widely known, and was certainly familiar to many of those w h o witnessed the first performance of the Antigone. In fifth-century art Capaneus is a fairly common subject, especially in Etruria, but also in Attica. In particular, the final episode of his life, which the poet clearly had in mind when he wrote this passage, was popular with artists; see Ingrid Krauskopf's article in LIMC V i s.v. Kapaneus (p.952-63). Bierl's unfortunate error seems to have been caused by his wish to maximise the importance of references to Dionysus in tragedy; 'ausserdem gewinnt durch den Bezug der Verse 135-137 auf ihn [Polyneices] die dionysische Polarisierung grössere Stringenz, indem so das Bruderpaar f ü r jeweils eine Seite des dionysischen Wirkens beansprucht wird'. N o t surprisingly, he can name only two predecessors in this unfortunate misconception. At 138 Günther, Hermes 118 (1990) 408-9 boldly emends this locus vexatus and reads είλε δ' άτα (νιν α)δ'· άλλα δ' έπ' άλλοις, κτλ. Brown, art. cit. 327-8, objecting to our (άλλ'), apparently because he assumes that the particle άλλά would be avoided f o r fear of confusion with άλλα, revives Wecklein's τά τοΰδ', eliminating έπ' and reading άλλα δ' άλλοις. One does not see how έπ' came to be inserted. Brown finds στυφελίζων in 139 to be 'feeble', and thinks to remedy this by conjecturing δεςιόχειρος and taking it 'adverbially' with the participle. T o us στυφελίζων seems distinctly forceful.

70

Antigone 7. Ant. 241-2: εύ γε στοχάζηι κάποφάργνυσαι κύκλωι τό πραγμα.

Renehan, Greek Lexicographical Notes (First Series,1975), 181 reminds us that W.Jaeger, Hermes 67 (1932) 126-9 = Scripta Minora II 115-8 defended Jacobs' conjecture στεγάζηι, which has now been pronounced 'faultless' by Brown, art. cit. 329-30; but we see no need for emendation.

8. Ant. 252: άσημος ούργάτης τις ήν. West, BICS 31 (1984) 183 revived Keek's τίς, saying that the sense is not that the perpetrator was 'an indistinct kind of person', but that he was indistinct in his identity. He compares E., Hipp. 269 ασημα δ' ήμϊν ήτις εστίν ή νόσος: Sophocles, he says, 'could have written ασημον, but preferred the personal construction commonly found with δήλος and so on'. We should like to see a parallel case featuring δήλος or any word of similar meaning. But West's translation makes the words seem awkward in a way the Greek is not; the Loeb translation says ' the doer left no mark'. So even if we knew a sentence like δήλος είμι τίς είμι, we would not insert the accent.

9. Ant. 264-6: ήμεν δ' έτοιμοι και μύδρους αϊρειν χεροΐν, και πϋρ διέρπειν, και θεούς όρκωμοτέΐν τό μήτε δρασαι μήτε τωι ςυνειδέναι. Although there are several mentions of walking through fire in early Greek literature (see J. Henderson on Ar., Lys. 133), there seems to be no other mention of the ordeal of clasping red-hot lumps of iron. 'Ces μύδροι', wrote G. Glotz, L'ordalie dans la Greceprimitive (1904, reprinted 1979) 109, 'qui avaient constitue primitivement le materiel d' une ordalie, ont du accompagner l'ordalie dans ses transformations, et lä ou elle est devenue un simple serment, les μύδροι ont pris un sens symbolique. Us se retrouvent done dans le ceremonial du serment, et du serment promissoire comme du serment purgatoire'.

Antigone

71

10. Ant. 268-70: τέλος δ' δτ' ουδέν ήν έρευνώσιν πλέον, λέγει τις εις, δς πάντας ες πέδον κάρα νεϋσαι φόβωι προυτρεψεν. 269 εις δς] είς δ Nauck: επος δ Blaydes

In the Loeb edition LI.-J. has adopted Nauck's conjecture. ' D a ß λέγει ein Objekt braucht, ist unzweifelhaft und N.'s δ f ü r δς evident' writes Gerhard Müller. H e is a little too categorical, since the verb can mean loqui as well as dicere (e.g., at 1061); but in this place it seems better rhetoric to make the utterance rather than the utterer the subject, and είς is still contrasted effectively with πάντας.

11. Ant. 318: τί δέ ρυθμίζεις την έμήν λύπην δπου; δέ SVRz, Plut. Μ or. 509 C: δαί lat

Diggle prints δαί at Ε., Hei. 1246, but not at I.A 1443, which he places between cruces, or 1447 ('fortasse Euripidei'). West, Studies in Aeschylus (1990) 258 defends it at Cho. 900. "When we call δαί colloquial', he writes, 'perhaps this amounts to saying that it is blunter and less urbane than δή'.

12. Ant. 365-70: σοφόν τι τδ μηχανόεν τέχνας ύπέρ έλπίδ' εχων τότε μεν κακόν, άλλοτ' έπ' έσθλόν ερπει. νόμους παρείρων χθονός θεών τ' ενορκον δίκαν ΰψίπολις. 368 παρείρων fere codd.: γεραίρων Reiske: alii alia

Kirkwood 28 finds the defence o f ' t h e much subtler and more meaningful παρείρων to be 'heart-warming'. But Kopff 155 finds the word to be 'inappropriate for the passage', and makes it seem so by quoting our paraphrase (Sophoclea p. 124) as though it were offered as a translation. West finds our argument to be 'worthy of Verrall'. It is an attempt to interpret what is transmitted, and we would be wary of altering the unusual word, which looks as if it was deliberately chosen.

72

Antigone

13. Ant. 422-3: και τοΰδ' άπαλλαγέντος έν χρόνωι μακρώι ή παις όράται κάνακωκύει πικρώς δρνιθος οςύν φθόγγον, ώς οταν κενής εύνής νεοσσών όρφανόν βλέψηι λέχος. 422 άπαλλαγέντος] -έντες RS, coni. Schäfer 423 πικρώς Bothe: πικρδς codd.: πικρά Dawe

422: Günther, Hermes 118 (1990) 409-10 carefully weighs the possibility that άπαλλαγέντες might be right. As he remarks, a hanging nominative is perhaps not a construction that one would wish to introduce by a conjecture. If άπαλλαγέντες had been transmitted, one would have considered the possibility that something might be missing after 1.422. 423: P. Riemer, Sophokles, Antigone - Götterwille und menschliche Freiheit' (Abhandlungen der Mainzer Akademie, No. 12, 1991) 27, n. 54 defends πίκρας as an instance of enallage. He feels that the emendation deprives the passage of its poetical colouring, agreeing with Jebb that 'there is a pathos in this which is lost by reading πικρώς'.

14. Ant. 439-42: Φυ. ... άλλα πάντα ταΰθ' ησσω λαβείν έμοί πέφυκε της έμής σωτηρίας. Κρ. σέ δη, σέ την νεύουσαν ές πέδον κάρα, φήις, ή καταρνηι μη δεδρακέναι τάδε; 439 πάντα ταΰθ' LaZot: ταϋτα πάνθ' SVRZf: τάλλα πάνθ' Housman: πάντα τάλλ' Blaydes

439: Diggle, Euripidea 51-2 rightly argues that there is much to be said for emendation. Housman, JPh 20 (1892) 26-7 = CP i 210 adapted Blaydes' emendation on the ground that in Sophocles the order is always τάλλα πάντα. Only two of the passages he lists (Aj. 1398 and Ph. 1442) have the identical words τάλλα πάντα: we find τά δ' άλλα πάντα at El. 657( as at Α., Eum. 650), τά δ' άλλα ... πάνθ' at Ο. C. 609, τά τ' αλλ' ... πάντ' at Ph. 610, τους ... άλλους πάντας at El. 741. 441: Kassel compares Aristophanes fr. 410 K.-A. ώς ές την γήν κύψασα κάτω και ξυννενοφυϊα βαδίζει, which the grammarians explain by άντί τοϋ σκυθρωπάζουσα and Theophrastus, Characters 24, where the Arrogant Man is said έν τάϊς όδοΐς πορευό μένος μή λαλέΐν τοις έντυγχάνουσι, κάτω κεκυφώς, δταν δε αύτώι δόςηι, άνω πάλιν.

Antigone

73

15. Ant. 465-8: οΰτως έμοιγε τοϋδε τοϋ μόρου τυχεΐν παρ' ούδέν άλγος· άλλ' αν, εΐ τον ές έμής μητρός θανόντ' άθαπτον (δντ') ήνεσχόμην, κείνοις αν ή λ γ ο υ ν τοϊσδε δ' ουκ άλγύνομαι. 467 (οντ') ήνεσχόμην Blaydes: ήνεσχόμην νέκυν Ζο: ήνσχόμην νέκυν a: ήισχόμην νέκυν LRS: ήνειχόμην νέκυν V

Günther, art. cit. 410-2 finds more difficulties here than we do. O n παρ' ούδέν άλγος in 466, see Jebb. 'Doppelte Augmentierung wie in ήνεσχόμην', G ü n t h e r writes, 'ist dem Epos und der Lyrik fremd'; but this is tragedy (cf., e.g., Α., Ag. 905 and S., Ph. 411), and as Gerhard Müller observes, if we restore the correct form ήνεσχόμην we get an ending to the trimeter that makes νέκυν unnecessary. Blaydes' insertion of (οντ') makes the word order normal; όντ' having been lost through haplography, νέκυν was inserted.

16. Ant. 523: ού γαρ συνέχθειν, άλλα συμφιλεΐν εφυν. The Rt. H o n . J. Ε. Powell has kindly confirmed the truth of the statement at Sophoclea p. 126 that Greek has never been quoted in the British House of Commons since Neville Chamberlain used this line to justify his appeasement of Hitler.

17. Ant. 571-7: Κρ. κακάς έγώ γυναίκας υίέσι στυγώ. Ις. ώ φίλταθ' Αίμον, ως σ' ατιμάζει πατήρ. Κρ. άγαν γε λυπείς και σύ και τό σον λέχος. Ις. ή γαρ στερήσεις τήσδε τον σαυτοΰ γ ό ν ο ν ; 575 Κρ. "Αιδης ό παύσων τούσδε τους γάμους έμοί. Ις. δεδογμέν', ώς έοικε, τήνδε κατθανέΐν. Κρ. και σοί γε κάμοί. 572 Ismenae tribuunt codd., Antigonae ed. Aldina 574 Ismenae tribuunt codd., choro Boeckh 576 Ismenae tribuunt Kat, choro cett., Antigonae Boeckh

The assignment of 572, 574 and 576 to Ismene is approved by Zimmermann 103, w h o finds that it suits the characters given to both sisters. Kirkwood approves the assignment of 572 to Ismene, but gives 576 to

74

Antigone

the Chorus, partly because he cannot understand Creon's cruel sarcasm in 577 but partly because 'the weight of MSS evidence is f o r the Chorus'. Scholars not used to working with papyri , or ignorant of J. C. B. Lowe's important article 'The Manuscript Evidence f o r Changes of Speaker in Aristophanes' (BICS 9, 1962, 27-42), are often unaware that in the matter of assignments of speeches to speakers, manuscript evidence carries little weight. Many early manuscripts give very few names of speakers, and some of them none at all; the Sorbonne papyrus fragment of the Sikyonios, a manuscript of the third century B.C., gives not a single speaker's name. Another scholar w h o has failed to understand Creon's sarcasm is W. Stockert, WS 107/108 (Festschrift H a n s Schwabl), 1994/95, 224, who has revived F.Kern's conjecture και σοί γε κοινήι, which he takes to mean 'auch über dich ist, gemeinsam (mit ihr), der T o d verhängt'. As he himself remarks, in that case τηνδε is surprising, but he is encouraged by the scholion οΰ μόνον ταύτηι ωρισται τό άποθανέϊν, άλλα και σοί. T h e scholiast, he too puzzled by Creon's sarcasm, goes on to give as an alternative another misunderstanding: ή και έμοί και σοί δέδοκται μηκέτι διατρίβειν έν τοις λόγοις.

18. Ant. 599-603: νϋν γαρ έσχάτας υπέρ 600 ρίζας έτέτατο φάος έν Οϊδίπου δόμοις· κατ' αΰ νιν φοινία θεών των νερτέρων άμαι κοπίς, λόγου τ' ανοια και φρενών Έρινύς. 599 ύπέρ] δπερ Κ s.l. (ex sch.), coni. Hermann Kirkwood 24-5 says that 'K gives δπερ', which is indeed written above the line in that manuscript; the reading probably emanates from the scholion ad loc.: λείπει άρθρον -to δ, τό δέ λεγόμενόν έστι τοιούτο, νϋν γαρ δπερ έτέτατο (φώσ), φησί, και σωτηρία (σωτηρίας Μ. Schmidt, approved by Nauck) έν τοις ο'ίκοις τοΰ Οιδίποδος έσχατης υπέρ ρίζης άντϊ τοϋ δπερ έβλαστεν ανω της ρίζης θάνατος καταλαμβάνει, νϋν γάρ, φησίν, δπερ ήν λείψανον γενεάς τοϋτο μέλλει καλύπτειν ή κόνις, τδ καταλειφθέν φησιν άπδ Οιδίποδος βλάστημα. T h e trouble about δπερ, and also about Hermann's ο τέτατο, is that neither of these readings accords with viv, which must surely refer to ρίζας.

Antigone

19. Ant

75

604-8:

τεάν, Ζεϋ, δύνασιν τίς άν605 δρών ύπερβασία κατάσχοι; τάν ουθ' ΰπνος αίρει ποθ' ό "|"παντογήρως"(" οΰτ' ακάματοι θεών μήνες . . . 607: on the problem of the responsion with 618, see Renehan 363-5, w h o rightly says that 607 is more likely to be a telesillean than a reizianum. 608: Nilsson, GGR I (2nd. edn., 1955) 644 points out in early Greece the calendar was regulated by sacral ordinances, and that most months were named after festivals; see id. Die Entstehung und religiose Bedeutung des griechischen Kalenders, Lund 1918, 1962 2 and also David Parrish s.v. Menses in LIMC VI i 479-500.

20. Ant. 611-4: t o τ' επειτα και τό μέλλον και τό πριν επαρκέσει νόμος δδ'· οΰδέν' ερπει θνατών βίοτος πάμπολυς έκτος άτας. 613-4 ουδέν' ... πάμπολυς (ούδέν' ed. Aldina, πάμπολυς Heath) LI.-J.: ούδέν ερπει θνατών βιότωι πάμπολις codd.

Brown, art. cit. 332 finds that the maxim that the gods punish human prosperity 'is not what we expect', since it is 'never stated as a doctrine in Sophocles', and that Antigone and Ismene 'are not very suitable as paradigms of human prosperity'. T h e idea of divine jealousy at human prosperity appears commonly enough in early Greek literature; and Sophocles does not 'state doctrines' as a Christian poet might, but his characters might utter familiar γνώμαι according to the requirements of the context. In this stasimon the Chorus is musing in a general way on the fate of the House of Labdacus, as in the second stasimon of the Agamemnon the Chorus muses on that of the House of Atreus; the Labdacids are a royal house, and may at this moment be thought of as victims of divine φθόνος. Brown conjectures ούδ' έφέρπει, supplying the subject from νόμος δδ', which he thinks 'refers backwards to a law contained in the address to Zeus (604-10)'. But in the address to Zeus there is no reference to any law, and it seems clear to us, as it has to all our predecessors, that νόμος δδ' refers to what follows and not to what precedes.

76

Antigone

21. Ant. 648-9: μή νυν ποτ', ώ παΐ, τάς φρένας γ' υφ' ηδονής γυναικός οΰνεκ' έκβάληις . . . 648 γ' Zot: om. cett.

Günther 412-3 takes exception to γ', which as he says is doubtless a Byzantine conjecture. But he has not considered Jebb's defence of it, which is that γε can emphasise the whole phrase, and not merely τάς φρένας. Dawe in his app. crit. writes 'satis defendunt 683-6', meaning that in that place Haemon is replying to the charge brought against him at 648-9.

22. Ant. 661-71: έν τοις γαρ οϊκείοισιν δστις έστ' άνήρ χρηστός, φανεϊται καν πόλει δίκαιος ών. δστις δ' ύπερβάς η νόμους βιάζεται η τούπιτάσσειν τοις κρατύνουσιν νοεί, 665 ούκ εστ' έπαίνου τοΰτον έξ έμοΰ τυχεΐν. [άλλ' δν πόλις στήσειε, τοΰδε χρή κλυειν και σμικρά και δίκαια και τάναντία]. και τοΰτον αν τον άνδρα θαρσοίην έγώ καλώς μεν άρχειν, εύ δ' άν άρχεσθαι θέλειν, 670 δορός τ' αν έν χειμώνι προστεταγμένον μένειν δίκαιον κάγαθόν παραστατην. 6 6 3 - 7 post 671 traiecit Seidler: versus fortasse spurios esse censet Blaydes, 6 6 6 - 7 del. Dawe

It is essential to grasp that as we stated at Sophoclea p. 132, 1.4f. τοΰτον τον άνδρα in 668 must refer back to 661-2. But in performance would this have been clear after so long an insertion as that of 663-7? In the O C T we contented ourselves with following Dawe in deleting 666-7, with the awkward optative and the perplexing σμικρά. But we are now inclined to think that 663-7 must be cut out with Blaydes; the peculiarity of 666-7 makes this preferable to Seidler's placing of the lines after 671. We suspect that a passage from another tragedy that was considered to be parallel was written in the margin and then taken by a copyist for a portion of the text that had been omitted by mistake.

Antigone

77

23. Ant. 685-9: έγώ δ' δπως σύ μή λέγεις ορθώς τάδε οΰτ' αν δυναίμην μήτ' έπισταίμην λέγειν, [γένοιτο μένταν χάτέραι καλώς εχον]. σύ δ' ού πέφυκας πάντα προσκοπέΐν δσα λέγει τις η πράσσει τις η ψέγειν εχει. 687 del. Helmreich χάτέραι Κ in linea, coni. Musgrave: χάτέρως R et fortasse novit sch., coni. Hermann: χάτέρωι cett. 688 σύ Ι-γρΥ: σοΰ LSV lc Zf: σοι L s.l.,RVP c AUZot ού πέφυκας ίγρ: ούν πέφυκα codd.

Erbse, Rh. Mus. 134 (1991) 258-9 defends the paradosis at 687, with χάτέρωι, the best attested reading. Indeed it makes sense for Haemon to suggest diffidently that someone other than Creon might have a good idea; 'its hesitancy is part of Haemon's tact', writes Kirkwood 25, who would keep the line with χάτέραι. But this statement follows very feebly on 685-6, whereas 688-9 follow these lines with excellent effect. But there is also a strong grammatical objection, τι is desperately needed for καλώς εχον to be attached to it (see above on O. 77 517); it cannot easily be inserted, and even if it could the baldness and vagueness of the statement would not be much diminished. Brown, C Q 41 (1991) 332-3 emends εχον to φρονεΐν, which gives something like the sense we need; but this seems to us too vague and imprecise to convey Haemon's sentiment. Erbse goes on to defend σοι δ' ούν πέφυκα, the best attested reading in 688, arguing that it would be tactless of Haemon to deny that his father possessed 'diese Fähigkeit der prüfenden Umsicht', δ' ούν, which stresses the essentiality of the point that that is being brought out, would be in place here (see Denniston, GP 463 f.), and one hesitates to think its presence due to a corruption. But a powerful consideration seems to make against it. With either reading Haemon is saying something that will displease his father. If he is saying that it is his custom to study public opinion carefully, because people are too much afraid of his father to speak frankly in his presence, it is surprising that he should say πέφυκα, 'it is my nature to'. One would expect Ί am accustomed to', something like εϊωθα. Erbse translates 'als dein Sohn bin ich der rechte Mann', but 'als dein Sohn' is not in the Greek. If on the other hand he is saying that his father is not the man to study public opinion, then πέφυκας is a most appropriate word.

78

Antigone

24. Ant.

752-3:

Κρ. ή κάπαπειλών ώδ' έπεξέρχηι θρασύς; Αι. τίς δ' εστ' άπειλή προς σ' εμάς γνώμας λέγειν; 753 πρός σ' έμάς L1.-J.: προς κενάς codd.

West 300 approves the emendation; but Mrs. Easterling 187 complains that we print πρός σ' έμάς, 'thus removing the play κενάς/κενός in 753-4 without allowing f o r the particular weight given to the idea of emptiness in the emphatic lines 707-9 (which are also recalled in this passage through the play on φρενώσεις - φρενών - φρονέΐν at 754-5, echoing φρονεΐν at 707)'. Would anyone in the audience really think of 707-10, where H a e m o n uses the w o r d κενοί in quite another connection? In no place does H a e m o n directly accuse his father of being άβουλος, as he does if we accept the manuscript reading here. 'There are things to be said, after all', Mrs. Easterling writes, 'about the use of repeated words and ideas as a means of linking different scenes or passages and pointing what is dramatically important'. In some circumstances this is true; but this doctrine can easily be used to justify excessive subtleties that no audience would notice.

25. Ant. 834-8: άλλά θεός τοι και θεογεννής, ημείς δε βροτοΐ και θνητογενεΐς. καίτοι φθιμένηι μέγα κάκοϋσαι τοις ΐσοθέοις έγκληρα λαχεϊν ζώσαν και έπειτα θανοϋσαν. 834 θεογεννής LSVat: -γενής cett. 836 μέγα κάκοϋσαι Seyffert: μέγ' άκοϋσαι codd. 837 εγκληρα] συγκληρα Schaefer post hunc versum lacunam statuit G.Wolff 838 om. α

Günther, art. cit., 414-5 finds that θεογεννής is surprising, particularly 'neben korrektem θνητογενεΐς'. Surely άγεννής at H d t . 1,134 and 5 , 6 and E., I.A. 1457, quoted by Günther himself, protects the formation. If emendation is needed, one might consider Wieseler's θειογενής: Alexis fr. 167,14 K.-A. (θειοπαγές with a conjecture θειοφανές in cod. B) seems to indicate that such a compound was possible at this date. Brown (see his note on 838) follows Nauck, Wecklein, G e r h a r d Müller and Dawe in accepting G . W o l f f s placing of a lacuna after 837, not because the anapaestic passage should be of the same length as 817-22, but because otherwise 'the reference of "in life" is obscure', and because

Antigone

79

'if Niobe is immortal, and if Antigone's fate is nevertheless to be compared with hers, "death" is the one word that must be avoided'. H e suggests that 'something like (σέ δέ φημι βροτών γ' έξοχα πράςειν) has been lost. Brown is not the first scholar to be perplexed by this passage. L. 838 is omitted by the Paris family, and H e r m a n n boldly cut it out and wrote: καίτοι φθιμένηι τοις ΐσοθέοις έγκληρα λαχεϊν μέγ' άκοϋσαι. In fact ζώσαν και έπειτα θανοΰσαν is later explained by 850-2, where Antigone describes herself as βροτοΐς οΰτε (νεκρόσ) νεκροϊσιν μέτοικος, οΰ ζώσιν, οΰ θανοϋσιν: that is surely the sense in which she can be compared with Niobe. It seems unlikely that 1.838 is spurious, or that anything is missing after 837. In 836 Brown suggests κάκούσηι, which is n o improvement; the point is that Antigone thus acquires κλέος. In 838 he argues f o r καπειτα (and also f o r καν at 383 and κάπαινον at 817), on the ground that there is no unavoidable instance of epic correption in marching anapaests in Sophocles; with some reason, he counts as lyric the instances in the anapaestic intermezzo at Tr. 971-1003. Brown finds in Aeschylus three certain instances (Pers. 60, 542, 529) and four cases of avoidable correption. Barrett, Euripides, Hippolytos p. 432 finds in Euripides four certain instances and many more that are avoided or avoidable by crasis of καί.

26. Ant. 847-9: οϊα φίλων άκλαυτος, ο'ίοις νόμοις προς έρμα τυμβόχωστον έρχομαι τάφου ποταινίου. 848 ερμα S, Im. sch., coni. Hermann: εργμα Vt: εργμα fere cett.

On έρμα see Günther 415-6.

27. Ant. 857-62: έψαυσας άλγεινοτάτας έμοί μέριμνας, πατρός τριπολίστου οϊτου τοϋ τε πρόπαντος

80

Antigone

άμετέρου πότμου κλεινοΐς Λαβδακίδαισιν.

859 τριπολίστου nos: -όλιστον codd. o'itou nos: οίτον Kpc, coni. Brunck: οίκον Im. sch.L: οίκτον cett.

At the beginning of our note at Sophoclea p. 137 we mentioned the possibility that the reading τριπόλιστον οίτον is correct, and that εψαυσας ... μέριμνας governs the accusative as though it were a single transitive verb like άνέμνησας. A possible parallel would be El. 121 f.; see p. 31 above.

28. Ant. 881-2: τον δ' έμόν πότμον άδάκρυτον ουδείς φίλων στενάζει. Correcting the colometry in his edition, Brown, art. cit., 334 takes this as 3 cr. + ithyph., following A.M.Dale, MATC ii ( B I C S Suppl. 21.2, 1981) 29. Dale also thinks it possible that it should be taken as 'two trochaic dimeters, the second syncopated, palimbacchius + tr.\ But we prefer to follow Dawe and Elizabeth Van Nes Ditmars, Sophocles' Antigone: Lyric Shape and Meaning (Pisa, Giardini, n. d.) p. 107 in taking it as a trochaic dimeter followed by a catalectic iambic dimeter. 'Acatalectic trochaic followed immediately by iambic is very rare, and mostly found in Euripides', writes Laetitia Parker, in Owls to Athens: Essays on Classical Subjects Presented to Sir Kenneth Dover (1990), 332. But the following pages of her article indicate that the thing is possible; as Brown (on p. 339 of his article) remarks, one may note in particular O. C. 1735-6 = 1749-50.

29. Ant. 883-4: άρ' ϊστ' άοιδάς και γόους προ τοΰ θανέΐν ώς ούδ' αν εις παύσαιτ' αν, εί χρείη, χέων; Μ. Papathomopoulos, STP 84 is probably right in saying that Κ reads χρείη in 884, though it is very hard to make out exactly what the scribe wrote. P. Vidal-Naquet, STP 245-56 = Annali dell' Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli, sezione di archeologia e storia antica (1993) 285-97 argues that the poet has in mind the belief in the beautiful last song of the dying swan. But what is there in the text to suggest this? For the notion that words can be 'poured', see L. Kurke, 'Pouring Prayers', in Journal of Indo-European Studies 17 (1989) 113-25.

Antigone

81

30. Ant. 897-99: έλθοΰσα μέντοι κάρτ' έν έλπίσιν τρέφω φίλη μεν ηξειν πατρί, προσφιλής δέ σοί, μήτερ, φίλη δέ σοί, κασίγνητον κάρα. Which brother is mentioned in 899? D.B.Gregor, CR 9 (1959) revived Campbell's view that it is Polyneices, but P. Demont, in STP 111-7 shows that it is Eteocles. 31. Ant. 904-20: Zimmermann 104 would have liked us to say more about the celebrated problem posed by these lines. Winnington - Ingram in his fine book on Sophocles (1980; p. 145 f.) with disappointing brevity condemns 904-20. Brown in his edition has excised 904-15; speaking, it would appear,of 909-10, he writes 'But in the end I cannot believe that Sophocles wrote this rubbish'. But the general tendency in recent times has been in favour of authenticity. The reaction against the preoccupation with character in ancient drama so common in the nineteenth century has discouraged psychologising interpretations, and the influence of anthropology has made Greek scholars more aware of the importance of the family in early Greek culture, and of the centrality of marriage in a woman's life and the significance of the transition from the blood-family to the marriage-family. Sheila Murnaghan, AJP 107 (1986) 192-207, P. Demont, op.cit. in no. 30 above, 117-23 and M.Neuburg, C Q 40 (1990) 54-76 have all ably defended the authenticity of the passage along these lines. In conducting the defence, it is important to bear in mind the emotional effect at which the poet is obviously aiming. Whatever may be said about Sophocles' attitude to consistency in characterisation, there is no doubt of his concern, spoken of by George Eliot in a memorable conversation with Jebb 1 , with 'the delineation of the great primitive emotions'.

32. Ant. 949-50: καίτοι και γενεαι τίμιος, ώ παϊ παΐ, και Ζηνός ταμίεσκε γονάς χρυσορύτους. χρυσορύτους: Kassel compares Ε., fr. 2, 9 Austin (Archelaus) Δανάης δέ Περσεύς έγένετ' έκ χρυσορρύτων σταγόνων; cf. Α., Pers. 80, where χρυσογόνου is right. 1

LI.-J.,

Blood for the Ghosts

(1982), 224 with n.14.

82

Antigone

33. Ant. 962-5: παύεσκε μεν γαρ ένθέους γυναίκας ευιόν τε πΰρ, φιλαύλους τ' ήρέθιζε μούσας. Plutarch, Qu. Conv. 717 A says that during the Boeotian festival of the Agrionia the women search for Dionysus as though he has run away and then desist, saying that he has taken refuge with the Muses. G. Casadio, Storia del culto di Dioniso nell' Argolide (1994) 94-6 argues that the Muses with whom he took refuge were in fact the Hyades; if he is right, which seems highly probable, this story can have little relevance to the Sophoclean passage. Kamerbeek finds it difficult to see how, if φ. μ. is a metonymy, ήρέθιζε can be explained by έτάρασσε και έσκόρπιζε : but that is the first explanation offered in the scholia, and φ. μ. will presumably refer to the company of players on the αύλός.

34. Ant. 985: Βορεάς αμιππος όρθόποδος ύπέρ πάγου. In this place ύπέρ means not 'above' but 'beyond', so that there is no need for Brown's conjecture ύπαί. It is not often possible to determine that ύπέρ means 'beyond' rather than 'over', but there are undoubted instances; e. g. Od 13, 256-7: πυνθανόμην 'Ιθάκης γε και έν Κρήτηι εύρείηι τηλοΰ ύπέρ πόντου.

35. Ant. 1068-73: άνθ' ών έχεις μέν των άνω βαλών κάτω, ψυχή ν γ' άτίμως έν τάφωι κατοικίσας, 1070 έχεις δε των κάτωθεν ένθάδ' αύ θεών άμοιρον, άκτέριστον, άνόσιον νέκυν. ών οΰτε σοι μέτεστιν ουτε των άνω θεοΐσιν, αλλ' έκ σοϋ βιάζονται τάδε. We must apologise to Mr. Brown for misprinting his conjecture σχεθών in 1070 with a wrong accent, but he should apologise to us for thinking ( C Q 41, 1991, 338, n. 58) that we took it to be meant to be a genitive. In fact we guessed that he imagined that it could be combined with έχεις without awkwardness.

Antigone

83

36. Ant 1118-9: κλυτάν δς άμφέπεις Ίταλίαν. T h e article by Α. Henrichs referred to in the note has appeared in Cabinet of the Muses (Festschrift T. G. Rosenmeyer, 1990) 264 f.

37. Ant. 1136-52: τάν έκ πασαν τιμαις ΰπερτάταν πόλεων ματρΐ συν κεραυνίαι1140 νΰν δ', ώς βιαίας έχεται πάνδαμος πόλις έπί νόσωι, μολεΐν καθαρσίωι ποδι Παρνασίαν 1145 ΰπέρ κλειτύν η στονόεντα πορθμόν. ίώ πϋρ πνεόντων χοράγ' άστρων, νυχίων φθεγμάτων έπίσκοπε, Ζηνός γένεθλον, προφάνηθ', 1150 ώνας, σανς αμα περιπόλοις, Θυίασιν, αϊ σε μαινόμεναι πάννυχοι χορεύουσι τον ταμίαν "Ιακχον. 1140 νϋν δέ nos: και νϋν codd. 1149 post έπίσκοπε add. παΐ codd.: del. Schubert Ζηνός Bothe: Διός codd.: Δίον Seyffert

Mrs. Easterling 187 approves νΰν δέ in 1140, but Henrichs, Arion, 3rd. series, 1994/5, 103, n. 92 argues that the emendation in 1149 'necessitates an unwelcome change in the corresponding line of the strophe', citing several examples of και νϋν in formal prayers. However, in all these instances the και νΰν means 'now also', but the και in the manuscripts at 1140 is a connective και, not at all the same thing, so that by emending we are not sacrificing an expression regularly found in formal prayer. At 1149 παΐ and γένεθλον can hardly both be right, and it is not easy to escape the conclusion that παΐ Διός is a gloss on Ζηνός γένεθλον or Δίον γένεθλον. Suppose δέ in 1140 was accidentally omitted, then someone w h o felt that a connective was needed may easily have added και before νϋν.

38. Ant

1155-7:

Κάδμου πάροικοι και δόμων Άμφίονος, οΰκ εσθ' όποιον στάντ' αν ανθρώπου βίον ουτ' αΐνέσαιμ' αν ουτε μεμψαίμην ποτέ.

Antigone

84

West 301 finds our explanation of 1156-7 'worthy of VerralP. Renehan 365 also finds it 'difficult to accept'; he takes στάντ' . . . βίον as a 'mortuus Caesar' construction ('occisus Caesar' is the usual and the superior name f o r this), so that the words are equivalent to στάσιν βίου, 'condition of life'. In fact we take the words very much as Jebb did, except that we d o not take στάντ' to mean 'settled'. W e take στάντ' to mean 'having come to a stop'; the point is that human life is always changing, so that it is not safe to praise or blame anybody's life till it is over. Jebb illustrates this view of life by quoting fr. 871 Radt.

39. Sophoclea p. 146, note on 1204-5, 1.11: the fragment of Anaxilas is now f r . 2 2 , 1 7 K.-A. ( P C G II p. 288): ή δε Νάννιον τί νυνΐ διαφέρειν Σκύλλης δοκεΐ; ού δύ' άποπνίξασ' εταίρους τον τρίτον θηρεύεται ετι λαβείν; άλλ' "("εξέπεσε"}" πορθμίς έλατίνωι πλάτηι.

εξέπεσε is placed between cruces by Kassel and Austin. They quote U. Reinhardt, Rh. Mus. 114 (1971) 331, w h o shows that πορθμίς έλατίνωι πλάτηι may well come from Euripides (πορθμίς /. 77 355, είλατίνας . . . πλάτας Hyps. fr. 1 iii 13 p. 27 Bond, cf. Hel. 1461 sim.). T h e verb too must have belonged to the Euripidean flosculus, and Casaubon's έξέπαισε suits the metre and the sense. At Or. 1315 West and Diggle rightly print Wecklein's emendation of εϊσπεσοΰσα to έσπαίσουσα: cf. έσπαίσας at Rh. 560.

40. Ant. 1215-8: ϊτ' άσσον ώκεις, και παραστάντες τάφωι άθρήσαθ', άγμόν χώματος λιθοσπαδή δύντες προς αυτό στόμιον, εί τον Αιμονος φθόγγον συνίημ' η θεοϊσι κλέπτομαι.

Brown, art. cit. 338, says that άγμός means a fracture but never 'gap' or 'hole'. It means 'a break', and by breaking a wall one can make a gap in it.

Antigone

41. Ant

85

1226-30:

ό δ' ώς όραι σφε, στυγνον οΐμώςας εσω χωρεί προς αύτώ κάνακωκύσας καλείώ τλήμον, οίον έργον εϊργασαι; τίνα νοΰν εσχες; εν τώι συμφοράς διεφθάρης; εςελθε, τέκνον, ίκέσιός σε λίσσομαι". P.Riemer, Sophokles, Antigone - Götterwille und menschliche Freiheit (Abh. der Mainzer Akademie, 1991, no. 12), p. 50, n. 94 and J. F. Davidson, Hermes 120 (1992) 502-3 have rightly protested against the conjecture αύτώ in 1.1227, and against the argument of Grace Ledbetter (now in C Q 41, 1991, 26-9). Creon does not care about Antigone, but he does care about Haemon, and it is to him he speaks. This error has been corrected in the Loeb edition.

42. Ant

1277: ΕΞΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ

The word έςάγγελος is found only in Zo; the other manuscripts call this person οίκέτης. At Ο. T. 1223, where it is important to distinguish the messenger who enters at that point from the Corinthian Messenger, this term appears in all the manuscripts. Hesychius s.v. (ε 3488 Latte) defines it as άγγελος, ό τά εσω γεγονότα τοις εςω άγγέλλων: Schol. on Ε., Hipp. 776 says έςάγγελος δέ ό τά πεπραγμένα ένδον της σκηνής τω ι χορώι άγγέλλων. The elder Philostratus, Vit Soph. 1,9, 1 says of Aeschylus (test. 107 Radt) πολλά τήι τραγωιδίαι ςυνεβάλετο έσθητί τε αύτήν κατασκευάσας και όκρίβαντι ύψηλώι και ηρώων ειδεσιν άγγέλοις τε και έςαγγέλοις και οίς έπί σκηνης τε και ύπό σκηνής χρή πράττειν, so it formed part of the vocabulary used to describe the paraphernalia of tragedy by the early third century. As Kamerbeek points out there is no particular need for the term to be used here, since the same actor can very well serve on both occasions. Brown 339 writes 'Since editors are compelled to write "Ετερος "Αγγελος elsewhere (Eur., Phoen., Bacch., I.A., to say nothing of plays where the difficulty is avoided with Θεράπων, Φόλας and the like, it might be more consistent to do so in Ο. 77 also'. The point is of little importance, but one can hardly quarrel with an editor who follows the manuscripts and in the Ο. T. writes έςάγγελος and in the Antigone οίκέτης, though there is something to be said for using "Αγγελος A' and "Αγγελος Β' as Diggle and Mastronarde do in the three Euripidean plays. Brown thinks that editors who continue to use έξάγγελος do so 'from sheer delight in technical jargon'. But this was the technical term in use at least as early as the time of the elder Philostratus, and it would not be unreasonable to go on using it.

86

Antigone

43. Ant. 1302-3: λύει κελαινά βλέφαρα, κωκύσασα μεν τοϋ πριν θανόντος Μεγαρέως κενόν λέχος. 1303 κενόν Seyffert: κλεινόν codd.

On Megareus and the mistaken theory of his identity with the Menoeceus of the Phoenissae, see Th.K. Stephanopoulos, Die Umgestaltung des Mythos durch Euripides (1980), 115 f.; cf. Mastronarde, Euripides, Phoenissae (1994) p.28 and Hutchinson on Α., Sept. 474.

TRACHINIAE

1. Tr. 46-8: κάστιν τι δεινόν πήμα· τοιαύτην έμοί δέλτον λιπών εστειχε - την έγώ θάμα θεοϊς άρώμαι πημονης ατερ λαβείν. 47 εστειχε· την] εστειχεν ήν Dindorf

Davies p. 66 says that Wunder and Tycho von Wilamowitz both deleted 44-8, but Tycho deleted only 46-8. Davies ad loc. and Diggle, Euripidea 467 n. 118 would both accept Dindorf s emendation, holding that the tragedians admit article for relative only on account of metrical necessity. At Α., SuppL 265 F.J./ W. accept D i n d o r f s a, but Page and West both retain M's τά: at Α., Ag. 342 Fraenkel and Page both prefer α (FTr) to τά (V), but West prints V s reading: at Ο. T. 1379, both Dawe and we retain ιερά, των instead of accepting Nauck's ιερά θ' ών: at Ο. C. 35 both Dawe and we have accepted Elmsley's ών for των, which may well have been introduced by someone who took the initial alpha of the following verb άδηλοϋμεν for a relative pronoun. It would appear that we cannot be certain that Aeschylus and Sophocles did not occasionally employ this usage even in cases where metre did not render it necessary.

2. Tr. 54-7: πώς παΐσι μεν τοσοΐσδε πληθύεις, άτάρ ανδρός κατά ζήτησιν οΰ πέμπεις τινά, μάλιστα δ' δνπερ εικός "Υλλον, εϊ πατρός νέμοι τιν' ώραν τοΰ καλώς πράσσειν δοκέΐν; G . Κ . Η . L e y , Hermes 117 (1989) 498 suggests νέμειν . . . δοκοί: this had been anticipated by Wecklein, Ars Sophoclis emendandi (1869) 36, and Davies 274 rightly calls it 'unnecessary'. R. L. Fowler, Bryn Mawr Cl. Rev. 2.6 (1991) 337 shows sympathy with Roscher's emendation of καλώς to κακώς.

88

Trachiniae

3. Tr. 98-101: πόθι μοι πόθι μοι ναίει ποτ', ώ λαμπραι στεροπαι φλεγέθων; η Πόντιας αύλώνας, η δισσαϊσιν άπείροις κλιθείς; Dawe, STS iii (1978) 79 has proclaimed that the interpretation adopted by us 'can be safely dismissed', and West 301 calls it 'grotesque'; his own view is stated at BICS 26 (1979) 110. Mrs. Easterling in her commentary finds that 'this would be a highly specialized and perhaps obscure allusion, and the picture of a gigantic Heracles is at odds with the rest of the ode'. But the view in question is defended by Davies 80-1, who writes: 'In a stanza that opens with an extravagant address to the very sun, we should not be too concerned with the realism or propriety behind the picture'. Both the sun and Heracles feature in several episodes mentioned in tragedy that may be thought to have an element of fantasy, and they are not the only mythological figures of whom this may be said. At 1059 Heracles mentions that he fought in the battle of the gods and giants. Davies, Prometheus 18 (1992) 217-226 argues with much learning and ingenuity that 'the twin continents of Europe and Africa are imagined as divided by the thinnest of spaces because they represent the narrow entry to the Other- or Underworld', and that 'the hero leaning on his own pillars gains clarification from the independently attested links between Heracles on the one hand and Samson, Atlas and the Sun-god on the other'(p. 226). But we are not persuaded that the beliefs on which this theory rests formed part of the mythology familiar to the Greeks of Sophocles' time. With regard to Πόντιας in 1.101, Stevens on E., Andr. 794 observes that 'the noun πόντος in general means "the sea", but where the context provides sufficient indication it can stand alone for the Black Sea'.

4. Tr. 112-21: πολλά γαρ ώστ' άκάμαντος η νότου η βορέα τις κύματ' (αν) εύρέι πόντωι 115 βάντ' έπιόντα τ' ιδοι, οΰτω δέ τον Καδμογενή τρέφει, τό δ' αΰςει βιότου πολύπονον ώσπερ πέλαγος Κρήσιον αλλά τις θεών

Trachiniae

89

120 αϊέν άναμπλάκητον "Αιδα σφε δόμων έρύκει. 117 τρέφει] στρέφει Reiske

Reiske's στρέφει is advocated by Davies, w h o cites A. S. McDevitt, Eranos 81 (1983) 9, and the conjecture is argued f o r in more detail by Fowler (op.cit. in n. 2, 337-8). But as Stinton pointed out, the waves are all going the same way, and although the cyclic alternation of good and bad is stressed in the antistrophe and in the epode, that is no reason why we must introduce it here, where the metaphor is the not uncommon one of one wave after another buffeting the shore or the person, not that of waves striking him now from one direction and now f r o m another. When Fowler writes that 'the notion of alternation has been present in the ode in one form or another from the first line', he is begging the question. McDevitt writes that the γαρ in 112 must introduce an explanation of Deianeira's worries that have just been described, and argues that if we keep τρέφει then άλλα in 119 is meaningless; but the waves constantly beating on Heracles, though they are his daily portion and though their impact serves to make him greater, d o not make his life comfortable, so that neither argument has any force. Anthony Macro, AJP 94 (1973) 3 illustrated the relationship between τρέφει and αυξει by citing Hymn. Horn. Cer. 233f. ώς ή μεν . . . Δημοφόωντ' . . . ετρεφεν έν μεγάροις· ό δ' άέςετο δαίμονι ίσος. J . Τ . H o o k e r , Eranos 75 (1977) 70-2 revived Blaydes' conjecture τρέφει τε καΰςει.

5. Tr. 144-49: το γαρ νέαζον έν τοιοΐσδε βόσκεται 145 χώροισιν αύτοΰ, καί νιν ού θάλπος θεοϋ ούδ' ομβρος, ούδέ πνευμάτων ούδέν κλονεϊ, άλλ' ήδονάΐς άμοχθον έςαίρει βίον, ές τοϋθ', εως τις άντΐ παρθένου γυνή κληθήι . . . 145 χώροισιν αύτοΰ καί νιν] χώροις ί'ν' αΰαίνει νιν Pearson

Davies 89 f. rejects our defence of the paradosis in 145, favouring Pearson's conjecture. First, he finds that τοιοΐσδε 'sits oddly in this context' and 'would be otiose and unidiomatic as a means of introducing the simile'. But the meaning is 'Such are the places of its own where youth is nourished - proof against sun or rain or winds', τοιοΐσδε refers backward to άπειρος, as the following και shows and as Jebb saw; we d o not agree with Davies that 'any reference back would be exceedingly harsh

90

Trachiniae

and elliptical'. Next, he says that χώροισιν αύτοΰ is 'eccentric and hard to parallel precisely', and denies the relevance of Pindar, Pyth. 4,263 f. , where the felled oak has 'left its place empty' on the ground that 'a tree's place is much more easily conceived than the vague and indefinite realms of "what is young"'. W h a t is important about the 'realms of what is young' is explained in the words that follow, and the notion is surely not too vague to be conveyed in poetry. Thirdly, Davies objects that the verb κλονεϊ is appropriate f o r rain and winds, but not f o r heat. But he goes on to admit that such a zeugma is not unparalleled; cf., e.g., EL 435-6 and fr. 127 ϊπποισιν ή κύμβαισι ναυστολέΐς χθόνα; 1

6. Tr. 188-92: Αγ. έν βουθερεΐ λειμώνι προς πολλούς θροέΐ Λίχας ό κήρυξ ταύτα - τοΰ δ' εγώ κλυών άπήις', δπως σοι πρώτος άγγείλας τάδε προς σοΰ τι κερδάναιμι και κτώιμην χάριν. Δη. αυτός δέ πώς άπεστιν, ε'ίπερ ευτυχεί; Renehan has shown that Aj. 339-43 does not parallel the Messenger's misunderstanding of Deianeira's words as we had argued; see p. 8 above. But we cannot agree with Mrs. Easterling (188) that such a misunderstanding needs to have a parallel if it is to be convincing. Neither can we agree with Davies 98 that 'any direct mention of Heracles at this point would be dramatically inept: after the initial reference to him he must fade out, as it were; otherwise D.will discover the truth about his passion for Iole too soon'. The point is that Deianeira never ceases to have Heracles in mind. Mrs. Easterling argues that heralds regularly precede their masters; but note Ο. T. 802 f., where Laius and his herald are together in the chariot.

7. Tr. 196-7: τό γαρ ποθοϋν έκαστος έκμαθεϊν θέλων ούκ άν μεθεΐτο, πριν καθ' ήδονήν κλύειν. 1 Davies himself cites as an example Α., Suppl. 1006-7 προς ταϋτα μη πάθωμεν ών πολύς/πόνος πολύς δέ πόντος ουνεκ' ήρόθη δορί. Maas once remarked to LI.-J. that the zeugma could be neatly removed by emending πόνος to πόρος, which is the vox propria for an arm of the Nile.

Trachiniae

91

Kassel reminds us that Wilamowitz on E., H.F. 269 rendered this by 'Von seinem Wunsche lässt keiner der hören will, ehe er zu Genüge gehört hat'. This may well be right. 8. Tr. 205-7: άνολολυξάτω δόμος έφεστίοις άλαλαγαΐς ό μελλόνυμφος. 205 δόμος Burges: δόμοις codd. 207 ό] ά Erfurdt

Davies finds the apparent allusion to the imminent reunion of Heracles and Deianeira 'rather strained' and Stinton's insistence that μελλόνυμφος should mean not "of marriageable age" but "about to be married" 'excessively captious'; he prefers in 205 to keep δόμοις and in 207 to accept Erfurdt's ά. The view we took is defended by Fowler 338-9. 9. Tr. 216-7: αίρομαι ούδ' άπώσομαι τον αύλόν ... 216 αίρομαι Ll.-J. (CR 31, 1981, 171): άείρομ' ούδ' codd.

West 300 accepts the emendation, and Davies 104 thinks it 'may well be the best solution'. 10. Tr. 338: τούτων - εχω γαρ πάντ' - έπιστήμων εγώ. Renehan 366 suggests λέγω for έγώ. This conjecture should be in the app. crit., but not in the text: it robs the Messenger of a vivid touch of self-importance. 11. Tr. 362-4: In fact not Wunder but Dobree deleted 362-3, and not Dobree but Härtung deleted την ταύτης ... πατέρα. 12. Tr. 419-20: Αγ. οΰκουν σύ ταύτην, ην ύπ' άγνοιας όραις, Ίόλην εφασκες Εΰρύτου σποράν αγειν;

92

Trachiniae

P.T.Eden, Mnemosyne 48 (1995) 197-8 emends όραις to όραι, whose subject would be Deianeira. Indeed the whole conversation is taking place for Deianeira's benefit, but surely the poet would have indicated somehow that she was the subject. Also, there is little point in saying that Deianeira looks on Iole in ignorance, but much in saying that Lichas looks on Iole as if he did not know. Eden says of the transmitted text that there is no indication that the Messenger is being sarcastic; but does irony or sarcasm always have to be flagged by a particle?

13. Tr. 463-4: . . . έπεί σφ' έγώ ώικτιρα δή μάλιστα προσβλέψασ' . . . For the possibility of eliminating an interlinear hiatus by altering έγώ in 463 to εγω(γ'), see Davies 270.

14. Tr. 520: ην δ' άμφίπλεκτοι κλίμακες. Davies cites Κ.-A. on Aristophanes fr. 50 έκλιμάκισεν ωστε εις μέσην έπεσε την τάφρον.

15. Tr. 527-8: το δ' άμφινείκητον δμμα νύμφας έλεινόν άμμένει (τέλος). 528 έλεινόν Porson: έλεεινόν codd.

The form έλεινός is confirmed by the metre at Ar., Ran. 1063, and is directly attested by the Antiatticist p. 92, 9; see K.-A. on Eupolis fr. 27.

16. Tr. 547-9: όρώ γαρ ηβην την μεν έρπουσαν πρόσω, την δέ φθίνουσαν ών (δ') άφαρπάζειν φιλέΐ οφθαλμός άνθος, τώνδ' ύπεκτρέπει πόδα. 547-8 την μεν ... την δέ] τήι μέν ... τήι δέ Musgrave: της μέν ... της δέ Blaydes 548 (δ'} Zippmann 549 τώνδ' Zippmann: των δ' codd.: της δέ Nauck, Blaydes

Trachiniae

93

Davies 153-4 rejects our text on the ground that 'an explicit indication of the shift from young to aged is really needed f o r this alternative'. Surely it is clear enough that the sense is that 'the desiring eye turns away from those whose bloom it snatches', once that bloom is there no longer. T h e mode of expression is better understood if one remembers that the early Greeks believed that love was darted from the eyes of the loved one into those of the lover; thus at Α., P. V. 651-4 Io is told to enter the meadow of Lerna ώς αν τό Δίον δμμα λωφήσηι πόθου. Davies himself in 547-8 accepts Blaydes' της μεν . . . της δέ (which may well be right, though it is not necessary), and in 549 της δέ, proposed by both Nauck and Blaydes. Davies finds in the second sentence an 'idiomatic omission of της μεν before της δέ', a thing f o r which he refers to Denniston, GP 166, Stinton, JHS 97 (1977) 129 = CPGT 273-4 and to his own note on 7V. 117. But in none of these places d o we find an instance of the idiom in question that seems to us so difficult to understand. It is far easier to understand the second sentence as we printed it, and the only alteration of the paradosis which it requires is the insertion of (δ').

17. Tr. 572-6: έάν γαρ άμφίθρεπτον αίμα των έμών σφαγών ένέγκηι χερσίν, ήι μελάγχολος εβαψεν ιός, θρέμμα Λερναίας ΰδρας, έσται φρενός σοι τοϋτο κηλητήριον της Ήρακλείας ... 573-4 μελάγχολος ... ιός Dobree: -ους ... ιούς codd.

Davies 159-62 argues for the text we have adopted. Like him, we take the object of εβαψεν to be the blood; it is to the blood that 'it" at the end of our note on 573-4 at Sophoclea 163 refers. C.A. Faraone, Helios 21 (1994) 129, n. 9 prefers the view taken by West, BICS 26 (1979) 110-1, rightly called 'very strained' by Davies, but without offering arguments in its favour. M. R. Halleran, CP 83 (1988) 129-31 also follows West; remarking that 'Easterling has demonstrated that Sophocles' repetition even of relatively common words . . . is generally significant as part of the structure of a given passage', he finds an ironical echo of εβαψεν at 580.

94

Trachiniae

18. Tr. 614-5: και τώνδ' άποίσεις σήμ', δ κείνος εύμαθές σφραγΐδος ερκει τώιδ' έπόν μαθήσεται. On West's unnecessary conjecture άμ' οϊσεις (ΒICS 31 (1984) 182), see Davies 166.

19. Tr. 626: έπίσταμαί τε και φράσω σεσωμένα. Davies 276, quoting Diggle, makes a good case for Diggle's emendation of τε to tot; cf. Ph. 48 and O. C. 113.

20. Tr. 628-9: άλλ' οίσθα μεν δη και τά της ξένης όρων προσδέγματ' αύτός, ως σφ' έδεςάμην φίλως. 628 αύτός Bergk, Patakis: αύτήν codd.

ώς σφ' Dawe: ώς θ' lzt: ώς a

At Sophoclea 164 we wrote that Dawe's amplification of Bergk's conjecture 'is not necessary, but makes the sense clearer'. But later we came round to the view that it is necessary, and it is adopted in the 1992 reprint of the O C T and in the Loeb edition. After αύτός had been corrupted to αύτήν, σφ' may well have been removed.

21. Tr. 640: For K. Itsumi's article referred to at Sophoclea 164, see on El 1058-62.

22. Tr. 644-5: ό γαρ Διός 'Αλκμήνης κόρος σοϋται πάσας άρετας λάφυρ' εχων έπ' οίκους. 644 post Άλκμήνας add. τε Laz: del. t

Speaking of the double genitive, Davies 276 writes 'Doubts still remain about the present instance'. 'Why', he asks, 'did S. not write τε παις for κόρος?'. But if he did, how did it come to be corrupted?

Trachiniae

95

23. Tr. 650-2: ά δέ οί φίλα δάμαρ τάλαιναν δυστάλαινα καρδίαν πάγκλαυτος αίέν ώλλυτο. 647 τάλαιναν Dindorf: -να codd.: 'fortasse τάλαιν', ά' L1.-J.

When Davies 175 writes 'the pathetic exclamation ά does not feature in tragedy', he is too peremptory; see on Ant. 1 - 3 above.

24. Tr. 672-3: τοιούτον έκβέβηκεν οίον, ην φράσω, γυναίκες, ύμΐν θαΰμ' άνέλπιστον βαλεΐν. 673 βαλεΐν nos: λαβείν 1: παθέϊν Kzt: μαθεϊν a, s. 1. in L et Zo

We must differ emphatically from Davies when he writes that 'the most plausible solution is for μαθεϊν to be taken as an epexegetic infinitive'; he compares 694, but there μαθεϊν follows άξύμβλητον, which makes all the difference.

25. Tr. 674-8: ώι γαρ τον ένδυτήρα πέπλον άρτίως εχριον, αργής οίος εύείρωι πόκωι, τοϋτ' ήφάνισται, διάβορον προς ούδενός των ένδον, άλλ' έδεστόν ές αύτοϋ φθίνει, και ψήι κατ' ακρας σπιλάδος. 677 ένδον] έκτος Herwerden

See above on El. 379-82, and Davies 180, who would put έκτος in the text; very likely he is right. In 678 Davies revives Jebb's κατ' ακρας σπόδιον, 'utterly pulverised', which is a very long shot. Although in all the other instances, which are not very numerous, σπιλάς means a rock by the sea, it may well have borne the general meaning 'rock' and so have been used here. However, Günther, ES 117-9 posits a lacuna after 677, supposing 678-9 to be part of a simile.

26.

Tr. 6 9 3 - 4 :

εϊσω δ' άποστείχουσα δέρκομαι φάτιν άφραστον, άξύμβλητον άνθρώπωι μαθεϊν.

Trachiniae

96

Deianeira was in the house when she anointed the robe (689); and then while leaving (693) she caught sight of the lump of wool which she had thrown away, leaving it in the sun (697). Clearly she had thrown it away outside the house, so that εΐσω in 693 would seem to be a corruption of the kind discussed in the note on 674-8 above. In the Loeb edition LI.-J. has placed εξω in the text.

27. Tr. 695-700: τό γαρ κάταγμα . . . . . . ώς δ' έθάλπετο ρέϊ παν αδηλον και κατέψηκται χθονί, μορφήι μάλιστ' είκαστόν ώστε πρίονος έκβρώμαθ' άν βλέψειας έν τομήι ξύλου. 700-αθ' αν βλέψειας Tyrrell: -at' αν βλέψειας a: -at' έκβλέψειας Lt

W h a t Davies 183 calls 'Dawe's small correction' was first made by R.Y.Tyrrell on E., Bacck 1066; the fact is stated in the 1992 reprint of the OCT, where Tyrrell's name has regrettably been misprinted.

28. Tr. 767-9: και προσπτύσσεται πλευραΐσιν άρτίκολλος, ώστε τέκτονος χιτών, άπαν κατ' άρθρον . . . At Sophoclea 166 we professed ourselves unable to understand why Mrs. Easterling thought that Zijderfeld's punctuation and interpretation ('close - glued, like a workman's χιτών (stuck to his body by the heat)' 'destroys the sinister force of the comparison'. Davies has explained this to us by writing that it 'supplies a merely familiar idea instead of a characteristic blend of the sinister and the mundane'. But surely the mundane is rendered more unpleasant by its banausic associations here, and the very familiarity of the object of comparison makes the thing more sinister. It is worth remembering that Bergk suggested that there was a lacuna after 768; basing his ex gratia supplement on the scholion τό δέ έξης, και προσκολλητός ό χιτών κατά παν μέρος ώς αν ξύλωι νεαρά κόλλα (Brunck: κόλλη L) υπό τέκτονος προσείη χρισθέΐσα, he suggested ώστε τέκτονος (ξύλωι νεώρης κόλλα προσχρισθεΐσ' υπο). The curiously specific language of the scholion, and in particular the word νεαρά, might well be that of a paraphrase of part of the text.

Trachiniae

97

29. Tr. 807-12: τοιαύτα, μήτερ, πατρί βουλεύσασ' έμώι και δρώσ' έλήφθης, ών σε ποίνιμος Δίκη τείσαιτ' Έρινύς τ', ει θέμις δ', έπεύχομαι· 810 θέμις δ', έπεί μοι την θέμιν σύ προΰβαλες, πάντων άριστον άνδρα των έπΐ χθονΐ κτείνασ', όποιον άλλον ούκ δψηι ποτέ. Α. Η . Sommerstein, Hermes 120 (1992) 115-7 doubts the possibility of a prospective use of έπεύχομαι, meaning that Hyllus exults in the prospect of his mother's punishment; and Davies 194 complains that 'an exact parallel f o r θέμιν προβάλλω and dative is hard to find'. But the meaning of the words is so obvious and so appropriate in this context that we must accept the paradosis, and conjectures, of which the latest is Sommerstein's εί θέμις γ' απεύχομαι, are not needed. On expressions like 'if it is θέμις, and it is θέμις', see Wilamowitz, Euripides Herakles ii p. 139 and Pearson on S., fr. 941,14.

30. Tr. 831-8: εί γάρ σφε Κενταύρου φονίαι νεφέλαι χρίει δολοποιός ανάγκα πλευρά, προστακέντος ΐοϋ, δν τέκετο θάνατος, έτεκε δ' αΐόλος δράκων, 835 πώς δδ' άν άέλιον ετερον η τανΰν ϊδοι, δεινοτέρωι μεν υδρας προστετακώς φάσματι; 834 ετεκε] ετρεφε Lobeck 836 δεινοτέρωι L1.-J.: -τάτωι codd.

834: Davies has doubts about our suggestion (at Sophoclea p. 168) that 'τέκετο will mean "gave birth to f o r itself', which may well imply "originated" as opposed to "was the parent o f ' . H e writes that 'such a distinction seems hard to parallel' and if he means that the middle and active of this particular verb seem nowhere to be contrasted in this fashion, he is right. But he goes on to ask what the metaphor gains by the variation which Lobeck's popular conjecture έτρεφε imports. Of the passages which he follows West in citing as relevant, the one which affords the closest parallel is IL 2, 548 ov ποτ' 'Αθήνη θρέψε Διός θυγάτηρ, τέκε δε ζείδωρος άρουρα. T h e emendation gives a more readily intelligible sense; but when one considers the basic reflexive function of the middle voice, whose different nuances are described by Wackernagel VS i 124 f.

Trachiniae

98

and K.-G. i 100 f., one must admit that the distinction which the transmitted text implies is not impossible. Death brings the poison into existence, not with any particular use in mind, but it is the Hydra that makes a poison for others; compare the distinction between νόμους τίθεσθαι and νόμους τιθέναι. In the words of Gildersleeve, Syntax of Classical Greek, p. 65 'the subject is more or less remotely involved'. On p. 69 Gildersleeve gives a list of differences between the active and the middle of various verbs which illustrates the point; cf. K.-G. i pp. 102-4. Lobeck's conjecture may be right; but it is not safe to put it in the text. 836-8: Davies finds inadequate the passages quoted by Ll.-J. ( Y C S 265-6 = AP i 392-3) to explain the use of φάσμα postulated by his conjecture, but draws attention to El. 197-200: δόλος ήν ό φράσας, ερος ό κτείνας, δεινάν δεινώς προφυτεύσαντες μορφάν, ε'ίτ' οόν θεός εϊτε βροτών ήν ό ταϋτα πράσσων. Surprisingly, Davies on p. 277 expresses doubt about the text in this passage, recalling an unlikely conjecture of Wakefield.

31. Tr. 851-5: ερρωγεν παγά δακρύων, κέχυται νόσος, ώ πόποι, οίον άναρσίων (υπ') ουπω (τούδε σώμ') άγακλειτόν 855 έπέμολεν πάθος οίκτίσαι. 853,854 suppl. Jebb post άγακλειτόν add. 'Ηρακλέους codd. , del. Dindorf

Davies rightly states that 'the corruption here is very serious and certainty as to the correct wording unattainable'.

32. Tr. 862-95: Davies deals admirably with the Kommos, rightly declining to accept the deletions of 876 by Dover (ap. Dawe) and of 877 by R.H.Allison, Eranos 81 (1983) 59-64.

Trachiniae

99

33. Tr. 893-5: ετεκ' ετεκε μεγάλα ν άνέορτος άδε νύμφα δόμοισι τοΐσδ' Έρινύν. 893 ετεκ* ετεκε Schroeder: ετεκεν ετεκε Γ: ετεκεν ετεκεν cett. (This was accidentally omitted from the app. crit. of the OCT).

34. Tr. 900-4: έπεΐ παρήλθε δωμάτων εΐσω μόνη, και παΐδ' έν αύλαΐς είδε κοίλα δέμνια στορνύνθ', οπως άψορρον άντώιη πατρί, κρύψασ' έαυτην ενθα μή τις εΐσίδοι, βρυχατο μεν . . . Davies 212 says that Wunder anticipated Tycho von Wilamowitz in deleting 901-3. Like us, Davies accepts Winnington - Ingram's defence of these lines, with the proviso that Meineke may well have been right in cutting out 903.

35. Tr. 907-16: αλληι δέ κάλληι δωμάτων στρωφωμένη, εΐ του φίλων βλέψειεν οϊκετών δέμας, εκλαιεν ή δύστηνος είσορμωμένη, 910 αύτη τον αύτής δαίμον' ανακαλούμενη, [και τάς απαιδας ές τό λοιπόν ουσίας], έπεί δέ τώνδ' έληςεν, εξαίφνης σφ' όρώ τον Ήράκλειον θάλαμον είσορμωμένην. κάγώ λαθραϊον δμμ' έπεσκιασμένη 15 φρούρουν· όρώ δέ την γυναίκα δεμνίοις τοις Ήρακλείοις στρωτά βάλλουσαν φάρη. The Dindorf who deleted 911 was Ludwig, not his brother Wilhelm. Diggle ap. Davies 277-8 wishes to delete 912-3 as well as 911, because he 'finds the και at the start of 914 odd because the Nurse (as the text stands) is already the subject of the verb in 912-3, and because 'the content of these two lines could be inferred from 907'. κάγώ usually involves a change of subject, but is this a fixed rule? T h e function of the καί is obvious enough. The Nurse first tells how she caught sight of Deianeira entering the bedroom, and then goes on to relate how she watched unobserved, while Deianeira threw the blankets onto the bed;

100

Trachiniae

the first sentence, whose verb is the historic present όρώ, is linked with the following pair of antithetic parallel clauses with their contrasting subjects by the καί. The κάγώ is no more surprising than that at El. 910: και νΰν θ' ομοίως και τότ' έςεπίσταμαι μή του τόδ' αγλάισμα πλην κείνου μολεΐν. τώι γαρ προσήκει πλην γ' έμοΰ και σοϋ τόδε; 910 κάγώ μεν ούκ έδρασα, τοΰτ' έπίσταμαι, ούδ' αύ συ. A sentence in which Chrysothemis is the subject is separated only by the virtually parenthetical rhetorical question in 909 from a pair of clauses whose antithetical subjects are Chrysothemis and Electra. It is by no means certain that the content of Tr. 912-3 could be inferred from 907, and if it could be, that would be no reason for cutting out these lines. 36. Tr. 923-6: τοσαΰτα φωνήσασα συντόνωι χερί λύει τον αυτής πέπλον, ού χρυσήλατος προυκειτο μαστών περονίς, έκ δ' έλώπισεν πλευράν απασαν ώλένην τ' εύώνυμον. Stinton, JHS 96 (1976) 141-2 = CPGT 228-9 examines this passage, making use of Paul Jacobsthal's Greek Pins (1956), 109-10. He concludes that προυκειτο μαστών 'makes sense and should not be altered', though he adds that 'a more natural expression for such an arrangement would be given by the slight change προυκειτο μαστώι, "where the pin was visible on her breast'". But προυκειτο does not mean 'was visible'; it means 'lay in front of, and after it the genitive is needed. We therefore cannot agree with Davies 216 that the change to μαστώι is attractive. 37. Tr. 939-40: πόλλ' άναστένων, ώς νιν ματαίως αϊτίαι βάλοι κακήι. Pearson's 'μβάλοι, although it is one of the three conjectures in his edition which Housman, CR 39 (1925) 77 = CP 1094 found 'evidently true' and although Diggle, STE 33 (cf. Euripidea 56, n. 7) showed that M. Platnauer, CQ 10 (1960) 141 was wrong in thinking that prodelision after -αι did not occur in tragedy, is not needed. Mrs. Easterling aptly quotes Aj. 1244-5 άλλ' αΐέν ήμας ή κακοϊς βαλεΐτέ που ή συν δόλωι

Trachiniae

101

κεντήσεθ', and cf. Ε., El. 902 νεκρούς ύβρίζειν, μή μέ τις φθόνωι βάληι and Pindar, A/em. 1,18 πολλών έπέβαν καιρόν, ού ψεύδει βαλών.

38. Tr. 965: παι δ' αύ φορεί νιν; ώς φίλου . . . In the line corresponding to 965 in the strophe (956) the manuscripts have τον Διός αλκιμον γόνον, and the responsion is usually remedied by means of Triclinius' Ζηνός for Διός. But Page ap. Dawe preferred to emend δ' αυ to δέ, and West, BICS 31 (1984) 183 emends παι δ' αυ to παρ δέ. Davies 223-4 defends the paradosis, saying that 'this is another of those questions which are not literal requests for information but rather equivalent to an emotional exclamation'. In such a context, he rightly remarks, referring to Sophoclea 30, 'αύ is idiomatic'.

39. Tr. 974-5: σίγα, τέκνον, μή κινήσηις άγρίαν όδύνην πατρός ώμόφρονος. Davies on 988 says that 'we need not accept the view that the old man is a doctor'; but note the similarity of his language to that of the medical text which is quoted at Sophoclea 172. For medical language in drama compare that of Daos (422-3) and the bogus doctor (432-64) in Menander's Aspis. 'Diggle's dismissal of Burton's notion that the ξένος of O.C. 36 ff. is a gardener', compared by Davies 227 n. 39, has no relevance here.

40. Tr. 1109-13: προσμόλοι μόνον, ϊν' έκδιδαχθήι πασιν άγγέλλειν δτι και ζών κακούς γε και θανών έτεισάμην. Χο. ώ τλήμον 'Ελλάς, πένθος οίον είσορώ (σ') εςουσαν, ανδρός τοΰδέ γ' εϊ σφαλέΐσ' έσηι. 1109-11: on what LI.-J. ap. Davies 247 calls 'the curious idiom whereby the victim of an exemplary punishment is said to proclaim the danger of committing the offence that has incurred it', see Ll-J., JHS 93 (1973) 120 = AP i 127-8. 1112 Renehan 366-7 says that there is no parallel for an elided personal pronoun at verse-end in Sophocles. There is one at Ar., Ran. 298,

102

Trachiniae

where Dover refers to Descroix, Le trimetre iambique (1931; reprinted 1987) 293 and Maas, GM p. 87 f. Renehan suggests that 'perhaps the pronoun would be better inserted at the beginning of the following verse: (σ') εξουσαν κτλ. See Davies pp.247 and 271.

41. Tr. 1275-8: λείπου μηδέ σύ, παρθέν', έπ' οίκων μεγάλους μεν ίδοϋσα νέους θανάτους, πολλά δέ πήματα (και) καινοπαθή, κούδέν τούτων δτι μή Ζευς. See Erbse, ICS 18 (1993) 57, n. 1 for the opinions of recent commentators as to who speaks these lines; Kirkwood 25, like Mrs. Easterling, has assigned them to the Chorus. H e may be right, but he is mistaken in thinking that the fact that Κ gives the lines to the Chorus is of any consequence; the assignations of lines to speakers in manuscripts have no authority. Davies 265-6 seems to be undecided. H e observes that there is no secure parallel for a singular self-address by the Chorus. Maarit Kaimio, The Chorus of Greek Drama within the Light of the Person and Number Used (1970), 190-1 knows of no other case of the coryphaeus being addressed by an actor with a singular vocative. But the coryphaeus often speaks of himself in the singular (Kaimio, op. cit., 159 f.), and it seems likelier that an actor could so address the coryphaeus than that the coryphaeus could so address another member (or all the members) of the chorus.

PHILOCTETES

1. Ph. 22-3: α μοι προσελθών σίγα "("σήμαιν'·)· εΐτ' εχει χώρον τον αύτόν τόνδ' ετ', εϊτ' αλληι κυρεϊ. 23 τον αύτόν Blaydes: προς αύτόν codd.: προσάντη Tournier Elmsley: τόνδε γ' a: τόνδ' fere cett.

τόνδ' ετ'

Wilamowitz, Textgeschichte der griechischen Bukoliker (1906), 254 in the course of an unfortunate treatment of [Theocr.] 20,22 (later withdrawn; see Gow ad loc.) and at Gr. Tr., IV (1923), 112 defended προς, quoting El. 931 τά πολλά πατρός προς τάφον κτερίσματα, II. 12,63-4 σκόλοπες . . . έστασιν, ποτί δ' αυτούς τείχος 'Αχαιών and Bion fr. 13, 3 έσδόμενον πύςοιο ποτΐ κλάδον: but these hardly explain the use of εχει. But Campbell, PS (1907) 196 also has doubts about the emendation; 'but may not εχει ν προς χώρον τόνδε have the sense of "clinging" or "adhering" to this place?' For the use of εχει he compares E., CycL 407-8 εν μυχοΐς πέτρας πτηςαντες εΐχον and Pindar, Pyth. 1,72 δφρα κατ' οίκον ό Φοίνιξ ό Τυρσανών τ' άλαλατός εχηι. Gildersleeve on this last passage quotes Hdt. 6,39,2 Μιλτιάδης ... είχε κατ' οίκους, where the sense is not far from what we have here. We conclude that one should retain the text of the manuscripts. Renehan 367-9 observes that at Aj. 1101, the only other place where the manuscripts present us with the elision of the last vowel of a threesyllable word after the initial longum of the third metron of a trimeter, the violation of Porson's Law with which the manuscripts present us is easily removable by conjecture. As he says, one would be less uncomfortable if a form of ήγέΐσθαι were being introduced to replace a form of the much commoner word άγειν, but in this place σήμαιν' is a favourite word of Sophocles, makes excellent sense, and is not easy to emend. Renehan points out that the manuscripts present four examples of the elision of a disyllabic word in this place, and asks whether one can confidently accept the one license and reject the other on the basis of such slight data. He may well be right. But Günther, ES 122-5 diagnoses deeper corruption.

104

Philoctetes 2. PL 26: άναξ Όδυσσεϋ,τούργον ού μακράν λέγεις.

A.Ardizzoni, in Filologict e forme letterarie (Festschrift F.Delia Corte (1987), I 151-2) wishes to emend μακράν to μακρόν. That would give the sense 'a long work'; Jebb defends the paradosis, comparing Tr. 962.

3. Ph. 43-4: άλλ' η 'πι φορβής μαστύν έξελήλυθεν, η φύλλον εΐ τι νώδυνον κάτοιδέ που. 43 μαστύν Toup: νόστον codd.

Toup's conjecture is a fairly drastic remedy, since nouns in -υς are rare after Homer, and very rare in Attic except for Plato. See Chantraine, La formation des noms en grec ancien (1933), 290-2 and Buck-Petersen, Reverse Index of Greek Nouns and Adjectives (1944), 19 f.; on nouns in -τυς, see Schwyzer I 506, who cites W. C. Gunnerson, History of υ-stems in Greek (Chicago, 1905). νόστος comes from νέομαι; it means usually 'return', but sometimes simply 'journey', which indicates that its basic meaning is 'successful journey', not so much 'journey home' as 'journey to one's desired goal'. Thus it can mean the 'return' given by the crop, and the adjective νόστιμος, starting from its meaning in phrases like νόστιμον ήμαρ and νόστιμος σωτηρία, comes in modern Greek to have the sense 'succulent, agreable, elegant' (thus Chantraine, DELG II 745). Thus Jebb is right to say that νόστος can mean in effect 'a quest', so that 'the presence of έπί before it already tinges νόστον with the sense of ζήτησιν. It is not safe to alter it.

4. Ph. 72-3: σύ μεν πέπλευκας ουτ' ένορκος ούδενι ουτ' ές ανάγκης ουτε τοΰ πρώτου στόλου.

Renehan 369-70 has shown that the partitive genitive τοΰ πρώτου στόλου is modelled on military language; cf. K.-G. i p. 375.

Philoctetes

105

5. Ph. 176-8: ώ παλάμαι θεών, ώ δυστανα γένη βροτών οίς μή μέτριος αιών. 177 θεών Lachmann: θνητών codd.

For the corruption in 177 compare fr. 5 5 5 , 1 - 2 , where the manuscripts of Stobaeus give ή ποντοναΰται των ταλαιπώρων βροτών οίς ουτε δαίμων οΰτε τις θεών νέμων πλούτου ποτ' αν νείμειεν άξίαν χάριν. F. W. Schmidt's emendation of θεών to θνητών, which was accepted by Pearson, is called 'grotesque' by R. Carden, The Papyrus Fragments of Sophocles (1974) 97. But the sense surely indicates that this is on the right lines, and in the third volume of the Loeb edition Ll-J. has emended so as to read ή ποντοναύτας τών ταλαιπώρων νέμω, οίς ουτε δαίμων ουτε τις θνητών βροτών . . . These would appear to be instances of the not especially common but well-attested type of corruption by which the name of a thing is substituted f o r that of its opposite. Günther's defence of the paradosis (ES 123-8) does not convince us. 6. Ph. 219-221: ΐώ ξένοι·

τίνες ποτ' ές γήν τήνδε ναυτίλωι πλάτηι κατέσχετ' οΰτ' ευορμον ουτ' οίκουμένην; 220 ναυτίλωι πλάτηι Syg, aZo: κάκ ποίας πάτρας cett.

L. Battezzato, MTS 391 points out that after ίώ ξένοι Κ has a space, then ναυτίλωι κώπηι τηι πλάτηι προσορμίσατε. Evidently the variant ναυτίλωι πλάτηι was conflated with κώπηι, glossing πλάτηι, and προσωρμίσατε, glossing κατέσχετ', and Battezzato points out that Κ is the oldest manuscript to attest in any way the correct reading ναυτίλωι πλάτηι. W h a t Κ presents is in effect an interlinear gloss, which the scribe misplaced in such a way as to give an impression that it was part of the text. We might have done better to record this in our app. crit. by writing something like 'novit sch. ap. K'.

7. Ph. 236-7: τίς σ', ώ τέκνον, κατέσχε, τίς προσήγαγεν χρεία; τίς όρμή; τίς ανέμων ό φίλτατος; 236 κατέσχε nos: προσέσχε codd.

West 300 approves κατέσχε, but Kirkwood 29 defends προσέσχε, citing Hdt., 9, 9 9 , 1 προσσχόντες τάς νέας απέβησαν ές τον αίγιαλόν. If men can

Philoctetes

106

προσέχειν their ships, presumably a need can προσέχειν Neoptolemus, so this defence appears to be effective.

8. Ph. 382-88: τοιαϋτ' άκουσας κάξονειδισθεΐς κακά πλέω προς οίκους, των έμών τητώμενος προς τοΰ κάκιστου κάκ κακών 'Οδυσσέως. 385 [κούκ αΐτιώμαι κέΐνον ώς τους εν τέλειπόλις γάρ έστι πασα των ηγουμένων στρατός τε συμπάς· οί δ' άκοσμοΰντες βροτών διδασκάλων λόγοισι γίγνονται κακοί.] With regard to our note on 385-8 (Sophoclea 187), Mrs. Easterling 188 complains that 'the argumentation is unclear'. But after the severe condemnation of Odysseus in 384, his partial exculpation has a weakening effect, not diminished by the pompous and irrelevant lines that follow. Zimmermann 104 approves the deletion.

9. Ph. 421-2: (φευ·) τί δ'; ό παλαιός κάγαθός φίλος τ' έμός, Νέστωρ ό Πυλιος, έστιν; Kopff 159 points out that Dawe had argued against Page's (φεϋ) at PCPS 14 (1965) 15 that 'φεΰ indicates usually surprise or regret', and that there was no reason for surprise that Diomedes and Odysseus were still alive and no reason for Sophocles to make Philoctetes express regret for their survival in so abrupt a manner. But Neoptolemus has already strongly condemned Odysseus, with whom Diomedes was commonly associated, and Philoctetes has made no secret of his own attitude, so that φεϋ is perfectly in place. Diggle, Euripidea 429 n. 38 points out that Page placed a mark of interrogation not after τί δ' but after Πύλιος. Diggle thinks that 'analogy' favours this punctuation, but that the second question then comes with 'unwelcome abruptness'; we do not understand what analogy is meant, and the abruptness does not worry us. But the problem might be solved more economically than by inserting φεΰ or by following Diggle in modifying Dawe's τί χώ to ή χω (in any case, we do not need καί). Campbell, Paralipomena Sophoclea 205 suggested inserting one letter and reading τί δ'; δ(σ), translating 'And what of him who is an old and good man, and a friend of mine?' There is much to be said for this.

Philoctetes

107

10. Ph. 500-3: νΰν δ', ες σε γαρ πομπόν τε καύτόν αγγελον ήκω, σο σώσον, σύ μ' έλέησον, είσορών ώς πάντα δεινά κάπικινδύνως βροτοΐς κείται παθέΐν μεν εύ, παθείν δέ θάτερα. Diggle, Euripidea 9-10 emends Ε., Ale 218 δήλα μέν, φίλοι, δήλα γ' to read δεινά . . . δεινά γ', citing in support this passage with Wakefield's πάντ' άδηλα. In that place δήλα makes perfectly good sense, and Diggle's conjecture has been refuted by P. Riemer, Die Alkestis des Euripides: Untersuchungen zur tragischen Form (1989) 175-6, who is rightly followed by David Kovacs in the first volume of the Loeb Library edition of Euripides (1994). But at 502 Wakefield's conjecture gives a sense better suited to the context than the reading of the manuscripts.

11. Ph. 576-7: μή νυν μ' ερηι τά πλείον', άλλ' δσον τάχος εκπλει σεαυτόν ςυλλαβών έκ τήσδε γής. σεαυτόν ξυλλαβών is an unusual expression, if right probably semi-colloquial; the nearest parallels seems to be Ar., Nub. 701 σαυτόν ... πυκνώσας, though in Latin we find corripuit sese at Virgil, Aeru 6,472 (perhaps an Ennian expression (see Norden's commentary, Anhang 1) and in Plautus and Terence). One might well expect the speaker to warn Neoptolemus to convey Philoctetes away from the island, so that Paley's conjecture εκπλευσον αύτόν has some plausibility; Campbell objected that it is not yet clear that Neoptolemus and Philoctetes are on friendly terms, but it may easily be surmised, and in any case the supposed merchant is aware of the real situation.

12. Ph. 680-5: άλλον δ' οΰτιν' εγωγ' οίδα κλυών ούδ' έσιδών μοίραι τοϋδ' έχθίονι συντυχόντα θνατών, δς ουτε τι ρέςας τιν', ουτε νοσφίσας, άλλ' ϊσος έν ϊσοις άνήρ, ωλλυθ' ώδ' άναξίως. 683 ουτε τι ρέςας Eustathius 763,2: οϋτ' ερςας codd.: οϋτε ρέςας Bergk τιν'] ουτιν' Bergk ουτε] οΰτι Schneidewin 684] έν] εν Y'Hermann: ων F.Schultz

108

Philoctetes

Diggle, Euripidea 457 n. 68 thinks that because in four tragic passages interrogative τί preceding part of the verb ρέζω is short therefore τι before ρέςας cannot be long here. But Renehan 370-1 warns that in terms of prosody interrogative and indefinite ti 'seem to have gone their separate ways', pointing out that hiatus was permitted after the former, but not after the latter. He therefore concludes that it is 'just possible' that an indefinite τι could be long before ρέςας. But he still questions the reading ουτε τι ρέξας τιν', for two reasons. Firstly, he doubts whether two enclitics could stand one before and the other after the verb; and, secondly, he holds that 'when two forms of the indefinite pronoun occur in the same clause, the normal order is for the persona to precede the res'. However, in this particular case τι ρέζειν can be regarded, as τι δραν or δραν τι may be, as though it were a single verb, so that the position of τιν' is not anomalous. 684: Renehan 371 defends the paradosis against F. Schultz's conjecture. 13. Ph. 691-5: ϊν' αύτός ην, πρόσουρον ούκ εχων βάσιν, ούδέ τιν' έγχώρων, κακογείτονα, παρ' ώι στόνον άντίτυπον (νόσον) βαρυβρώτ' άποκλαύσειεν αίματηρόν. 694 (νόσον) nos

Mrs. Easterling 187 writes that 'the introduction of νόσον surely weakens the power of the passage, which derives some of its intensity from the boldness of its description of the disease which tortures Philoctetes'. But for the meaning to be clear the adjectives βαρυβρώτ' and αίματηρόν require a noun which they can aptly qualify, and στόνον is not such a noun. Campbell, wishing to take βαρυβρώτ' as a noun, inserted τάν before it, coming up against the problem of responsion; Webster wished to take βαρυβρώτ' as a noun without the article, which is by no means easy, νόσον makes the sense a good deal easier to understand, and gives a metre that is acceptable. 14. Ph. 712-7: ώ μελέα ψυχά, δς μηδ' οίνοχύτου πώματος ησθη δεκέτει χρόνωι, λεύσσων δ' οπου γνοίη στατόν εις υδωρ αϊεί προσενώμα.

Philoctetes

109

Albrecht Dihle in Piatonismus und Christentum (Festschrift H. Dörrie; /AC Ergänzungsband 10, 1983) 89 takes προσενώμα as transitive with object supplied from υδωρ, alleging that έπινωμαν and other compounds of the same verb are transitive. But see Ph. 168 (λόγος έστΐ) . . . ούδέ τιν' αύτώι παιώνα κακών έπινωμαν. In that place E.Laroche, Histoire de la racine NEM- en grec ancien (1949) 76 translates 'ne pas lui apporter la guerison de ses maux', wrongly, since παιών means not 'cure' but 'healer' (cf. 832, Α., Ag. 99, E., Hipp. 1373, Α., fr. 255,1); but Laroche rightly translates our passage by 'il s'avan^ait toujours vers l'eau stagnante'.

15. Ph. 749: μή φείσηι βίου. The unnecessary conjecture βίας was first made not by West but by Wakefield.

16. Ph. 751-5: Νε. τί δ' εστίν οΰτω νεοχμόν έςαίφνης, δτου τοσήνδ' ίυγήν και στόνον σαυτοΰ ποήι; Φι. οίσθ', ώ τέκνον. Νε. τί εστίν; Φι.οίσθ', ώ παΐ. Νε. τί σοί; ούκ οίδα. Φι. πώς ούκ οίσθα; παππαπαππαπάΐ. 755 Νε. δεινόν γε τούπίσαγμα τοΰ νοσήματος. In 753 the question-marks placed after each of Philoctetes' utterances should be deleted from the O C T ; Hermann in a masterly note proved them to be mistaken. Hermann believed them to have been introduced by Triclinius, but it seems likelier that Dindorf, Annotationes ad Sophoclem (Oxford, 1836) 363 was right in thinking that it was Turnebus who added them. They are found in his text (p. 374), but we do not believe that the Triclinian scholion supplied the stimulus. In 755 Dawe's δήλόν (PCPS 14, 1968, 16) may well be right; for the corruption see Diggle, Euripidea 10 n. 6 (mentioned in n. 10 above).

17. Ph. 758-60: ήκει γαρ αύτη δια χρόνου, πλάνης ϊσως δτ' έςεπλήσθη, νόσος. Νε. ΐώ δύστηνε σύ, δύστηνε δήτα δια πόνων πάντων φανείς. 759 νόσος. Νε. ίώ Robertson: ίώ ίώ codd. 760 Philoctetae trib. VTa, et sic coni. Lindner

110

Philoctetes

R.G. Ussher in his edition of 1990 repeats Dawe's errors in accepting Heimsoeth's εϊκει in 758, leaving in the text the hiatus in 759, and giving 760 to Philoctetes, and adds a new one by punctuating after πλάνης in 758. He takes πλάνης as nominative; 'the medical terminology', he writes, 'recommends this reconstruction of the text'.

18. Ph. 793-5: ώ διπλοί στρατηλάται, [Άγάμεμνον, ώ Μενέλαε, πώς αν άντ' έμοϋ] τον ϊσον χρόνον τρέφοιτε τήνδε την νόσον. 794 del. Ε. Philipp

The logicality of West, BICS 31 (1984) 185 makes us wonder whether he and we were right to bracket 794; the rhythm may be clumsy and the names unnecessary, but the line is not ineffective, indeed more effective than the Μενέλαέ τ' 'Αγάμεμνον τε of Nauck and Blaydes, and 795 seems a little bald without it.

19. Ph. 921: και ταϋτ' αληθή δραν νοείς; 'We should rather have expected αληθώς': Blaydes. The word does not happen to occur in Sophocles, but he can hardly have entertained a prejudice against it; there are four instances in Aeschylus and nine in Euripides. The Platonic passages (Laches 186 A, Meno 98 B) that have been adduced in defence of αληθή are irrelevant, as in each case τοΰτο ... αληθή λέγεις means 'you are right as to that', as Jebb acknowledges. Schneidewin quotes Demosthenes 50,2 έςελεγςάτω δ τι αν μη φήι με άληθή λέγειν προς υμας and Hypereides, Pro Euxenippo 14 τοϋτ' εί μεν ύπελάμβανες αληθές είναι: but in the former place the meaning is 'whatever untruths he says that I have told you' and in the latter 'if you assumed that this was true'(thus Burtt in the Loeb edition). We have found no instance of the supposed adverbial use of the accusative of this word; not one of the instances grouped with this passage by Krüger, Gr. Sprachlehre 61,8, n. 3 (p. 266) is truly parallel. Webster takes the words to mean ' D o you intend to do these things so that they will come true?', and Kamerbeek approves this unconvincing subterfuge. It would appear that αληθώς should be in the text; in all probability the word was wrongly assimilated to the case of the neighbouring ταϋτ'.

Philoctetes

111

20. Ph. 941-7: όμόσας άπάξειν οΐκαδ' ές Τροίαν μ' άγει προσθείς τε χαρα δεςίαν, τά τόξα μου ιερά λαβών τοΰ Ζηνός 'Ηρακλέους εχει, και τοΐσιν Άργείοισιν φήνασθαι θέλει. 945 ώς ανδ^' ελών ίσχυρόν έκ βίας μ' άγει, κούκ οίδ' έναίρων νεκρόν, η καπνοΰ σκιάν, εΐδωλον άλλως. In 945 Dindorf inserted (δ') after ελών; if this conjecture is adopted, as it probably should be, a full stop rather than a comma at the end of 944 is desirable.

21. Ph. 971-5: Φι. οΰκ εΐ κακός σί>· προς κακών δ' ανδρών μαθών εοικας ήκειν αισχρά, νΰν δ' άλλοισι δούς οίς εικός εκπλει, ταμ' έμοι μεθεΐς δπλα. Νε. τί δρώμεν, άνδρες; Οδ. ώ κάκιστ' ανδρών, τί δραις; οΰκ εί μεθεΐς τά τόξα ταΰτ' έμοί πάλιν; 972-3: δούς needs an object, and δσ' (Wilson, first in the Loeb edition) is a distinct improvement, better than D i n d o r f s o " or Seyffert's ώς. 975 is ably defended by Ferrari, RTS 56 against West, BICS 26 (1979) 113.

22. Ph. 1021: σύ μεν γέγηθας ζών, εγώ δ' άλγύνομαι. 'Qui c'e la pentemimere. La cesura non va d'accordo con la sintassi': Fraenkel, DSR 72; see Stephan, op. cit. on EL 1472-3, 51-2.

23. Ph. 1035-6: όλ£σθε δ' ήδικηκότες τον άνδρα τόνδε, θεοΐσιν εί δίκης μέλει. Diggle, Euripidea 136 n. 124 finds that of the 27 instances of synizesis in a case of the word θεός in the iambic trimeters of Sophocles, this is the only one in which it is preceded by a short syllable; but he has not conjectured τοϋτον.

112

Philoctetes

24. Ph. 1140: ανδρός τοι τό μεν δν δίκαιον ειπείν At Sophoclea 207 we cited as an instance of άνήρ meaning vir as opposed to homo the second line of Euripides' Heracleidae; J. Wilkins in his commentary on that play of 1993, like Pearson in his commentary of 1907, has failed to see that in the sentence ό μεν δίκαιος τοις πέλας πέφυκ' άνήρ, the word άνήρ is the predicate.

25. Ph. 1173-5: Xo. τί τοϋτ' ελεξας; Φι. εΐ σύ τάν έμοΐ στυγεράν Τρωιάδα γήν μ' ήλπισας αςειν. Hartung's deletion of έμοΐ may easily be right; see Dale, The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama, 2nd. edn., p. 130 and p. 108, n.2 and MATC fasc. 2, 50.

26. Ph. 1213: ώ πόλις πόλις πατρία alteram πόλις Gleditsch: ώ πόλις codd.

The second ω is defended by E. Medda, SCO 43 (1993) 170 f., who for the sake of the 'importante dato stilistico costituito dalla doppia invocazione con ώ, un modulo espressivo cui Sofocle fa spesso ricorso in contesti lirici di elevato pathos' is prepared to put up with an unusual form of dochmiac followed by a cretic, a thing not well suited to this metrical context, and requiring us to scan the first syllable of πατρία as long.

27. Ph. 1358-61: ού γάρ_ με ταλγος των παρελθόντων δάκνει, άλλ' οία χρή παθεϊν με προς τούτων ετι δοκώ προλεύσσειν. οίς γαρ ή γνώμη κακών μήτηρ γένηται, ταλλα παιδεύει κακά. 1361 ταλλα] κάλλα Cavallin: πάντα Reiske

κακά] κακούς Dobree

Philoctetes

113

We have given not the text we printed, but the reading of the manuscripts. So far this passage has defied every effort at interpretation. It is worth remembering that Wakefield, accepting Reiske's πάντα, conjectured πάντα πιδεύει κακά, 'all evils well up'; Blaydes suggested the improved spelling πιδύει. Wakefield must have had in mind Α., Pers. 813-5: where the manuscripts have: τοιγάρ κακώς δράσαντες οΰκ ελάσσονα πάσχουσι, τά δέ μέλλουσι, κούδέπω κακών κρηπΐς ΰπεστιν, άλλ' ετ' εκπαιδεύεται. Many scholars, including Wilamowitz, Broadhead (1960), West (1990) and Edith Hall (1996) have accepted Schütz' emendation of εκπαιδεύεται to έκπιδύεται. One could obtain a sense similar to that obtained by Wakefield if one read πληθύει, so that the words meant 'For those whose mind has become the mother of evils, other evils multiply'.

OEDIPUS AT COLONUS

1. O. G 3-6: τίς τον πλανήτην Οίδίπουν καθ' ήμέραν την νΰν σπανιστοΐς δέξεται δωρήμασιν, σμικρόν μεν έςαιτοϋντα, τοϋ σμικρού δ' ετι μείον φέροντα, και τόδ' έξαρκοΰν έμοί; 5: on the forms σμικρός and μικρός, Diggle, Euripidea 145-6 gives data for Euripides that confirm Page's view that 'metre permitting, tragedy prefers σμικρός'.

2. O.C. 9-12: άλλ', ώ τέκνον, θάκησιν ε'ί τινα βλέπεις η προς βεβήλοις η προς άλσεσιν θεών, στήσόν με κάςίδρυσον, ώς πυθώμεθα δπου ποτ' έσμέν. 11 πυθώμεθα Brunck: πυθοίμεθα codd.

11: Radermacher defended the optative, citing Stahl, Kritisch-historische Syntax des gr. Verbums der klassischen Zeit (1907), 482. The same view is taken by B.Vancamp, WS 104 (1991) 111, who points to examples of cupitive optatives in final clauses in Schwyzer-Debrunner 323, citing also Chantraine, Grammaire Homerique s. 400 (p. 271). He cites as parallels Od 17,242,3 τόδε μοι κρήηνον έέλδωρ ώς ελθοι μοι κείνος άνήρ, άγάγοι δε έ δαίμων: Hdt., 2,93,4 (on the fish called Tilapia nilotica) έχόμενοι της γης έπ' αριστερά καταπλέουσι ές θάλασσαν και άναπλέοντες οπίσω της αυτής αντέχονται, έγχριμπτόμενοι και ψαύοντες ώς μάλιστα, ίνα δη μή άμάρτοιεν της όδοΰ δια τον ροϋν: Ar., Ran. 22-3 αυτός βαδίζω και πονώ, τοϋτον δ' όχώ, ι'να μή ταλαιπωροΐτο μηδ' άχθος φέροι. In the last of these places, Dover ad loc. follows Goodwin, SGMT and K.-G. ii p. 383 in holding that the optative is used because the intention was formed in the past; but it may be that here too the optative is basically an optative of wish.

Oedipus at Colonus

115

3. O . C . 14-8: πάτερ ταλαίπωρ' Οιδίπους, πύργοι μεν οΐ πόλιν στέφουσιν, ώς άπ' ομμάτων, πρόσω, χώρος δ' οδ' ιερός, ώς σάφ' εΐκάσαι, βρύων δάφνης, έλαίας, αμπέλου - πυκνόπτεροι δ' εΐσω κατ' αύτόν εΰστομοΰσ' άηδόνες. 15 στέφουσιν Wakefield: στεγουσιν codd.

15: Bremer, STP 98-9 supports Wakefield's conjecture στέφουσιν, adducing three passages of early poetry in which στέφανος is used of the walls of a city. 17: M . F . S m i t h , Prometheus 18 (1992) 227-8 takes πυκνόπτεροι to mean not 'many and feathered', but 'many-feathered', citing πολυστίκτων at 1092-3 and other compounds beginning with πυκνό-. Linguistically his argument is strong; but are the nightingale's feathers particularly thick? N . D u n b a r in her commentary on Aristophanes' Birds (1995) 140 calls it 'a small brown bird whose only striking feature is its brownish chestnut tail'. 4. O. C. 38-40: Οι. τίς δ' εσθ' ό χώρος; τοΰ θεών νομίζεται; Ξε. άθικτος οΰδ' οίκητός. αί γαρ εμφοβοι θεαί σφ' εχουσι, Γης τε και Σκότου κόραι. 40 Σκότου AYt: -ους lrUz

Renehan 371-2 agrees that 'neuter personifications are not a problem', but shows that 'the masculine form, abundantly attested f o r the classical period (beside the neuter form), later tended to be superseded by the neuter, τό σκότος on the analogy of τό φάος/φώσ', so that he concludes that we are right to prefer Σκότου here. 5. O. C. 42-5: Ξε. τάς πάνθ' όρώσας Εΰμενίδας ό γ' ένθάδ' αν εΐποι λεώς νιν - άλλα δ' άλλαχοΰ καλά. Οι. άλλ' ϊλεω μεν τον ίκέτην δεςαίατο· ώς ούχ έδρας γε τησδ' άν έςέλθοιμ' ετι. 45 γε Musgrave: γης codd.

Bremer, STP 99-100 defends γης in 45 against Musgrave's conjecture. In reply to our remark that έδρας γης τησδε is 'a somewhat unusual expression', he reminds us that Sophocles employs many unusual expres-

116

Oedipus at Colonus

sions, and at 84-5 these very words recur. However, at 84-5 the meaning is different, since ύμών πρώτων is possessive genitive with έδρας and πρώτων governs the partitive genitive τησδε γης . Indeed Sophocles uses many unusual expressions, but even in conservative circles it must have been noticed that his text contains many corruptions, and 'the seat of this land' is unusual in a way that arouses suspicion. Bremer would have done better to follow Jebb in citing E., HeL 797 όραις τάφου τοΰδ' αθλίους έδρας έμής;, which does indeed indicate that έδρας γης τήσδ' could mean 'my rest in this land'. But Oedipus has just learned that he has come to a shrine of the Eumenides, and since he has been told (see 87-93) that when he comes to a shrine of the Eumenides he will find rest, it is likely that at 45 he will say not merely that he will not leave Attica, but that he will not leave the shrine of the Eumenides. It is not from Attica, but from the sacred area that the peasant is trying to expel him.

6. O. C. 77-80: αύτοΰ μεν', ούπερ κάφάνης, εως έγώ τοις ένθάδ' αύτοΰ μη κατ' άστυ δημόταις λέξω τάδ' έλθών ο'ίδε γαρ κρινοΰσί σοι εΐ χρή σε μίμνειν, η πορεύεσθαι πάλιν. M.F.Smith, art. cit. in n.2 above, 228, wishes to emend 79 to read κρινοΰσ' ίσοι. σοι, he says is 'unwanted, particularly in view of σε in 80'. But no harm is being done by an ethic dative of a kind not uncommon in Sophocles (compare, for instance, ούτως εχει σοι ταΰτα at Ant. 37 and El. 938, and other examples at Ellendt-Genthe p. 701, No. 5), nor does the presence of σε make one feel that it is superfluous. It is not specially appropriate that the peasant should tell Oedipus that the men of the deme will judge 'fairly'; they will not have to decide whether he deserves to stay or not, but whether they choose to let him stay.

7. O.C. 113-4: σιγήσομαί τε και συ μ' ές όδοΰ 'κποδών κρύψον κατ' άλσος. 113 τε] τοι Nauck έξ όδοΰ 'κποδών Tournier: ές όδοΰ πόδα codd.

Diggle, Euripidea 514 makes a strong case for τοι: see on Tr. 626. Renehan 372-3 and Kassel in a letter have pointed out that Wilamowitz on E., H.F. 162 (quoted at Sophoclea 219) was concerned simply to explain the σχήμα 'Ιωνικόν (on which see Lesbonax fr. 12 Blank). In

Oedipus at Colonus

117

doing so he cited this passage, remarking that 'der Fuss genannt ist, weil seine Bewegung nötig ist, und niemand έμόν πόδα κρύψον beanstanden würde'. Kassel compares Ph. 1302 μέθες με χείρα, drawing attention to the words of Campbell, PS 2 3 7 - 8 ; Ί believe that πόδα is right and expresses the dependence of Oedipus on his guide. The substitution of κρύψον for έςάγαγε or the like is due to condensation: "Assist my going and hide me'". We would have done better to keep the manuscript reading in the text while signalling doubt in the app. crit.

8. O.C. 155-6: περαις γάρ, περαις. At 885 έπεΐ πέραν περώσ* (οί'δε) δή surely means not 'they are crossing the frontier' (Jebb, Kamerbeek) but 'they are going too far!', and West, BICS 31 (1984) 186, pointing out that there seems to be no parallel for the absolute use of περάω, wants to alter the first περαις to πέραν. He may be right, but one would hardly dare to insist that the absolute use of this verb could not exist.

9. O.C. 161-5: των, ξένε πάμμορ' - εύ φύλαςαι μετάσταθ', άπόβαθι. πολλά κέλευθος έρατύοι· κλύεις, ώ πολύμοχθ' άλατα; 164 έρατύοι Musgrave: -ει codd.

Bremer, STP 100-1 defends έρατύει on the ground that the Chorus is noting that Oedipus is a long way off and perhaps may be unable to hear them. If that were the sense, would the Chorus use the word κέλευθος, a word that properly means 'journey'? See O.Becker, Das Bild, des Weges (1937), 7-14.

10. O . C 193-4: Xo. αύτοϋ· μηκέτι τοΰδ' αύτοπέτρου βήματος εςω πόδα κλίνηις. Οι. ούτως; Χο. αλις, ως άκούεις. West, art. cit., 186 'cannot see the point of' ώς άκούεις, finding that 'if it amounts to "as I have just told you", it is an odd way of saying it, and it gives the chorus' response an impatient tone that is uncalled for',

118

Oedipus at Colonus

so he conjectures άκούειν, taking the sense to be 'That's far enough for (speaking and) hearing'. But is ώς άκούεις really such an odd way of saying 'as you have heard'? At E., Hel. 99 Helen says of Achilles μνηστήρ ποθ' 'Ελένης ήλθεν, ώς άκούομεν, and at Α., Pen. 565 West himself, like Wilamowitz, L. Belloni and E. Hall keeps the reading of the manuscripts τυτθά δ' έκφυγεΐν ανακτ' αυτόν, ώς άκούομεν (though Page accepts Pauw's είσακούομεν). And if the tone of the remark is 'uncalled for', is a touch of imperiousness really out of character for the Chorus? 11. O.C. 196: The Simonidean fragment cited in the note on this line in Sophoclea p. 223 is not in PMG because it is assumed to be part of an hexameter; it is Simonides fr. 9 at West, IEG, 2nd. edn., ii p. 117. 12. O . C . 210-1: μή μή μ' άνέρηι τίς ειμί μηδ' έξετάσηις πέρα ματευων. 210 μή bis Härtung: ter Lazt: semel r

Kirkwood 30 defends the three successive μ η \ arguing that the three negations in Ph. 1300 as we print it are equally unusual. They are not; where else in tragedy can he point to three μή'β in succession? The Philoctetes passage (ά, μηδαμώς, μή, προς θεών, μή 'φήις (μή 'φήις Meineke: μεθήις codd.) βέλος) is not quite similar. Jebb writes 'after the preceding άλλα μή, a threefold iteration would rather weaken than strengthen'.

13. O. C. 220: Οι. Λαίου ϊστε τιν' - Χο. ώ· ιού ίου. 220 post τιν' add. άπόγονον codd.: del. Reisig

West 301 writes 'Stinton pointed out that απόγονος is not a glossator's word, and it is common knowledge that scribes often multiply exclamations. Yet these editors suppress the noun, blandly answering Stinton with "but a glossator may have used it, and it is easier to see how it got in than how the exclamations may have intruded"'. Indeed απόγονος seems not to occur as a gloss. But it is used eight times in the Homeric and once in the Platonic scholia. 'The word άπόγονον', wrote Jebb, 'seemingly a gloss, . . . is against the metre . . . ; it also injures the dramatic force. Each word is wrung from Oedipus;

Oedipus at Colonus

119

the gen. Λαίου tells all'. We need add nothing to this, except to mention that Jebb explained the passage as we have done and Wilamowitz, GV 364 took the same view. 14. O . C 266-7: έπεΐ τά γ' έργα με πεπονθότ' ΐσθι μάλλον η δεδρακότα. 266-7 με... ΐσθι Hertel: μου . . . έστι codd.

We must thank Bremer 102-3 for his support for our revival of Hertel's and Housman's conjecture. But we cannot agree with his colleague Dr. A.M. van Ε φ Taalman Kip that 'another possibility' is έπεΐ τά γ' εργα μου - πεπονθότ' ΐσθι μάλλον η δεδρακότα. As she remarks one would have to understand με, and that would not be easy; why jib at the small further alteration needed to get a satisfactory sense? 15. O. C 288-90: όταν δ' ό κύριος παρήι τις, υμών δστις έστίν ήγεμών, τότ' είσακούων πάντ' έπιστησηι. 288 δ' ό LZo: ό raZn: δέ t

Braswell on P., Pyth. 4,229-30 follows Dawe in preferring to accept Triclinius' δέ for δ' ό. 'The κύριοσ', he writes, 'is thought of as a definite, though unknown, person in either case'; but Jebb wrote 'The article implies that the person exists; the τις that his name is unknown'. 16. O . C 327: Ις. ώ πάτερ δύσμορφ' όραν. δύσμορφ' Bücheler: δύσμοιρ' a: δύσμορ' cett.

Mrs. Easterling 187 finds δύσμορφ' 'unimaginable in the mouth of Ismene'. From a modern point of view Ismene's utterance may seem impolite; but why is she to be denied the right to express, at her first entrance on the stage, her horror at Oedipus' appearance? Compare the reactions of the Chorus at 140-1 and 150-2. Wilamowitz (ap. T. von Wilamowitz, 345, n. 1) thought highly of Bücheler's conjecture, and Jackson, MS 43 f. listed δύσμοιρ', a word not found elsewhere, along with other readings of the Paris family which he ascribed to mistaken conjecture.

120

Oedipus at Colonus 17. O. C. 342-5: σφώιν δ', ώ τέκν', ους μεν εικός ήν πονεϊν τάδε, κατ' οίκον οΐκουροϋσιν ωστε παρθένοι, σφώ δ' άντ' εκείνων τάμα δυστήνου κακά ύπερπονεΐτον.

Kamerbeek rightly reminds us that σφώιν in 342 is difficult. It is better to take it as meaning 'in your case' than to make it a partitive genitive meaning 'of you two pairs', but even then the dative of disadvantage is very loosely related to the rest of the sentence. It may well be that σφω got in from 344, and was then adapted to fit in with the rest of the sentence; perhaps it displaced νϋν.

18. O.C. 367-8: πριν μεν γαρ αύτοϊς ηρεσεν Κρέοντί τε θρόνους έασθαι μηδέ χραίνεσθαι πόλιν, λόγωι σκοποΰσι την πάλαι γένους φθοράν, 370 οία κατέσχε τον σον άθλιον δόμο ν νϋν δ' έκ θεών του κάς άλειτηροΰ φρενός εισήλθε τοϊν τρις άθλίοιν ερις κακή. 367 ηρεσεν Bergk: ήν ερις codd.: ήν ερως Musgrave

367: Kopff 159 points out that Pearson in fact read ήν ερως. Winnington-In gram, BICS 26 (1979) 11 accepted ηρεσεν. The corruption may have been facilitated by the presence of the word ερις at 372. 372: τρισαθλίοιν in the O C T was a misprint, corrected in the Loeb edition.

19. O.C. 377-81: ό δ', ως καθ' ήμας έσθ' ό πληθυων λόγος, τό κοίλον "Αργός βάς φυγάς, προσλαμβάνει κήδός τε καινόν και ςυνασπιστάς φίλους, 380 ώς αύτίκ' αυτός ή τό Καδμείων πέδον τιμήι καθέςων ή προς οΰρανόν βιβών. 380 αϋτος Nauck: "Αργός codd. 381 τιμήι Lazt: τι δή r: τύμβωι Arndt: ταφήι Schubert καθέςων] καθέλξων Reiske

Our Interpretation of 380-1 is one of those which West 301 finds 'worthy of Verrall'; perhaps he will one day favour us with the reasons for his opinion. Renehan 373 argues against it that πέδον 'refers specifically to

Oedipus at Colonus

121

the surface of the earth, that on which one walks, and does not connote the earth below the surface', so that it cannot be used of the earth in which a man is buried. But see E., SuppL 829 κατά με πέδον γας ελοι and Rh. 962-6: ούκ είσι γαίας ές μελάγχιμον πέδον τοσόνδε νύμφην την ένερθ' αίτησομαι, της καρποποιοϋ παϊδα Δημητρος θεάς, ψυχήν άνεϊναι τήνδ'· όφειλέτις δέ μοι τους Όρφέως τιμώσα φαίνεσθαι φίλους. On the special use of κατέχειν to denote the relation of the dead to the places of their burial, see A.Henrichs, Classical Antiquity 12 (1993), 173-5.

20. O. C 402: κείνοις ό τύμβος δυστυχών ό σος βαρύς. Kassel reminds us that Τ. von Wilamowitz 323 explains this line by δταν μή τύχωσιν εύμενοΰς σοϋ έν τώι τύμβωι κειμένου.

21. O.C. 410-1: Οι. ποίας φανείσης, ώ τέκνο ν, συναλλαγής; Ις. της σης ΰπ' οργής, σοϊς δταν στώσιν τάφοις. In the Loeb edition the conjecture σοΐς δτ' άντώσιν has been adopted.

22. O. C 450-54: αλλ' οΰ τι μή λάχωσι τοΰδε συμμάχου, ούδέ σφιν αρχής τήσδε Καδμείας ποτέ δνησις ήςει· τοΰτ' έγώδα, τήσδε τε μαντέΐ' άκούων, συννοών τε θέσφατα παλαίφαθ' άμοι Φοίβος ήνυσέν ποτε. 453 τε θέσφατα Heimsoeth: τά τ' ές έμοϋ codd.: τε τάς έμοϋ Heath: τε τάπ' έμοί Rauchenstein: τε κάς έμοϋ Dawe

Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 65-6 finds that we 'adopt the hob-nailed boot approach'. But as we explained we took the view that έμοϋ had got in from 455 or 457, so that we did not find it necessary to follow the ductus litterarum closely. We also explained that our objection to Heath's conjecture was that the prophecies did not originate from Oedipus, παλαί-

122

Oedipus at Colonus

φατ' surely needs an article or an attribute, and unlike Dawe's proposal the conjecture we adopted meets this requirement.

23. O. C. 476: είέν t o δ' ενθεν ποΐ τελευτήσαι με χρή; 476 ποΐ] ποϋ Ζο: πήι Dawe

Diggle, Euripidea 231 n. 5 supports the conjecture πήι, in which Dawe was anticipated by Elmsley, though he later changed his mind. H e quotes Dawe as writing that 'we must distinguish between "end" and "perform", and here the question is clearly "how" the rite is to be performed, and the question is answered in those terms; the last elements of the rite come later'. But as West, Gnomon 53 (1981) 525 observes, 'ποΐ τελευτήσαι is idiomatic'; the emphasis is not on the end of the process, but on the process as a whole. West quotes Α., Pers. 735, Cho. 528, E., Hec. 419 and Tro. 1029, and for other parallels see Garvie on the Cho. passage.

24. O. C. 486-9: ως σφας καλοϋμεν Εύμενίδας, ες ευμενών στέρνων δέχεσθαι τον ίκέτην σωτηρίους αίτοΰ σύ τ' αυτός κει τις άλλος άντι σοϋ, απυστα φωνών μηδέ μηκύνων βοήν. 487 σωτηρίους Bake: -tov codd.

Bremer STC 102-3 rejects Bake's emendation, laying strong stress on 457-64, where Oedipus presents himself as a σωτήρ. But as Pearson and Dawe have both seen, in this prayer the emphasis is on the action demanded of the goddesses.

25. O. C. 493: ώ παΐδε, κλύετον τώνδε προσχώρων ξένων; Diggle, Euripidea 514 rightly claims that ώ παΐδ', έκλύετον which we presented as a conjecture of Fraenkel, is the reading of L; at least there is a smooth breathing, but no sign for elision after πάΐδ'. That would be a minor oversight by the scribe. Either a present or an aorist would make sense, but the former seems likelier.

Oedipus at Colonus

123

26. O. C. 503-4: Ις. αλλ' είμ' έγώ τελούσα· τον τόπον δ' ϊνα χρησται μ' ύπουργέϊν, τοϋτο βούλομαι μαθεΐν. 504 χρησται Lac: χρή 'σται vel sim. Lpcat: χρησται r: χρή στέμμ' Elmsley ύπουργέϊν Reiske: έφευρεΐν codd.

Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 66-7 emends έφευρεΐν τοϋτο to άφιεροΰν ταΰτα, remarking that one advantage of his conjecture is that it 'will obviate the unpleasant equation τοϋτο = τόπον'. In support of άφιεροΰν, a verb found once in tragedy, in the passive at Α., Eum. 451, he adduces EL 278, where he accepts Seyffert's emendation of the manuscripts' εΰροΰσ' to ίεροϋσ'. Seyffert's conjecture there is palaeographically superior to Dawe's here, but in that place what is wrong with εΰροΰσ'? In the O. C passage both Reiske's verb and Dawe's are some way from the paradosis, but ύπουργέϊν occurs four times in Sophocles, and υπουργία once. If one finds the equation unpleasant, one might deal with this difficulty by removing the comma after ύπουργέϊν and taking τοϋτο as the object of that verb; but there is no need for this. In fact one can perfectly well say μαθεΐν τον τόπον, 'learn the place' (cf. O. 77 1128 τον ανδρα τόνδ' ούν οίσθα τήιδέ που μαθών;). But surely τοϋτο refers not to τόπον, but to the whole clause.

27. O. C 515-6: μή προς ξενίας άνοίξηις τας σας α πέπονθ' άναιδώς. 516 α πέπονθ' Reisig: πέπονθ' εργα codd.: πέπον, εργ' Bothe: νέγον' εργα Jackson άναιδώς nos: αναιδή codd.: αναυδα Nauck

Renehan 373 compares Ο. 77 354 οΰτως άναιδώς έςεκίνησας τόδε τό ρήμα; But there άναιδώς means 'shamelessly'; here it means 'ruthlessly'. Ferrari in a letter of 28 August 1994 drew our attention to Pindar, fr. 140a col. 2 παϋσέν [τ'] εργ' άναιδή, but that does little to support εργα . . . αναιδή here.

28. Ο. G 534-5: Xo. σοί γ' άρ' άπόγονοί τ' εϊσί και Οι. κοιναί γε πατρός άδελφεαί. 534 σοί γ' άρα nos: σοί τ' αρ' Κ: σαί τ' αρ' Lra: σαί ταρ' Bothe

124

Oedipus at Colonus

West 300 approves σοί γ' άρ': on γ' άρα, see J . C . B . Lowe, Glotta 51 (1977) 59.

29. Ο. C 547-8: αται άλούς έφόνευσ' άπό τ' ωλεσα, νόμωι δέ καθαρός· άιδρις ές τόδ' ήλθον. αται L1.-J.: και γαρ codd.: μοίραι Martin άλούς Hermann: άλλους codd.

West 300 and Kirkwood 28 approve αται άλούς: so does Mrs. Easterling 187, who calls attention to the 'similar pattern' at 526 and 532.

30. O. C 588-9: Θη. πότερα τά των σων έκγόνων η τοΰ λέγεις; Οι. κείνοι βαδίζειν κέΐσ' άναγκάσουσί με. 589 βαδίζειν Maehly: κομίζειν codd.

Indeed βαδίζειν is not common in serious poetry; but Mastronarde on E., Phoen. 544 cites TGrF Adesp. 177,1 σύ μεν βάδιζε τάς έπ' Ίνάχου ροάς.

31. Ο. G 638-41: εί δ' ένθάδ' ηδύ τώι ξένωι μίμνειν, σέ νιν τάξω φυλάσσειν, εϊτ' έμοϋ στείχειν μέτα. τί δ' ηδύ τούτων, Οιδίπους, δίδωμί σοι κρίναντι χρήσθαι - τήιδε γαρ ςυνοίσομαι. 638-41 del. Dindorf, 638-40 Nauck 638 τώι ςένωι Lra, Τ s. 1.: τον ξένον zt 639 εϊτ'] εϊ δ' a 640 τί δ' Fraenkel: τόδ' codd.

Bremer, STP 104-5 objects that on our view 'la phrase suspendue en l'air εϊτ' έμοΰ στείχειν μέτα est peu satisfaisante'. H e prefers to follow Jebb in reading εί δ' έμοϋ στείχειν μέτα τόδ' ηδύ, τούτων . . . But as we pointed out τόδ' referring back to στείχειν reads awkwardly; and what is the function of τούτων? Bremer cites as an example of the use of κρίνειν 'avec un simple genitif' Α., Eum. 487 κρίνασα δ' άστών των έμών τά βέλτατα, but there άστών surely depends on τά βέλτατα. In fact the phrase 'hanging in the air' is protected by Ο. T. 91-2 and other parallels given by Bruhn, Anhang p. 115,19 f. But it is not impossible that εΐ δ'

Oedipus at Colonus

125

in 639 is right, and that a line containing an apodosis has dropped out afther that line.

32. O. C 664-5: θαρσεΐν μεν ούν εγωγε κανευ της έμής γνώμης επαινώ, Φοίβος εΐ προυπεμψέ σε. 664 εγωγε . . . έμής] εγωγε καν έμής ανευ Hermann: κανευ γε τής έμής έγώ Porson

See Diggle, Euripidea

457.

33. Ο. C. 704-6: ό δ' αίέν όρων κύκλος λεύσσει νιν Μορίου Διός χά γλαυκώπις 'Αθάνα. See Jacoby on Apollodorus, FGrH 244 F 120. Henrichs in Wilamowitz nach 50 Jahren (1985) 268 n.28 points out that it was Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen i 240-3 who first explained the religious and judicial status of the sacred olive-trees known as Μορίαι; he cites also Latte s.v. μορία in R.-K 16,1 (1933) Sp.302f. and Jacoby on Istros, FGrH 334 F 30.

34. 716 f.: at Sophoclea p. 239, second paragraph, add to the list of Euripidean passages that mention the fifty Nereids I.A. 1054-7, which Diggle classifies as 'fortasse Euripidei'.

35. O . C . 720-1: ώ πλέϊστ' έπαίνοις εΰλογούμενον πέδον, νΰν σοι τά λαμπρά ταΰτα δει φαίνειν επη. 721 σοι] σον Nauck δέΐ] δή t φαίνειν] κραίνειν Nauck

At Sophoclea 239 we cited as a parallel f o r the use of the dative σοι Ε., Hipp. 940-1. Since Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 66-7 denies its relevance, this must be presented in its context; εί γαρ κατ' ανδρός βίοτον έςογκώσεται, ό δ' ύστερος τοϋ πρόσθεν εις ύπερβολήν

126

Oedipus at Colonus

940 πανούργος εσται, θεοϊσι προσβαλέΐν χθονί άλλην δεήσει γαΐαν η χωρήσεται τους μη δικαίους και κακούς πεφυκότας. Dawe (p. 66, n. 1) writes 'the nuance is presumably not "the gods will have to add another land" but "there will be a need f o r the gods to add another land"'(instead of 'land', he should have said 'earth'). It seems to us that this comes to very much the same thing, so that we think his emendation of σοι to σ' αΰ not only inferior to Nauck's σον but also unnecessary. In this note as in his text, Dawe rightly states that δή is the reading of L. The eta is written large; just conceivably it is over an erasure, though the facsimile ought to be good enough to show that, if it were really so.

36. O . C . 740-5: 740 άλλ', ώ ταλαίπωρ' Οιδίπους, κλυών έμοϋ ίκοΰ προς οίκους, πας σε Καδμείων λεώς καλεί δικαίως, έκ δε ιών μάλιστ' έγώ' [δσωιπερ, εΐ μη πλείστον ανθρώπων εφυν] μάλιστα δ' άλγώ τοΐσι σοϊς κακοΐς, γέρον, 745 όρων, κτλ 742 μάλιστ' Lra: πάντων zt 743 del. Nauck 744 μάλιστα δ' t: μάλιστα ζ: κάκιστος Lra: μάλισθ' δς Nauck

H e r e Bremer 105-7 persuades us. T o our statement that εφυν in 743 'coheres ill with the tenses of the other verbs of this sentence', he replies that εφυν is often the equivalent f o r practical purposes of πέφυκα; to our statement that πλείστον . . . κάκιστος is an odd expression' he replies by citing Ph. 631, E., Ale 790 and E., Med 1323; and to our complaint that 'the transmitted text yields a very long and cumbrous sentence', he replies that such a sentence suits Creon's cunning and convoluted purpose.

37. O. C. 784-6: ήκεις εμ' άξων, ούχ ϊν' ές δόμους άγηις, άλλ' ώς πάραυλον οΐκίσηις, πόλις δέ σοι κακών άνατος τήσδ' άπαλλαχθήι χθονός. 786 τήσδ' Scaliger: τώνδ' codd.

M.F.Smith, Prometheus 18 (1992) 229 like everyone except Jebb takes άπαλλαχθήι not with κακών but with χθονός. Both cite Thuc. 3, 94, 2

Oedipus at Colonus

127

νομίζοντες ραιδίως γ' αν έκπολιορκήσαι και πόλεως αΐεί σφισι πολέμιας άπαλλαγήναι, and Smith argues that 'the word order virtually proves that τήσδ' . . . χθονός is a genitive of separation after the verb which it bestrides'. In the Thucydidean passage the meaning is that Athens will get rid of Plataea, but in Sophocles the meaning is that Thebes will be freed f r o m her difficulties with Athens, or as one might say, 'get Athens off her back'. Jebb is more effectively refuted by means of the Platonic parallels cited by Campbell, PS 258.

38. O. C 811-5: Οι. απελθ', έρώ γαρ και προ τώνδε, μηδέ με φύλασσ' έφορμών ένθα χρή ναίειν έμέ. Κρ. μαρτύρομαι τούσδ', ού σέ, προς δέ τους φίλους οί' άνταμείβηι ρήματ' · ήν δ' ελω ποτέ . . . Οι. τις δ' αν με τώνδε συμμάχων ελοι βίαι; 813 δε La Suda s.v. μαρτύρομαι: τε Γ: γε zt 814 δ' Musgrave: σ' codd.

West 301 finds the interpretation of Reisig and Wilamowitz, which we adopted at Sophoclea 241-2, taking προς to be adverbial, to be 'worthy of Verrall'. H e has not explained his own view of the passage. Apart from ours, three different ways of dealing with it have been adopted: (1) Campbell, Jebb and Radermacher kept the best attested readings: μαρτύρομαι τούσδ', ού σέ· προς δέ τους φίλους, οΐ' άνταμείβηι ρήματ', ην σ' ελω ποτέ . . . O e d i p u s ' , Jebb writes, 'has undertaken to speak f o r the men of Attica. Creon refuses to identify him with them, bitterly reminding the Theban that his real ties are elsewhere . . . T h e words mark the point at which he drops persuasion. H e now turns to menace. "But, f o r the tone of thy reply to kinsmen, if I catch thee - " (an aposiopesis)'. It may be objected that it is not clear what Creon is calling the Athenians to bear witness to. (2) This must be why Pearson adopted zt's προς γε instead of προς δέ, while placing commas after both σέ and ρήματ'. This explains μαρτύρομαι, and what one supposes is an emphatic γε ('your φίλοι, of all people') can be defended; but it leaves the relation of ήν σ' ελω ποτέ to what precedes it somewhat obscure. (3) Dawe deals with the problem by following Pearson in placing a comma instead of a colon after σέ and in adopting zt's πρός γε instead of προς δέ, but unlike Pearson placing a colon after ρήματ' and avoiding asyndeton by means of Musgrave's ήν δ'. Like Jebb's way of taking the

Oedipus at Colonus

128

passage, this is not impossible, but one is left with some doubts about the γε: would its sense be clear? As between Dawe's text and the 'Verrallian' method chosen by Wilamowitz and by us, the important choice lies between Dawe's emphatic γε and our adverbial προς together with the view that φίλους can refer to Creon's escort: which is the more undesirable? Against both of these ways of dealing with the lines, it may be felt that Jebb's way has an advantage in that it keeps σ' in 814 as the object of the verb. In favour of Jebb's way it may be argued that προς δε τους φίλους οί' άνταμείβηι ρήματ' coming immediately after the calling to witness explains what Creon is calling the Athenians to bear witness to. Much doubt remains, but Jebb's and Campbell's way seems on the whole to be the safest.

39. O.C. 861-2: Xo. δεινόν λέγεις. Κρ. και τοϋτο νΰν πεπράξεται, ην μή μ' ό κραίνων τήσδε γης άπειργάθηι. 861 λέγεις rzt, a s.l.: λέγοις La και r: ώς t: om. Laz: (λέγοις) αν Hermann: (λέγεις) σύ Heimsoeth και τοΰτο] τοΰΐ' αυτό Stadtmüller

Smith, art. cit., 230 proposes δεινόν γ' απειλείς, which is worth noting, but perhaps a trifle violent.

40. O. C. 877: δσον λήμ' εχων άφίκου, ςέν', εϊ τάδε δοκας τελεϊν. Battezzato Μ TS 391 remarks that R has δήμ' while QZnZo have δεΐμ' and that Κ has δηλ' corrected from or into δη μ', concluding that the scribe of Κ was not able to consult L.

41. O.C. 883: Xo. άρ' ούχ ύβρις τάδ'; Κρ. ΰβρις; άλλ' άνεκτέα. For the question 'Is this not ΰβρις?' cf. Ar., Nub. 1299, Lys. 659, Ran. 21, Pi. 886; it would seem that it belonged to colloquial speech. N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris (1992) 124 writes that 'a striking shift from the more usual mode of self-justification to a frank admission that hybris is taking place occurs in the Creon-scene of Sophocles' O. C. Creon initially justifies his taking of Oedipus' daughters (830ff.), and when, yet wilder

Oedipus at Colonus

129

with rage, he tries to take Oedipus as well, . . . he continues at first to present his act as just (880); but then he momentarily drops the mask, when the chorus cry 'But isn't this hybris?', and replies defiantly 'It's hybris, but you'll have to put up with it'. Once Theseus has arrived, and Creon is at a disadvantage, however, he returns to his (feeble) attempts at moral justification f o r his acts'. A reading of M.Whitlock Blundell, Helping Friends and Harming Enemies (1989) 233 will also serve to bring out the oddity of the dropping of the mask so soon after 880. With o u r question-mark after ύβρις, Creon is more consistently characterised.

42. O. C 944-6: ηιδη δ' όθούνεκ' ανδρα και πατροκτόνον καναγνον ού δεςοίατ', οΰδ' δτωι γάμοι ςυνόντες ηύρέθησαν άνοσιώτατοι. 9 4 5 - 6 ού δεςοίατ' ουδέν', οΰδ' δτωι ςυνόντες ηύρέθησαν ανόσιοι γάμοι Nauck: ούδ' δτωι γάμου ςυνόντ' έφηυρέθησαν άνοσίου τέκνα olim LI.-J. 946 άνοσιώτατοι Kr: ανόσιοι τέκνων cett.

The τέκνων that stands in most manuscripts is obviously a filler inserted after the superlative άνοσιώτατοι had been corrupted to a positive; cf. Menander, Samia 265-6, where the Cairo papyrus has αύτήν δ' εχουσαν αυτό την Σαμίαν όρώ διδοΰσαν τιτθίον παριών άμα, but the Bodmer papyrus has the correct reading έξω κατ' αύτήν (και) διδοΰσαν τιτθίον. Ll.-J.'s conjecture at C Q 4 (1954) 94-5 = AP i 365 can now be given up, but it was better to emend the text than to acquiesce in the insufferable τέκνων, as so many editors have done. Nauck's conjecture, given in the app. crit. above, was a better attempt than those recorded in Ll.-J.'s article of 1954.

43. O . C . 1019-21: Zimmermann 103 thinks that the transposition 'nicht unbedingt erforderlich erscheint, zumal d e r Uebergang an der Nahtstelle 1033/1020 erst durch eine Konjektur d e r Hrsgg. (χώρει δ' nos: χωρεϊν codd.) erträglich gemacht wird'. In the first 'Nahtstelle' (1019/1028) it must be acknowledged that κούκ άλλον έξεις ές τόδ', which in the place which it occupies in the manuscripts presents serious difficulties, fits uncommonly well after πομπόν δ' έμέ. In the second 'Nahtstelle' Housman took χωράν as infinitive f o r imperative; that makes f o r an awkward asyndeton and a lack of clarity, which we tried to remedy by the conjecture χώρει δ'. It might have been better to write χωρεϊν (δ'), the infinitive taking up όδοΰ

130

Oedipus at Colonus

κατάρχειν της έκεϊ in 1019, everything between the two being an unusually long parenthesis. Surely Housman was right in arguing that in general the order yielded by the transposition is more satisfactory than that given by the manuscripts. Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 70-1 posits a lacuna after 1021, in response to the problem created by εγκρατείς in 1022, which Housman dealt with by the conjecture ούγκρατεΐς. T h e transposition renders this difficulty less awkward by making the reference to unknown accomplices of Creon (1031) precede εγκρατείς in 1022. Dawe deletes 1026-35, which he describes as 'an astonishing farrago'. But the only lines that seem truly problematic are 1026-7: καί σ' είλε θηρώνθ' ή τύχη· τά γαρ δόλωι τώι μη δικαίωι κτήματ' ουχί σώιζεται. With regard to τύχη, Dawe asks 'Why Fortune?', having not noticed o r not understood our remark (Sophoclea p. 247) that ή τύχη means not 'Fortune' but 'the event' (see LI.-J., The Justice of Zeus, 2nd. edn., 1983, 162, with n. 6 on p. 229). With regard to δόλωι he asks 'What trickery?'. But one can hardly rule out the possibility that Theseus can attribute to Creon, who has thought he could get away with the kidnapping, a low cunning.

44. O . C . 1139-48: Θη. ουτ' ε'ι τι μήκος των λόγων εθου πλέον, τέκνοισι τερφθεΐς τόΐσδε, θαυμάσας εχω, ούδ' εί προ τούμοΰ προυλαβες τά τώνδ' έπη. βάρος γαρ ήμας ουδέν έκ τούτων έχει. οΰ γαρ λόγοισι τον βίον σπουδάζομεν λαμπρόν ποέϊσθαι μάλλον η τοις δρωμένοις. 1145 δείκνυμι δ'· ων γαρ ώμοσ' οΰκ έψευσάμην ούδέν σε, πρέσβυ· τάσδε γαρ πάρειμ' άγων ζώσας, ακραιφνείς των κατηπειλημένων. χώπως μεν άγων ήιρέθη, τί δει μάτην κομπεϊν, ά γ' εϊσηι καυτός έκ ταύταιν ςυνών; 1140

Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 71-2 revives Lazarewicz' deletion of 1142, arguing that βάρος 'seems too strong a word f o r the context', and that 'the reference of τούτων after τώνδε in the preceding line is none too clear". But βάρος is not always a strong word (cf., e.g., E., Or. 1162 βάρος τι κάν τώιδ' έστίν, αίνεϊσθαι λίαν) and τούτων is surely a vague neuter plural referring to what has been described in the three preceding lines. Dawe then deletes 1145-7, complaining that Theseus' argument is circular, and that having said that he will not use λόγοι to glorify himself he imme-

Oedipus at Colonus

131

diately does precisely that. This is a tragedy in verse, not a rhetorical or philosophical treatise, and Theseus is taking credit f o r a promise he has kept, a promise that required action (τά δρώμενα).

45. O.C. 1209-10: . . . κομπέϊν δ' ούχΐ βούλομαι - σύ δ' ων σώς ϊσθ', έάν περ κάμέ τις σώιζει θεών. 1209 σύ δ' ών Dindorf: σύ δέ codd.: δέ σε L s. 1.: σέ δε Reisig 1210 σώς Scaliger: σων codd.: σων (σ') Schneidewin

West, BICS 31 (1984) 187 prefers either Reisig's σέ δέ or Schneidewin's σων (σ'). T h e result of D i n d o r f s emendation, he says 'is not very elegant'; but it produces an expression of the kind normal in the Greek language, and Dawe is not on strong ground when he argues that ών at the beginning of one line was unlikely to invade σώς at the beginning of the next and t u m it into σών.

46. O.C. 1224-6: μή φΰναι τον απαντα νικαι λ ό γ ο ν το δ', έπεί φανήι, βήναι κεϊθεν δθεν περ ηκει πολύ δεύτερον ώς τάχιστα. Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 67-8 adapts Blaydes' τιν' απαντα το τινα πάντα; but why is the definite article 'hard to justify'? At 1226, he suggests κεύθε' δθεν περ ηκει. Jebb in his note on this passage quoted Tennyson's 'From the great deep to the great deep he goes', which this conjecture would make still more relevant. The poet presumably had in mind the vague notion that Earth is the mother of all things and that all things return to Earth; cf. Α., Cho. 127-8 γαΐαν αυτήν ή τά πάντα τίκτεται θρέψασά τ' αύθις τώνδε κϋμα λαμβάνει (where see Garvie) and Ε., fr. 195 απαντα τίκτει χθων πάλιν τε λαμβάνει. T h e word κεύθεα is in harmony with this; cf. Α., Eum. 805 έδρας τε και κευθμώνας ενδίκου χθονός and 1036 γας ύπό κεύθεσιν ώγυγίοισιν, and note κεϋθος νεκύων at Ant 818 and Ε., Phaethon 272 Diggle γας ύπό κεϋθος. Those who are unable to accept the very great oddity of the transmitted text may well prefer this emendation to Blaydes' well-known conjecture κεΐσ' οπόθεν περ ήκει. Kassel points out that in every tragic instance of κεϋθος, κεύθεσιν, κευθμώνας, the word is accompanied by a genitive, but δθεν περ ηκει fulfils a similar function. N o t that Dawe's

132

Oedipus at Colonus

criticism of Blaydes' proposal must be accepted. 'The precision of περ, he writes, 'does not sit well alongside the indefinite οπόθεν, which cannot be a mere synonym of δθεν'; but οπόθεν conveys a sense of generality, and περ adds an extra precision to that sense. But we would still defend the reading of the manuscripts.

47. O . C . 1234-5: φόνοι, στάσεις, έρις, μάχαι και φθόνος. The English text of Ll.-J.'s article 'Ehre und Schande in der griechischen Kultur', mentioned in the note on this passage at Sophoclea 252, can now be found at A P ii 253-80; on φθόνος, see pp.256 and 277. Nietzsche's notion of 'Ressentiment' surely has its basis in the ancient concept of φθόνος.

48. O . C 1291: α δ' ήλθον ηδη σοι θέλω λέξαι, πάτερ· γης έκ πατρώιας έςελήλαμαι φυγάς, τοις σοΐς πανάρχοις οΰνεκ' ένθακεϊν θρόνοις γονήι πεφυκώς ήξίουν γεραιτέραι. 1295 άνθ' ων μ' 'Ετεοκλής, ων φύσει νεώτερος, γης έξέωσεν, ουτε νικήσας λόγωι, οΰτ' εις ελεγχον χειρός ούδ' έργου μολών, πόλιν δέ πείσας· ών έγώ μάλιστα μεν 1300 την σήν Έρινύν αίτίαν είναι λέγω. 1291: our suggestion that θέλω in 1291 might be emended to θέλων and the colon after πάτερ altered to a comma, had been anticipated by West, BICS 31 (1986) 187. 1299: at the beginning of the play, as West, art. cit. 187 mentions, Oedipus was resentful towards his sons (337 f.) f o r leaving it to their sisters to look after him (337). So, despite West's insistence that Oedipus' Erinys cannot have been responsible f o r the quarrel between his sons, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that his curse lay upon them even before the curse which he is heard pronouncing at 421 f., and West's suggestion that a word such as κυρίαν should be substituted f o r αίτίαν is unnecessary. See Wilamowitz ap. T. von Wilamowitz, 361-2.

Oedipus at Colonus

133

49. O. C 1358-9: δτ' έν κλόνωι ταύτώι βεβηκως τυγχάνεις κακών έμοί. 1358 κλόνωι Martin: πόνωι codd.

E.Viketos, Hermes 116 (1988) 256 deals with the problem by keeping πόνωι and emending κακών to κακώι τ', which would give a weaker sense.

50. O.C. 1416-7: στρέψας στράτευμ' ές "Αργός ώς τάχιστ' άγε, και μή σέ τ' αυτόν και πόλιν διεργάσηι. ΑΓ., Ran. 1132-5, mentioned in the note at Sophoclea 157 as having been deleted (after Meineke) by Van Leeuwen and Wilamowitz, are defended by Dover, Aristophanes, Frogs (1993) 332-3, but are deleted by Kassel, Rh. Mus. 137 (1994) 50-1.

51. Ο. C. 1530 f. On the traditions about Oedipus' place of burial and on the secret tombs of heroes, see F. Pfister, Der Reliquienkult im Altertum (1909) 107-14; Emily Kearns, The Heroes of Attica, (BICS Suppl. 57, 1989), 50-2. For the archaeology of tomb cults see Carla Μ. Antonaccio, An Archaeology of Ancestors: Tomb Cult and Hero Cult in Early Greece (1995).

52. O. C 1568-78: ώ χθόνιαι θεαί, σώμα τ' άνικάτου θηρός, δν έν πύλαισι 1570 ταΐσι πολυςένοις εύνασθαι κνυζέΐσθαί τ' ές άντρων άδάματον φύλακα παρ' Άίδαι λόγος αίέν έχειτον, ώ Γας παϊ και Ταρτάρου, κατεύχομαι 1575 έν καθαρώι βήναι όρμωμένωι νερτέρας τώι ςένωι νεκρών πλάκας· σέ τοι κικλήσκω τον αίέν ΰπνον. 1570 ταΐσι Bergk: φασι codd.

134

Oedipus at Colonus

1570-3: Dawe, ICS 19 ( 1994) 6 8 - 9 would keep φασΐ in 1570, follow Blaydes in emending λόγος in 1573 to λόχον, and emend εχει in that line to εχειν: he would link εχειν to the two infinitives εύνασθαι and κνυζεϊσθαι by writing either έξ άντρων (τ') o r εκ τ' άντρων. 'Die Vorschläge von Dawe', writes Kassel, 'sind bloße Konjekturenmacherei. D e r Wachhund Kerberos liegt nicht in Hinterhalt, und sagt man λόχον εχειν? In Hinterhalt knurrt man nicht, sondern hält sich still'. Further, on Dawe's view φασί instead of being placed at the beginning or end of the sentence stands rather oddly between πυλαίοι and its epithet. O n the colometry of 1570-1, see E . M e d d a , SCO 43 (1993) 186. 1574-5: on the colometry, see M e d d a , op.cit., 170. 1575: Dawe, op.cit., 69 suggests that if the line needs emendation that mildest alteration would be έν καθαρώι μεΐναι. For confusion between βαίνειν and μένειν, see Jackson, MS 134.

53. O. C 1583-4: Xo. δλωλε γαρ δύστηνος; Αγ. ως λελοιπότα κ&νον τον άεί βίοτον έςεπίστασο. A similar view to ours was argued f o r by H . Dietz, Gymnasium 79 (1972), 239-42, who wrote that the Messenger 'verkündet, dass Oedipus gerade vom "immerwährenden" (άεί) Dasein auf der E r d e ins immerwährende Reich des T o d e s gewandelt sei'.

54. O . C . 1590 f. See the appendix on 'The T o m b of Oedipus' in Emily Kearns, op.cit., in n. 47 above, 208-9.

55. O . C . 1595-7: άφ' ού μέσος στάς τοΰ τε Θορικίου πέτρου κοίλης τ' άχέρδου κάπί λαίνου τάφου καθέζετ'. On stones with religious associations, see Pfister, op. cit., in n. 47 above, 363-4. The Thorician rock presumably t o o k its name from the eponymous hero of Thorikos, in south-eastern Attica, after Cleisthenes an Attic

Oedipus at Colonus

135

deme, but before that referred to as a πόλις by Hecataeus (ap. Steph. Byz. p. 315 Meineke = 1 F G r H 126). In the words of Robert Parker, Boreas 15 (1987) 139 'this ancient community had an unusually rich mythology'; see R.L.Fowler, ZPE 97 (1993), 29-42. For Thorikos and its hero see the following authorities: 1. Hesychius Θ 646 Latte Θορικός· δήμος της Άκαμαντίδος φυλής, ώνομάσθη δέ άπό Θορίκου [Κύπριοι]. J. Labarbe, Thorikos: les testimonia (Fouilles de Thorikos 1, 1977) 15, test. 12 offered the somewhat wild ex gratia supplement ώνομάσθη δέ άπό Θορικοΰ (ήρωος Άττικοΰ, ώς έν) Κυπρίους); but in all probability Latte was right in taking Κύπριοι to be a suggestion as to dialect like those in 641,645 and 647 that had been wrongly appended to 646. 2. The calendar of Thorikos, first published by E.Vanderpool in H. F. Mussche et al., eds., Thorikos and the Laurion in archaic and classical times, MIGRA 1, Ghent, 1975, 33-42. Cf. G.Daux, AC 52 (1983), 150-74, in lines 18 and 28 and D. Whitehead, The Demes of Attica (1986) 390-1; D.M.Lewis, ZPE 60 (1985) 108 n.3 argued that the calendar probably dates from the 430's. On the cult of its eponymous hero, see Whitehead, op.cit., 198-9 and Parker, Athenian Religion·, a History (1996) 33-4. 3. Eratosthenes fr. 23 Powell είσότε δη Θορικοΰ καλόν ϊκανεν εδος. Α. S. Hollis, ZPE 93 (1992) 9-10 thinks that Θορικοΰ here means the person and not the place; but Stephanus of Byzantium 140,5 Meineke says ότι δέ δήμος Θορικός δήλον, and Meineke ad loc. cites Θήβης εδος, 'Ιθάκης εδος, 'Ασίας εδος.

56. O.C., 1604-6: έπεί δέ πασαν έσχε δρώντος ήδονην κούκ ήν έτ' ουδέν άργόν ών έφίετο, κτύπησε μέν Ζευς χθόνιος . . . 1604 πασαν εσχε nos: παντός είχε codd.

Zimmermann 106 finds our conjecture improbable, and it is indeed far from the ductus litterarum, representing as it does an attempt to express in intelligible language the sense which the unintelligible paradosis seems to be intended to convey. We know of no convincing attempt to solve this problem, but we agree with Jebb that είχ' έρωτος, suggested before Meineke by Shilleto, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology 4 (1857-9) 32, and put in the text by Dawe, 'should not be too lightly rejected'.

136

Oedipus at Colonus

57. O. C. 1679-82: τί γάρ; οτωι μήτ' "Αρης μήτε πόντος άντέκυρσεν, άσκοποι δε πλάκες εμαρψαν έν άφανέΐ τινι μόρωι φερόμενον. 1680 πόντος] πόνος Ζο: νόσος sch., unde νοϋσος Reisig

Renehan points out (by letter) that the form νοΰσος occurs at Α., SuppL 684.

58. O.C. 1693-7: Xo. ώ δίδυμα τέκνων άριστα, τό θεοϋ καλώς φέρειν, μηδ' ετ' άγαν φλέγεσθον - ούτοι κατάμεμπτ' εβητον. Αν. πόθος (τοι) και κακών άρ' ην τις. 1696 εβητον codd.: εβη sch.: ετλητον Maehly 1697 (toi) suppl. Härtung

Dawe, ICS 19 (1994) 69 points out that Maehly was anticipated by Blaydes; he argues that they were right, since this 'would approach the sense rightly implied by Jebb's translation' (Jebb translated 'ye have so done that ye should not repine'). Certainly εβητον is unsatisfactory, but ετλητον is not really the right word either. Rauchenstein suggested οΰτοι κατάμεμπτος οίτος and Nauck οΰτοι κατάμεμπτος αίσα: something as far as that from what is in the manuscripts may be right. Dawe goes on to suggest that 'to their words, which amount to "you haven't done so badly, you know", Antigone replies with a more direct counter, 'on the other hand", i.e. (δ' αύ)\ But δ' αύ properly means 'but . . . again; at Α., PV 67 Griffith says 'almost "there you go again!'" (cf. PV 743 and S., Tr. 1027). J.C.B.Lowe., Glotta 51 (1973) 56 n.27 (in his masterly examination of γ' άρα, γ' άρα and τάρα) says Ί have doubts about Hartung's supplement in O. C. 1697, which has been generally accepted, but there Antigone is in a position to inform the chorus of a truth learned from her own emotional experience'.

59. O. C. 1724-6/1737-9: Αν. πάλιν, φίλα, συθώμεν. Ις. ώς τί ρέξομεν; 1725 Αν. 'ίμερος εχει μέ τις - Ις. (τίς ούν;) Αν. τάν χθόνιον έστίαν ίδεΐν

Oedipus at Colonus

137

Xo. φίλαι, τρέσητε μηδέν. Αν. άλλα ποΐ φύγω; Χο. και πάρος άπεφύγετον. Αν. (τό τί;) 1740 Χο. (τα) σφώιν τό μη πίτνειν κακώς. 1725 suppl. Gleditsch: (φράσον) Bergk: ίμερος (άπορος) εχει με. Ις. τίς; West 1739 suppl. Bergk: (τί δή;) Gleditsch: άπεφύγετον (γε; Αν. τί;) West

At Sophoclea 266 we were wrong to speak of 'split resolution'; but though Kassel argues for Hermann's way of dealing with the problem, we still prefer a method which yields an iambic dimeter, like those which follow and precede 1739. West, BICS 31 (1984) 188-9 rejects (τό τί;) in 1739 on the ground that 'τό τί; belongs to comedy'. However, we find in tragedy τό ποίον; {EL 672), τον ποίον; {Ph. 1229), τά ποία; (7r. 78), τά ποία ταϋτα; ( Ο. C 893); Ph. and Ο. C. are known, and El. is believed, to be late, and in these plays there is a distinct increase in the number of expressions that seem to verge on the colloquial. N o t that we fill the gaps in this lacunose chorikon with any high degree of confidence.

60. O.C.

1751-3:

παύετε θρήνον, παίδες· εν οίς γαρ χάρις ή χθονία νύξ απόκειται πενθέΐν ού χρή· νέμεσις γάρ. 1752 νύς απόκειται Martin: ςυναπόκειται codd.: ςύν' απόκειται Reisig

Kirkwood, ΤΑΡΑ 116 (1986) 115 with n.34 and R.Seaford, Ritual and Reciprocity (1994) 135 n. 141 argue f o r Reisig's ςύν' απόκειται. T h e adjective ςυνός, as they both point out, occurs at Aj. 180. Jebb, who also adopted Reisig's reading, had taken the sense to be that 'the kindness shown by the χθόνιοι is stored up as a common benefit - common, namely, to Oedipus and the Athenians; but Seaford, who believes that the χάρις mentioned here is that which comes to the πόλις from the grave of Oedipus, argues that ςυνός 'often refers to the common good' so that the χάρις 'is for the entire πόλις'. Whichever interpretation is preferred, the sense is expressed with considerable vagueness; and Jebb was mistaken in thinking that words consisting of the same three letters could not easily be corrupted into one another. The notion that for some people the darkness of the grave (cf. Α., Cho. 65 τους δ' άκραντος εχει νύς) is reserved as a privilege specially granted, the sense being that they are spared the pain of death, seems to d o better justice to the words than that which one can get by reading ξύν'.

CORRIGENDA IN SOPHOCLEA P. 3: W o l f f s edition appeared first in 1858, and was reprinted in 1870. P.6, 1.6 ab imo: for 433-510 read 433-451. P . 8 : Bibliographica, 1.4: for 1956-9, read 1856-9. P. 10, n. on 52: read 'Nimmt man nach dem Schol. δύσφορος im Sinne von παράφορος, so bietet die Stelle gar keine Schwierigkeit'. P. 13, n. on 177,1-3: read The transmitted η ρα cannot be right; where before Nonnus, etc. P. 14, 1.10: for 185 read 189; n. on 208, 1.6: for substantial read substantival. P. 16: n. on 257,9: for Aristotle read 'Aristotle'; 16: read πνεύσουσιν. P. 19, n. on 403, 1.7-.for άθλιον read ουλιον. P. 20, n. on 534, 1.3: for 44 read 10-11. P.22, n. on 688-9, 1.8: for the second ΰμών read ήμΐν. P. 24, n. on 718, 1.3: for saving read saying. N. on 742,4-5\ for its use read the use of παριέναι. P. 26, n. on 782, 1.8: read ύστερήσαμεν. heading of last note: for 790 read 792. P.31, n. on 988, 1.1: for injudicious read incautious. P. 36, second paragraph, 1. 3: for αν read άν'. P.37, n. on 1268, 1.1: for σμικρόν read σμικρών. P. 39, n. on 1315, n. 2: for work read word. P. 42, 1.16: for El. 2 - 3 read EL 2. P.43, n. on 21-2, para.2, \A\ for 21 read 20. 1.5: for 22 read 21. P. 44, 1.1: for 38 read 37. P. 46, n. on 152, \A\ for One read On. P. 51, n. on 466-7, para.2, 1.7: for not action read not any action. P.57, n. on 758, 1.6: for LCP read p.

140

Corrigenda in Sophoclea

P.58, n. on 841, 1.5: for Psychagogi read Psychagogoi; 1.6-7: instead of the parenthesis read Fragmenta Dramatica (ed. H . Hofmann and M. A. Harder, 1991), 161-201. P.61, 1.5: for έστιν read εσ-πν. P. 66, last line but one: for 1146-7 read 1147-8. P.67, n. on 1148, 1.2 and 1.4: for ταΰθ' read ταϋτ'. L.6: for πάνθ' read πάντ'. The next note should be headed not 1153 but 1152. P. 71, n. on 1319 f., last line: for ώς read ως. Ν. on 1322-5, 1.2: after λέγειν insert ταΰτα. P. 72, n. on 1359,6: for is any read is in any. P.77, n. on 1508-10, 1.2:/or 000 read 41. P. 79, last line but one: for 456 read 45-6. P. 81, last line: after würdig insert ist. P. 82, n. on 120-1, \A\ for placed read misplaced (Barrett's correction). P. 84, n. on 220-1,10f.: Wunder in his fourth edition of 1856 wrote 'neque enim, nisi enim totius rei ignarus essem, diu ipse investigarem, quin aliquid indicii haberem, id est brevi tempore ipse sine vobis certum indicium reperirem'. Wecklein in his revision of Wunder (the fifth edition, 1880) changed this to 'parum enim proficerem investigando rem, nisi aliquod indicium acciperem'. P. 88, n. on 362, 1.8: for worden read werden. P. 94, n. on 640, 1.6: for 1564 read 1563. P. 98, n. on 795: Housman was anticipated by Nauck, Melanges GrecoRomaines 6 (1894) 54, n.2. P. 99, n. on 846,6: for das read den. L. 7: for quality read qualify. N. on 863, 1.2·. for puisse- je read puisse - je. P. 102, n. on 957, 1.5: read i. 217 n.3. P. 104, n. on 1089 f., 1.5; for made read make. P.109: n. on 1276,8: for manu read manum. P. 110, 1.3: Holford-Strevens was anticipated by Hermann. P . I l l , n. on 1380, 1.2: for on read of. P. 120, n. on 113, 1.2: for εις read ες. L. 3: for ώς read ως. P. 121, n. on 134: at Sopatros fr. 19, 3, for δθεν read οϊαν. P. 122, v. n. on 241, 1.2: for 256 read 456.

Corrigenda in Sophoclea

141

P. 128, n. on 574, 1.1: for the Chorus read Ismene. L.3: for Ismene read the Chorus. P. 139, n. on 965, end: for έρεθίζων read έρέθιζον. Ν. on 981: before Wilamowitz insert anon. ap. P. 140, n. on 1021, 1.8: after expect insert that. P. 142, 1.4: after ηλιον insert τελέΐν. Ν. on 1070-1, 1.8: for σχέθων read σχεθών. P. 148, n. on 1279, 1 J \ for conjecture read φέρεις. .. Ν. on 1247, 1.2: delete the point before άςιώσειν; P. 151—2, n. on 77: delete the last sentence. P. 153, n. on 100-1, last line but one of first paragraph; for be the read be in the. P. 156, n. on 169-70, last line but two: for 912 read 913. P. 157, n. on 216, 1.6: for Άλίου read Άλίου. P. 158: the heading 327 should be 328. P. 160, n. on 497, 1.4: for be mixture read be a mixture. P. 164, n. on 640: for forthcoming read 37 (1990). P. 171, n. on 911: for Dindorf's read L . D i n d o r f s . N. on 941-2, last line but one: for the first ßiov read βίος. P. 172, 1.1: for μέλομεν read μελόμεν'. P. 180, n. on 42, last line but two: for 12 read 112. P. 182, n. on 146 f., 1.2: for χωρών read προχωρών. P. 198, n. on 749\for West's βίας read Wakefield's βίας, revived by West. P. 200, n. on 800, 13: for 168 read 157. P. 205, n. on 1039, last line but one: for with read which. P. 219, n. on 121-2, 1.7: for parados read parodos. P.220, n. on 134: for the use . . . νομίζειν read expressions like έν τιμήι, έντίμως, παρ' ουδέν αγειν,. Ρ. 225, n. on 252, 1.2: for trimeter read tetrameter. P.226, n. on 281, 1.1: for nur wohl ποτε read wohl nur ποτε. Ν. on 299-307, five lines from end: for wise read unwise. P. 227, n. on 367, 1.2: after Jebb insert and Pearson, and in 11.3-4 delete Pearson . . . ερις. P. 228, five lines from end-.yör König read zum König.

142

Corrigenda in Sophoclea

P.229, 1.9: for ιερών read ίεράν. P. 238, n. on 716 f., 1.1: for of read or. P. 243, n. on 862, last 1. but one: for suddently read suddenly. P.245, n. on 948, 1.3: for lxxii read Iii. P. 250, n. on 1154-5, 1.2: for άνελθεΐν read άπελθεΐν. P.253, n. on 1249-53, 1.6 -.for μόνος read μοΰνος. P. 256, 1.5: before μόχθων insert τε. P.258, n. on 1435-6, 1.2: for τόδ' read τάδ'. P. 259, n. on 1492, para 2, last line: for ακραν read άκραν. P.266, n. on 1752, 1.2: for κονά read κοινά. P.279, 1.3: after 91-5 insert = AP i (1990) 361-7. 1.4: after Sophocles' insert Antigone. After 12-27 insert AP i (1990) 368-87. 1.5: after 263-70 insert AP i (1990) 390-6. P. 280, 1.2: = C P G F 11-6. 1.3: after 84-108 insert CPGT 113-42. 1.4: after 121-45 insert CPGT 197-235. 1.6: after 127-53 insert CPGT 271-309. 1.8: after 27-66 insert CPGT 310-61. 1.11: after 403-32 insert CPGT 402-429. P. 282, col. ii, two lines from bottom: for ώσδε read ώδε.

APPENDIX As far as the manuscript tradition and related matters are concerned, we do not have much to add. One new papyrus has been published, P.Köln 251, in volume VI of Kölner Papyri, edited by M.Gronewald et al. (1987). It contains Ajax 1-11 and unfortunately is like almost all the others, giving no help to the editor. Previously unknown witnesses from the Byzantine and Renaissance periods have not been brought to light. But in a few passages colleagues have drawn attention to readings of interest which we had overlooked, and we think it likely that there will be a few more discoveries of this kind in years to come. Two papers have been published in which detailed collations are presented. These are by M. Papathomopoulos in STP, pp. 76-94, who concentrates on LAK and A and concludes with an appendix of readings aimed at supplementing or correcting our edition, and M. Hecquet-Devienne in Revue d'Histoire des Textes 24 (1994), pp. 1-59, who confined herself to the text of the Ο. T. as given in L and A. She too concludes with a list of 'Nouvelles lectures par rapport aux collations anterieures'. Both writers have had the benefit of autopsy of L for the verification of some details. Readers of their papers may well be disturbed by the frequency with which they contradict each other. In dealing with L the condition of the manuscript is so poor in many passages that some divergence of opinion about its readings is inevitable; with A one would expect less disagreement. However, it has to be said that some corrections and suprascript letters pose real difficulties for palaeographers, and collations of reputable quality leave room for subsequent verification of details. We are grateful to colleagues who contribute information of value for an edition; on the other hand we are obliged to record that both the papers in question are less valuable than might have been hoped. Without indulging in lengthy discussion we should like to indicate our reservations about them. Firstly they include a vast number of minutiae that will not interest the editor of an OCT, and indeed many of them will not even be of concern to the scholar who prepares an editio maior. What for instance does it matter that at Ο. T. 1232 A makes the mistake of writing the unmetrical ηιδει? The error is not shared by other manuscripts of the Α-group (judging by Dawe's collations, STS ii, p. 142). It is all very well to record the errors committed by scribes, because it is admitted

144

Appendix

that one needs to understand the range of such errors and have a sense of their relative frequency; but editors who are trying to establish what an ancient author wrote have to be selective in their citation of error. A truly complete apparatus will of course give a picture of the state of the text as it was read in the middle ages or later, and this information can be valuable for the legitimate and interesting inquiry into the influence of the classics; but that is a separate enterprise, which we did not undertake, nor do the editors of any of the well known series of classical texts. It also has to be said that their command of the material is not always such as to make them reliable guides. Papathomopoulos lists in an 'annexe' (pp. 86-94) readings which can supplement or correct our edition. When one begins to examine his list, it turns out to be flawed. Take the first four entries. He leads off with Ajax 45 έςέπραςεν LygK. On consulting L one finds that the variant is indeed there, but in a much later hand, so that the implication of his note is misleading. On Ajax 46 he records that Κ has θράσει as a γράφεται variant, with βάσει in the text. This reading is an error induced by the occurrence of the word in 42, and has no place in an apparatus. At Ajax 50 we did record the variant in L, which is what matters in this passage. In 51 the reading he reports from L supra lineam is by a later hand. Enough of this; but it is worth briefly taking up what he says about our use of K. It should be clear on reflection that in some places Κ must differ from L, whereas in others the uncertainty about L is removed or substantially reduced because one can see in Κ what one can suspect was in L. Incidentally, Papathomopoulos says that we regard Metlikowitz's collations as impeccable. We said nothing of the kind, though in fact we do believe them to be very good, because we verified a large number of readings. Hecquet-Devienne strikes an old-fashioned note by her concentration on L and A, which reminds us of the days before De Marco had drawn attention to the significance of the Roman family (a pity he did not call it Apulian, to indicate its origin) and Dawe had shown that A is not a unique witness to one form of tradition but a member of a well defined group of five manuscripts. Much space used by her for the repetition of known facts could have been employed to better effect by extending the range of manuscripts examined. H e r remark that Dawe should have lightened his apparatus by removing 'des multiples interventions savantes et editoriales' suggests that she has not registered fully the difficulty of editing Greek tragedy, which requires the consideration of many conjectures, even if a number of them fall into the category that is best called diagnostic. She sides with Bollack in her estimate of Anglo-Saxon philology; but one does not have to be Anglo-Saxon to know what the way forward is. When she finally presents her list of 'nouvelles lectures'

Appendix

145

she proves that she cannot see the significance of the symbol 1 that we used at Ο. T. 72 and 102, and when she contradicts us about Ο. T. 250 (p. 38) she fails to note that for reasons which are obvious we added the caveat 'ut videtur'. Finally, it is simply not good enough to inform the unsuspecting reader on p. 52 that philological studies revived in Byzantium c. 1280 after a century and a half in which there had been no interest in the transcription of literary texts. We accord no more than a passing mention to another paper in STP, pp. 51-73, in which A.Tuilier studies the position of A in the tradition. Despite professing knowledge of Dawe's work he treats A on its own, as if it were not part of a family. He is also unaware (p. 72 n. 22) that Κ has been redated; the editors of the volume are to blame for not asking him either to amend his text or suggest why the new dating cannot be accepted (it is not contested by Papathomopoulos in the next article in the volume). On the subject of collation it may be appropriate for us to make clear that we did rely heavily on the work of our predecessors, believing that they, and especially Dawe, had done work of acceptable quality; but we also verified many readings for ourselves. A fresh collation of all witnesses, though desirable for some texts, did not seem necessary or feasible for our undertaking. In the latest revision of the Bude edition Professor Irigoin adds a short note about recent texts of Sophocles. Ours is not conservative enough for him, but he does not have the space to argue the matter at length, nor should we try here to respond to a view not stated in full. Instead we will clarify our view of some more detailed matters on which he comments. While querying our view of Κ he does not say whether he accepts the new dating or not, but implies that he rejects it; he then accuses us of illogicality in asserting an earlier date and simultaneously wishing to believe that some readings in it belong to ancient tradition, and he urges that, since the scribe was apparently a person of scholarly interests, the unusual readings of Κ are more likely to be the product of his learned ingenuity. He has totally misunderstood our position. As far as we are concerned the palaeographical case for the earlier dating is independent of any judgement about the character of the readings found in K. Of course, one of the consequences of the new dating is that the readings cannot be the product of scholarly activity during the Palaeologan period. But we also believe that they are not of a kind that can reasonably be expected from Byzantine scholars of an earlier period; and in expressing that opinion we recognise that it is a subjective judgement insofar as it depends on the impressions we have formed of the capacity of medieval scholars. It may help to explain our position if we say that our view has been greatly influenced by the realisation that Paul

146

Appendix

Maas's flattering picture of Eustathius' ability as a textual critic cannot be sustained. Irigoin also dislikes our use of sigla, complaining that the innovation by which we showed internal division within groups designated by the sigla r, ρ and a is contrary to good method and leaves the reader more than perplexed. We regret that anyone should be perplexed, but urge that those who are take note of the more appreciative attitude of Renehan in his review (p. 337). Irigoin claims that the cohesion between the members of the various groups is often pretty weak; with all due respect we have to insist that this is a matter of opinion in which many will not take his side. Similar criticisms are voiced by Ferrari, MTS p. 389; but he too is making demands which would be appropriate, if at all, to an editio maior. Ferrari observes (MTS, p. 389) that our edition does not close the discussion about the text of Sophocles. This remark might be taken to imply either that we had made a claim to have produced the definitive text of our author, or that such expectations are raised by the publication of an O C T . W e hope that Ferrari's remark was not intended to be read in this way. Though there may be classical Greek texts of which the latest edition merits the epithet of definitive, at least until some major new source o f information is brought to light, Greek tragedy is far too difficult to be placed in that category, and future discoveries are not likely to lead to a material alteration of the position unless wonderful finds are made in new papyri, especially cartonnage. Our aim could be no more than to combine up-to-date knowledge of the tradition with careful thought about the contribution of previous scholars, which we hoped would lead to some advances. In his review Renehan noted that our text differs from Dawe's in a great many places. Conservative critics may be tempted to think this degree of diversity the best proof they could hope for of the soundness of their view. Our interpretation of the facts is different. We see the differences as evidence of the enormous difficulty of repairing the damage done to texts in the course of the two millenia when they were copied by hand. In our opinion critics who see relatively little damage in the transmitted text are imputing to the ancients a mediocrity of intellectual and stylistic standards that coheres ill with their status as classics. Our approach in theory involves the risk that we are improving, or trying to improve, the classics. But we are not in doubt that conservatism is more likely to yield a result that is wide of the mark. We hope our work will come to be seen as a contribution to the long-term process by which scholars move closer to a consensus, and that in another generation further advances will justify the preparation of a third O C T of Sophocles.

INDEX middle voice 61, 97-8 military language 104

adjectives in -ρος 34-5 adverbial accusative 110 anacolouthon 22 anapaests 78-9 attraction into a different case 36 attribution of lines 43-4, 73-4, 102 bacchius 56 board-games 19-20 Byzantine conjectures, corrections 57, 76 caesura 111 colloquial language 107, 128, 137 corruption through confusion of posites 33-34, 87, 105 cretics 39, 43, 80

nominativus pendens nouns in -υς 104 occisus Caesar optative 114 24,

op-

definite article 47, 87, 119 dochmiacs 18, 19, 26, 39, 43, 65, 112 elision 40, 101 enoplian 41 epexegetic infinitive ethic dative 116

95

gly conic 63 generalising plural 32 glosses 83, 105, 118 haplography 73 hiatus 65, 92 hyperbaton 45 interpolation 24, 27, 43, 50, 63-4, 76, 77, 80, 106 lekythion

39

medical language 101 metrical responsion 19, 49, 63, 75, 83, 101, 108

72

83

paroemiac 68 Person's law 64, 103 prodelision 100 prosody 108 proverbs 29 punctuation repetition

13, 14, 28, 106, 109, 111 37

scholia 24, 30, 66-7, 74, 82, 96, 109 stichomythia 13 synizesis 111 Triclinius 17, 46-7, 119 trochaics 80 verbal nouns word-order zeugma

31 53, 57

90 and n.

ανήκεστος 11-12 άρμοΐ 15-16 γ'άρα 39 δέ (apodotic) 63 έκτός/έντός 33-4, 95 όχός 55 πόντιος 88 σχήμα Ίωνικόν 116

Klassische Altertumswissenschaft / Griechische Literatur Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta Vol. 1: Didascaliae Tragicae / Catalogi Tragicorum et Tragoediarum / Testimonia et Fragmenta Tragicorum Minorum Hrsg. von Bruno Snell und Richard Kannicht. 1986. (2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage der Ausgabe von 1971). XII, 363 Seiten, Leinen. ISBN 3-525-25725-2

Vol. 2: Fragmenta Adespota / Testimonia Volumini 1 Addenda / Indices ad Volumina 1 et 2 Hrsg. von Richard Kannicht und Bruno Snell. 1981. XIX, 453 Seiten, Leinen ISBN 3-525-25740-6

Vol. 3: Aeschylus Hrsg. von Stefan Radt. 1985. 592 Seiten, Leinen. ISBN 3-525-25745-7

Vol. 4: Sophocles Hrsg. von Stefan Radt. 1977.731 Seiten, Leinen. (Neuauflage in Vorbereitung)

Sophokles^

König Ödipus Mit griechischem Text Übertragung und Einleitung von Karl Arno Pfeiff. (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 278280). 1969. 132 Seiten, kart. ISBN 3-525-33271-8

Sophokles

Antigone Mit griechischem Text Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Karl Reinhardt Herausgegeben von Carl Becker. (Kleine Vandenhoeck-Reihe 1116). 6. Auflage 1982.119 Seiten, kart. ISBN 3-525-33176-2

Emst-Richard Schwinge

Die Stellung der Trachinierinnen im Werk des Sophokles (Hypomnemata 1). 1962.139 Seiten, broschiert ISBN 3-525-25001-0

Vol. 5: Euripides Hrsg. von Richard Kannicht. 2 Bände. (In Vorbereitung).

V&R

Vandenhoeck Ruprecht

Klassische Altertumswissenschaft / Griechische Literatur Musa Tragica Die griechische Tragödie von Thespis bis Ezechiel Ausgewählte Zeugnisse und Fragmente griechisch und deutsch. Unter Mitwirkung von Richard Kannicht bearbeitet von einer Arbeitsgruppe des Philologischen Seminars der Universtät Tübingen und herausgegeben von Bardo Gauly, Lutz Kappel, Rainer Klimek-Winter, Helmut Krasser, Karl-Heinz Stanzel und Volker Uhrmeister. (Studienhefte zur Altertumswissenschaft 16). 1991. 307 Seiten. Leinen. ISBN 3-525-25750-3 In diesem Werk werden in einer auf das Wesentliche konzentrierten Auswahl die Zeugnisse und Fragmente der sog. kleineren griechischen Tragiker, d.h. der vor, nach und neben den drei großen (Aischylos, Sophokles und Euripides) tätigen Dichter vorgelegt, und zwar im griechischen Original mit deutschen Übersetzungen, kommentierenden Einleitungen und Anmerkungen.

Joachim Latacz

Einführung in die griechische Tragödie (UTB Uni Taschenbücher 1745). 1993. 425 Seiten mit 1 Abbildung und 2 Tabellen, kart. ISBN 3-8252-1745-0 »... ein Meisterwerk wissenschaftlicher Darstellung.« Die alten Sprachen im Unterricht

Glenn W. Most (Hg.)

Collecting Fragments Fragmente sammeln (Aporemata, Band 1). 1997. X, 338 Seiten, kart. ISBN 3-525-25900-X

Glenn W. Most (Hg.)

Editing Texts Texte edieren (Aporemata, Band 2). 1997. Ca. 200 Seiten mit zwei Indices, kart. ISBN 3-525-25901-8

Ernst-Richard Schwinge

Griechische Tragödie und zeitgenössische Rezeption: ARISTOPHANES und GORGIAS Zur Frage einer angemessenen Tragödiendeutung (Berichte aus den Sitzungen der JoachimJungius-Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften e.V., Hamburg, Jg. 15/1997, Heft 2). 1997. 34 Seiten, kartoniert. ISBN 3-525-86292-X

V&R

Vandenhoeck &_Ruprecht