The Oedipus tyrannus

Citation preview

THE PLAYS OF SOPHOCLES BY

J. C. KAMERBEEK Litt. Dr. Professor of Ancient Greek in the University of Amsterdam

COMMENTARIES PART IV

THE OEDIPUS TYRANNUS

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1967

Copyright 1967 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or translated in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm or any other means without written permission from the publisher PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CORNELIO RUIJGH, AMICO DOCTO, LINGUAE GRAECAE PERITO, SOCIO FIDELI

PRAEFATIO Secundum ordinem temporum Antigones interpretatio nunc proferri debebat. Sed ut quam pulcherrimam eandemque difficilli­ mam existimarem, illius tragoediae explanandae negotium in otium senectutis, si dis placebit, reservavi, tunc cum in Oedipodem Coloneum quoque animum intendero. Oedipus autem Tyrannus a media aetate vergente haud sane discrepat; itaque per hos septem annos, interrupto quidem nimium saepe labore, operam dedi ut commentario instruerem hanc tragoediam inexsuperabilem. Ad quod opus perficiendum multum mihi profuerunt et qui ante me scripserunt et studiosi provectiores quibuscum identidem de multis quaestionibus ad textum et interpretationem Oedipodis pertinenti­ bus egi. Qui docet multa se nescire discit quae bene se perspexisse sibi persuasum habuerit. Neque vanam spem me habere plerumque vel generatim in tota fabula eiusque proposito et structura iudicandis vel in singulis rebus explanandis verum me vidisse aut lectori persuasurum esse ita rem se habere vix est quod dicam. Unum autem est quod lectorem benevolum meminisse velim: quae pro­ ferentur orta sunt e consuetudine iterum iterumque renovata cum hac fabula, ita ut hic illic fortasse vestigia per annos sensim immutatae sententiae meae remanserint. Restat ut denuo magnas gratias agam viro docto et benevolen­ tissimo D. A. S. Reid Μ. A. qui, ut in Trachiniis, textum Anglice scriptum mecum perlegit, correxit, exornavit. Quae vitia resederint, mihi imputanda erunt.

Santpoort, mense Iulio, MCMLXVI

J. C. K.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI QUEM CONSTITUIT A. C. PEARSON DIFFERT1)

νϋν τ’ LA: νϋν S’ GR, Pearson. του LacGR: που ALa, Pearson. μεμνώμεθα codd.: μεμνήμεθα Pearson. έρημος. φήμην φέρων LGRA: φέρων φάτιν Thomas Mag., Pearson. έξελΘόντα codd.: έξιόντα Sud., Zonar., Pearson. τινας L (puncto supra ς addito, postea eraso): τινάς GRA: τινα A2 (cf. L), Pearson. 134 πρός LacGR: προ ALT, Pearson, alii. 151 Φάτι. 194 έπουρον LacR: άπορον G: άπουρον AL’, Pearson, alii. 198 ·)τέλει|: τελεί codd., Pearson: τελεΐν G. Hermann, Jebb, alii: τελεί Kayser, Sheppard. 221 αυτό LAS (?): αύτός GRA, multi edd., Pearson. 227 f ύπεξελών f: ύπεξελών codd.: ύπεξελεΐν Blaydes, Pearson. Locus conclamatus. 229 ασφαλής LAG R: αβλαβής AL in margine, man. rec., Pearson. 240 χέρνιβος Lac: χέρνιβας A, Pearson, alii. 276 έλαβες codd.: εϊλες Eustath. 1809. 14, Pearson. 293 τόν S’ ίδόντ’ codd.: τόν 8έ 8ρώντ’ anonymus Burtoni, Pearson, alii. 310 σύ νϋν L10 (σύ νυν Jebb): σύ δ’ούν AL’ Pearson, alii: σύ 8’ού GR. 317 λύη LAGR: λύει A, Pearson. 328, 9 έγώ 8’ ού μή ποτε/τάμ’, ώς αν είπω μη τα σ’, έκφήνω κακά. 360 λέγειν codd., edd. complures: λόγων Brunck, Pearson, alii. 381 ύπερφέρουσα, τφ πολυζήλω βίφ Masqueray, Friis Johansen. 418 Άρά. 425 ά σ’ έξισώσει codd.: δσ’ εξισώσεις Wilamowitz, Pearson. 451 ενθάδε, 494 vel tentavi: Wolff: Pearson. 510 τών Pap. Ox. 2180 Σ (λείπει τό ένεκα): τφ codd., edd. 527 οϊδα 8’ οδ, γνώμη τίνι.

40 43 49 57 86 88 107

q L“ = L correctus a scriba codicis A. W.-B. = W.-B.2, 1876.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

X

ή: ή codd., edd. κούκ codd.: η ούκ Spengel, edd. multi, Pearson. τδ σόν δέ codd. plerique, Brunck, Bruhn, Kuiper: τοσόνδε Porson, edd. multi, Pearson. 579 γης. 597 έκκαλοϋσί με codd.: αίκάλλουσί με Musgrave, Pearson. 607 λαβών· 624 προδείξης Meineke, W.-B., Mazon: προδείξης codd., Pearson. 633 παρεστώς LacR: παρεστός GA, Pearson. 656 μήποτ’ έν αιτία codd.: μηδέποτ’ αιτία Elmsley, Pearson. 657 σύ γ’ άφανεΐ Musgrave, Seidler, W.-B.: σύν άφανεΐ codd.: σ’ έν άφανεΐ Blaydes, Pearson. 666 ψυχάν codd.: λήμα Pearson. κακοΐς κακά codd.: κακοΐς Pearson. 685 προπονουμένας LGA : προπονούμενος R *): προπονουμένω vel -νω dett. quidam: προνοουμένω item, unde Pearson προνοουμένω. 695 άλύουσαν codd.: σαλεύουσαν Dobree, Pearson. Lacunam (- -) inter άλύουσαν et κατ’ ορθόν post alios statui; tentavi . 696 άν γένοιο Jebb: εί δύναι(ο) γενοϋ codd.: εί γένοιο Bergk, Pearson. 713 ήξοι Lac: ήξει GRA: εξοι Κ. Halm, Pearson. 722 θανεΐν LGRA: παθεΐν ν.1. L2A2, Pearson. 725 |έρευνα|: έρευνα, codd., Pearson: malim άνεύρη id quod idem coniecerat. 741 είχε LGR: έσχε A: εΐρπε Schneidewin, Pearson, ήβης έχων tentavi: ήβης έχων codd., edd. 749 ά δ’ άν LGRA, W.-B., alii: άν δ’ Tb = Dresd. a, Pearson, alii. 763 ώς γ’ Musgrave, Campbell: δ γ’Ε, ό δ’ GR, δδε γ’Α: οΐ’ G. Hermann, edd. plerique, Pearson. 779 μέθη LacGR: μέθης AL“, Pearson. 790 προύφάνη codd., Campbell, Bruhn: προδφηνεν G. Hermann, Jebb, Pearson. 807 όρα, 808 δχου codd.: δχους Doederlein, Pearson. 808, 9 Neque post παραστείχοντα neque post κάρα interpungitur. 538 539 570

') Errat Dain in apparatu.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

XI

τίς τοϋδε νϋν άν άνδρός άθλιώτερος J. Jackson: τίς τοϋδέ γ’ άνδρός νϋν έστ’ άθλιώτερος LGR: έστιν, νϋν omisso A: νϋν ίτ άθλιώτερος G2 (teste Dain), coni. Dindorf, Pearson. 817 |ώ ■ · ■ τινά|: ώ . . . τινά codd., Campbell, Dain: δν . . . τινά Schaefer, W.-B.: δν . . . τινί edd. plerique, Pearson. 866, 7 ούρανίαν δι’ αιθέραLGRA: ουρανία ’ν αίθέριHousman, Pearson. 876,7 άκρότατον είσαναβασ’/ άπότομον tentavi (άκρότατον Arndt άπότομον E. L. Lushington): άκροτάταν codd.; άπότομον LG'fpAc άπότιμον GR άποτμον Aae: άκρότατα γεΐσ’ άναβασ’ Wolff, edd. multi, Pearson; άπότομον Pearson (qui in stropha conjecturam Housmanni accepit). 892 θυμω βέλη codd.: βέλη θεών Kennedy, Pearson (θεών βέλη G. Hermann). 893, 4 άμύνειν codd.: άμύνων Erfurdt, Pearson. Sed vereor ne crucibus includere versus 892-894 praestet. 906 φθίνοντα γάρ Λαίου Arndt, Linwood, Jebb: φθίνοντα γάρ Λαίου LGR: φθίνοντα γάρ Λαίου παλαιά AL2G2, Pearson. 935 παρά LGR: πρός A, Pearson. 943 ή τέθνηκε Πόλυβος Bothe, edd. nonnulli: ή τέθνηκε Nauck, alii, Pearson: ή τέθνηκε Πόλυβος GR: ή τέθνηκε Πόλυβος; ΆΓ. εί δέ μη LA: ή τέθνηκε που Πόλυβος γέρων Τ. 967 κτανεϊν LGRA: κτενεϊν Jebb, Pearson. 971 παρόντα codd.: προδόντα Pearson. 1025 τεκών codd.: τυχών Bothe, edd. plerique, Pearson. 1031 έν κακοϊς με GRA: έν καιροϊς L: έν χεροΐν με Ambros. G 5θι)νΡ> Pearson. 1035 δεινόν γ’ codd.: καλόν γ’ Eustath. 88. 16; 1097· 25, Pearson. 1064 δρα LGR: δράν A, Pearson. 1091 μη ού σέ γε codd.: μή ού σ’ έμέ Blaydes, Pearson. 1130 πω GRL (in litura): πως A: που Bodl. = Barocc. 66, Pearson. 1131 Οπο codd.: άπο Reiske, alii, Pearson. 1138 χειμώνα L: χειμώνι RA, Pearson: χειμώνος G. X193 τό σόν codd., W.-B., Campbell: τόν σόν Camerarius, edd. plerique, Pearson., 1197 έκράτησε dett. quidam, G. Hermann, Jebb, alii: έκράτησας fere codd., edd. complures, Pearson.l 815

l) Turyn’s W.

χπ

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

άνεστα L^S, Jebb, alii: άνέστας GRA, edd. complures, Pearson: ανάστας Elmsley. 1205 τις άταις, τίς άγρίοισ έν πόνοις Coulon (sed vide commen­ tarium) : τίς έν πόνοις τις άταις άγρίαις codd.: τίς άταις άγρίαις, τίς έν πόνοις G. Hermann, edd. multi, Pearson. 1216 ίώ Λαϊήιον τέκνον Bothe: ίώ Λαίειον τέκνον Erfurdt, Pearson: ίώ Λαίειον τέκνον codd. 1217 είθε σ’ είθε Friis Johansen, ego: είθε σ’ είθε Wunder, Pearson: είθε σ’ είθε codd. 1218, g ώς όδύρομαι/περίαλλα σ’ άχέων ego: οδύρομαι γάρ ώς/περίαλλα ίαχέων codd.: δύρομαι (Seidler) γάρ ώσ-/περ ίήλεμον χέων (Jebb) Pearson. 1244. 5 έπιρράξασ’, εσω/κάλει: έπιρράξασ’ έσω,/καλεϊ Pearson. 1276 ήρασσ’ έπαίρων codd.: ήρασσε περόναις Housman, Pearson. 1279 όμβρος χαλάζης αίματοϋς Heath, W.-B., Campbell, Jebb: όμβρος χαλάζης αίματος LGA: δμματος R: αίματός τ’ dett. quidam, Dain-Mazon: όμβρος χάλαζά τ’ αίματοϋσσ’ Porson, Bruhn, Groeneboom, Pearson. 1280 έκ δυοϊν . . . κάτα Otto, W.-B., Wecklein, Jebb.: έκ δυοϊν . . . κακά codd., Campbell, Dain-Mazon: ές δυοϊν . . . κάρα Pearson. 1303 φεϋ φεϋ δύστανος codd.: φεΰ δύστανος Campbell: φεϋ φεϋ δύσταν’ Τ, edd. plerique, Pearson. 1336 ταδ’ Nauck, Bruhn: τάδ’ LA: ταϋθ’ GRA, edd. plerique, Pearson. 1341 τόν όλεθρον μέγαν Turnebus, edd. complures: τον όλέθριον μέγαν codd.: τόν μέγ’ όλέθριον Erfurdt, edd. complures, Pearson. X348 ώς σ’ ήθέλησα μήδ’ άναγνώναί ποτ’ άν LGR: μηδαμά γνώναί ποτ’ άν Dobree, Pearson: ποτέ Α: μηδέ γ’ άν γνώναί ποτέ G. Hermann, Jebb. Χ349 όλοιθ’ δστις ήν δς άπ’ άγριας πέδας codd.: δλοιθ’ δστις ός μ’ άπ’ άγριας πέδας G. Hermann, Pearson. 1350 νομάδος έπΐ πόδας μ’ έλαβ’ άπό τε φόνου tentavi: νομάδος έπιποδίας έλαβε μ’ άπό τε φόνου L: νομάδος έπιποδίας έλυσεν άπό τε φόνου GRA: νομάδ’ έπιποδίας έλαβ’ άπό τε φόνου Pearson (νομάδ’, έλαβ’ Elmsley). 1351 ερρυτο fere codd.: έρυτο Dindorf, alii, Pearson. 1401 μεμνήσθ’ έτ’ άν J. Jackson: μέμνησθ’ ότι LGA: μέμνησθ’ όταν R, EL, EG: μέμνησθ’ ότι dett. quidam, Dindorf, Pearson. 1201

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

XIII

1422, 3 οΰθ’ . . . οΰθ’ LA (in 1422) GR: ούχ . . . ούδ’ A, Pearson. 1446 καϊ σοί γ’· έπισκήπτω γε καί προστρέψομαι tentavi: γε LGR: τε A, edd. omnes. 1460 προσθή: πρόσθη fere codd.: πρόσθου RG8: προθή Elmsley, Pearson. 1477 ή σ’ εΐχεν πάλαι. 1494 λαμβάνων codd.: λαμβάνειν Blaydes, Pearson. 1505 μή σφε περιίδης Dawes, Jebb, aJii: μή σφε παρίδης codd.: μή παρά σφ’ Εδης Porson: μή σφε δή παρής Housman, Pearson. 1524-153° Uncis inclusit Pearson quem sequi non audeo. 1526 ου τίς ού ζήλω πολιτών ταϊς τύχαις επέβλεπεν Hartung, Jebb, alii: δστις ού ζήλφ πολιτών και τύχαις επιβλέπων codd.

INTRODUCTION i. Sources

Despite C. Robert’s Oidipus (1915) and L. Deubner’s searching Oedipusprobleme (Abh. Preuss. Ak. d. W. 1942. 4. 1-43 (1943) ) it cannot be said that much progress has been made, since the days of Jebb, in our knowledge of the way Sophocles’ predecessors, epic or dramatic poets, handled the Oedipus myth or saga. In the Iliad XXIII 679 sq. we read about Mecisteus, Euryalus’ father: όςποτε Θήβασδ’ ήλθε δεδουπότος Οίδιπόδαο/ές τάφον; Oedipus’ burial was held in Thebes after his death, δεδουπότος suggests that he had fallen in battle, in a war (ες τάφον goes with ήλθε). Odyssey XI 271-280 yields more: Μητέρα τ’ Οίδιπόδαο ϊδον, καλήν Έπικάστην, ή μέγα έργον έρεξεν άϊδρείησι νόοιο, γημαμένη φ υΐΐ' ό δ’δν πατέρ’ έξεναρίξας γημεν · άφαρ δ’ άνάπυστα θεοί θέσαν άνθρώποισιν. άλλ’ ό μέν έν Θήβη πολυηράτω άλγεα πάσχων Καδμείων ήνασσε θεών όλοάς διά βουλάς' ή δ’ έβη εις Άίδαο πυλάρταο κρατεροϊο, άψαμένη βρόχον αίπύν άφ’ ύψηλοϊο μελάθρου, φ άχεϊ σχομένη· τφ δ’ άλγεα κάλλιπ’ όπίσσω πολλά μάλ’, δσσα τε μητρός Έρινύες έκτελέουσι. The slayer of his father who married his mother and the suicide of the latter are there. But Oedipus’ self-blinding and his expulsion from Thebes are conspicuously absent, and nothing is said of the children nor is there any mention of the Sphinx. Oedipus apparently continues his reign after Epicasta’s death, but stress is laid on his wretchedness. Since antiquity the interpretation of άφαρ 274 has been a problem: cp. schol. B Od. ούκ ευθέως· έπεί πώς έσχε παϊδας; άλλ’ έξαίφνης with Paus. IX 5·10 παϊδας δέ έξ αύτης [sc. Ίοκάστης] ού δοκώ οί γενέσθαι, μάρτυρι 'Ομήρω χρώμενοςδς έποίησεν έν Όδυσσεία (XI 271-4)· πώς ούν έποίησαν άνάπυστα άφαρ εί δη τέσσαρες έκ της Έπικάστης έγένοντο παϊδες τώ Οΐδίποδι; έξ Εύρυγανείας δέ της Ύπέρφαντος έγεγόνεσαν δηλοϊ δέ καί ό τά έπη ποιήσας ά Οίδιπόδια όνομάζουσι. But the interpretation of άφαρ is indeed far from certain: Kambrbesk,

IV

I

2

INTRODUCTION

it may denote ‘soon’ as well as ‘thereafter’ and even ‘surely’, (and perhaps also 'suddenly'). We have to take Pausanias’ word that in the Oedzpodia the mother of Oedipus’ four children was Eurygania. But if he is right it is very doubtful (pace Deubner o.l. p. 28) whether Pherecydes F. gr. Hist. 3 F 95. 16 sqq. (schol. Eur. Phoen. 53) derives from the Oedipodia'. Οίδίποδι. . . Κρέων δίδωσι την βασιλείαν καί την γυναίκα Λάιου, μητέρα δ’ αύτοϋ Ίοκάστην, έξ ής γίνονται αύτω Φράστωρ καί Λαόνυτος, οί θνήσκουσιν υπό Μινυών καί Έργίνου. έπεί δέ ενιαυτός παρήλθε, γαμεϊ ό Οίδίπους Εύρυγάνειαν την Περίφαντος, έξ ής γίνονται αύτω ’Αντιγόνη καί ’Ισμήνη, ήν άναιρεϊ Τυδεύς επί κρήνης καί άπ’ αύτής ή κρήνη ’Ισμήνη καλείται, υιοί δέ αύτω έξ αύτης ’Ετεοκλής καί Πολυνείκης, έπεί δέ Εύρύγανεια έτελεύτησε, γαμεϊ ό Οίδίπους Άστυμέδουσαν την Σθενέλου. For this would imply that άφαρ though preventing us from assuming that four children were borne by Epicasta would not exclude the assumption of the birth of two children 1). Neither Pausanias’ reference to the Oedipo­ dia nor Pherecydes will fit in with schol. A Λ. IV 376: Οίδίπους αποβολών Ίοκάστην έπέγημεν Άστυμέδουσαν, ήτις διέβαλε τούς προγόνους ώς πειράσαντας αύτήν. άγανακτήσας δέ έκεΐνος έπηράσατο αύτοΐς δι’ αίματος παραλαβεΐν την χώραν, καί παρέδωκε την βασιλείαν αύτοϊς’ ’Ετεοκλής δέ ό υιός αύτοϋ έξέβαλε Πολυνείκην τόν άδελφόν αύτοϋ ώς πρεσβύτερος'. This scholion ignores Euryganeia, and Eteocles and Polynices are evidently considered to be Iocasta’s offspring. So I cannot agree with Deubner (o.l. pp. 28, 31) who contends that the fragment derives from the Oedipodia (always on the assumption that we have to trust Pausanias and that the scholion is not a comment irrecoverably mutilated). The very few references in Iliad and Odyssey to the story of Oedipus do not allow us to draw any conclusion as to the question which version(s) their poet(s) had in mind. The little we know of the Oedipodia (in addition to the reference of Pausanias quoted above we have the two lines in schol. cod. Mon. 560 Eur. Phoen. 1760 p. 415 Schwartz, Οιδιπόδεια II Homeri Opera V Th. W. Allen p. 112: άλλ’ έ'τι κάλλιστόν τε καί ίμεροέστατον άλλων/παΐδα φίλον Κρείοντος άμύμονος Αίμονα δΐον: the Sphinx destroyed Haemon, Creon’s son) leads us to believe that neither Aeschylus nor Sophocles borrowed much from it (the rest of the long schol. *) It is perhaps better to consider the Pherecydes fragment as a ‘Logographenkompromisz' (W. Schmid G.L.G. I p. 202 n. 6).

INTRODUCTION

3

Phoen. 1760 does not seem to have anything to do with that epos, ci. Robert o.l. I p. 150, Schmid o.l. ib., Deubner o.l. pp. 3 sqq.). If there is anything in the ascription of the poem to Cinaethon (C.I.G. Ital. et Sic. 1292 II ix, but Pausanias who seems to know Cinaethon fairly well ignores the ascription) Jebb and others may be right in thinking that the Laconian Cinaethon avoided the version in which Iocasta bore issue to Oedipus in order to spare those noble houses which claimed descent from the children of Oedipus. (But Pind. ΟΙ. II 35 can hardly be quoted in support of such an idea). However that may be, I am not at all convinced that the version in which Iocasta bears children to Oedipus l) must be younger than that in which she dies childless (nor do I see any reason why the incest motif should be comparatively late in the epic tradition of the Oedipus saga * 2)). On the contrary, the latter version seems to be a later extenuation of the former. It would then seem that Sophocles (and Aeschylus before him) drew on other epic sources than the Oedipodia. The Thebaid, often ascribed to Homer in Antiquity 3), enters into con­ sideration. In this epic the saga of the war waged by Adrastus against Thebes and the Oedipus myth worked into that context were at the root of the story. Two curses of Oedipus on his sons are quoted from it (II and III Allen) but we do not know how Oedipus’ previous story was treated in it. It is probable that this 'Cyclic Thebaid’ had one or more predecessors but I for one do not quite see why Hes. Erg. 162, 3 (τούς μεν ύφ’ έπταπύλω ©ήβη, Καδμηίδι γαίη,/ώλεσε μαρναμένους μήλων ένεκ’ Οίδιπόδαο) should fail to allude to that epic, provided μήλων stands for 'Erbschaft’ (Wilamowitz a.l.; Robert o.l. I p. 113 is of the contrary opinion). But even if μήλων does not imply 'Erbschaft’, the war alluded to may be the war of the Seven *). However, if II. XXIII 677-680 (Mecisteus δς *) The weaving of the motif of 'les frferes ennemis’ into the story of Oedipus is most readily explained by their incestuous descent having originally been taken as the reason for their discord. This takes us to before the cyclic (Ho­ meric) Thebaid wherein the curses of Oedipus seem to take the place of the original baneful influence of their descent (thus Robert o.l. I p. 144). But this involves the motherhood of Iocasta (Epicasta) being original, or at least comparatively old. 2) Cf. F. Wehrli, Oidipus, Mus. Helv. 1957, pp. 108-117, whose argumen­ tation is not convincing in my opinion. 3) From Callinus onwards, cf. Paus. IX 9. 5. *) Cf. Μ. P. Nilsson, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology, 1932, p.

4

INTRODUCTION

ποτέ Θήβασδ’ ήλθε δεδουπότος Οίδιπόδαο ές τάφον · ένθα δέ πάντας ένίκα Καδμείωνας.) and Hes. Erg. 162, 3 are to be combined, I should say that Oedipus met his death after the war of the Seven (for how could Mecisteus, and for that matter also Argia, Polynices’ wife and Adrastus’ daughter, who according to Hesiod (fr. 35 Rz. e schol. Townl. II. XXIII 679) went to Thebes σύν άλλοις . . . έπί τήν κηδείαν τοϋ Οίδίποδος (cf. Hes./r. in P.S.I. 131 = N Merkelbach), be present at Oedipus’ burial if the latter died in that war?). These remarks are only meant to show how very frail are the foundations on which many brilliant reconstructions of the epic tradition concerning Oedipus have been erected. An interesting fact in my opinionis that Proclus in his precis of the Cypria (114-117 Severijns) notes: Νέστωρ δέ έν παρεκβάσει διηγείται. . . καί τά περί Οΐδίπουν καί τήν Ήρακλέους μανίαν καί τά περί Θησέα καί Άριάδνην. For it is well-known that the Cypria among the cyclic epics often lie at the root of the work of artists and dramatists alike. But we can not know anything about the contents of τά περί Οΐδίπουν. The Sphinx must have been known to epic tradition (cf. Hes. Theog. 326 ή δ’ (Echidna) άρα Φϊκ’ όλοήν τέκε Καδμείοισιν δλεθρον; according to Robert o.l. I ρ. 48 Σφίγξ would derive from Φιξ (cf. Φίκιον δρος near Thebes) by popular etymology but Φιξ may equally well represent a Boeotian variant of Σφίγξ (cf. Schwyzer I p. 334). Haemon was the Sphinx’s victim in the Oedipodia. But it can not be held for certain that the riddle transmitted in the Sophocles and Euripides MSS (see Pearson after Hypothesis O.T. III. 24 with note) is a quotation from an archaic epic (as Robert will have it o.l. I p. 56). The riddle may be old: its oldest remnant is to be seen on the well-known vase representing Oedipus before the Sphinx (early Vth cent., in the Vatican): [κ]αι τρι[πον], the first words of the second line (Robert o.l. I p. 56). Oedipus’ proverbial skill in solving riddles is alluded to by Pindarus Pyth. IV 263 γνώθι νϋν τάν Οίδιπόδα σοφίαν, one of the three passages in the fragments or poems of lyric poetry in which Oedipus or something about him is mentioned. The other two are (1) Corinna 19 Page (= 33 B., schol. Eur. Phoen. 26) τινές δέ καί τήν μητέρα αύτω φασιν άνηρήσθαι. άνελεϊν δέ αύτδν ού μόνον την Σφίγγα άλλα καί τήν Τευμησίαν άλώπεκα, ώς Κόριννα, interesting only by its mentioning two facts from 109. The context in Hesiod does not allow us to think of another war than the famous one between Argos and Thebes and the wording of the whole passage is extremely 'Homeric'.

INTRODUCTION

5

Oedipus’ career which with many others belong to the shutting variety of mythical lore which, as in the case of other figures of saga or myth, were circulated about him and (2), more important, Pind. 01. II38-42 where the poet in speaking of the changing fortune of Thero’s family, which descended from Thersander, Polynices’ son, says: έξ οδπερ έ'κτεινε Λαόν μόριμος υίός/συναντόμενος, έν δέ Πυθώνι χρησθέν / παλαίφατον τέλεσσεν. // ίδοΐσα δ’ όξεΐ’ Έρινύς / επεφνέ οί σύν άλλαλοφονία γένος άρήϊον. On the simplest hypothesis this text leads us to believe that Pindar is speaking of the oracle given to Laius and of the Έρινύς working through the generations of the house of the Labdacidae, since Laius’ sin of disobedience. Nothing is said of Iocasta nor of Oedipus’ curses on his sons but nothing can be deduced from the silence on these matters. Oedipus’ story is alluded to as one well-known to the audience. And that is all that lyric poetry contributes to the history of the Oedipus myth l). It is impossible to know whether there existed before the Tragedians a so to speak canonical account of Oedipus’ story in any epic, devia­ tions from which were recognized as such. The odds are not in favour of the existence of such an authoritative version. We do not know when and where Oedipus’ self-blinding (or blinding, if the schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 61 is not mistaken 2), quoting ημείς δέ Πολύβου παΐδ’ έρείσαντες πέδω / έξομματοϋμεν και διόλλυμεν κόρας from Eur.’ Oedipus, fr. 541 N.2) came into the picture. A blind Oedipus reigning, as he does in Od. XI 276, is difficult to imagine. It is perhaps best to suppose that the self-blinding became authoritative with the Thebaid\ for although we have no explicit confirmation that the fact occurred in it, what we know of that epic would at least not exclude the possibility. In Aeschylus the self-blinding is mentioned {Sept. 783, possibly it occurred in his Oedipus3)) and in Sophocles it is so integral a part of the whole texture of the play, the tragic ironies referring to it throughout the whole tragedy before the act itself is committed are so numerous and conspicuous, that the audience must be supposed to consider it as something traditionally bound up with Oedipus’ story and its initial occurrence in Aeschylus would not seem to be enough for that. *) Stesichorus did not write, as far as we know, an Oedipodia. ’) Cf. L. Deubner o.l. p. 21; he has his doubts about the correctness of the scholion. But cp. E. G. Turner in Oxyrhynchus Papyri XXVII, 1962, p. 83. ·) Or was mentioned in it.

6

INTRODUCTION

Nevertheless, Aeschylus’ dramatization of the whole story of Laius, Oedipus and his sons must have been of great importance for Sophocles. The scanty fragments of the Laius and the Oedipus do not teach us much, more is to be gleaned from the Septem. x) Apollo warned Laius in a thrice repeated prophecy that he could preserve the city only by dying without offspring (τρις είπόντος έν μεσομφάλοις Πυθικοϊς χρηστηρίοις θνάσκοντα γέννας άτερ σωζειν πόλιν Sept. 746-749)· But Laius κρατηθείς έκ φίλων άβουλιαν έγείνατο μέν μύρον αύτω, πατροκτόνον Οίδιπόδαν (Sept. 75θ"752)· The child was exposed (in a χύτρα fr. 122 N.2 = 171 Mette) but apparently found and saved (how much and in which details Aeschylus’ version differed from Sophocles’ is a matter of conjecture; the herdsman who received the infant from Iocasta’s hands and who was also the only survivor of Laius’ retinue is probably Sophocles’ invention. It is possible but by no means certain that the detail told by schol. Od. XI 271 Σικυώνιοι δέ ίπποφορβοί άναλαβύντες έτρεφον αυτόν derives from Aeschylus2)). Many years later Oedipus when grown-up and probably travelling in quest of his real parents meets Laius south of Thebes at a σχιστή οδός near Potniae and slays him as the result of a quarrel (schol. Soph. O.T. 733 περί Δαυλίδα φησί την σχιστήν όδόν, ό δέ Αισχύλος περί Ποτνίας ούτως: έπημεν της όδοϋ τροχήλατον/σχιστης κελεύθου τρίοδον, ένθα συμβολάς/ τριών κελεύθων Ποτνιάδων ήμείβομεν fr. 173 Ν.2 = 172 Mette, either from the Laius or from the Oedipus'). The difference with Sophocles is important: in Sophocles Oedipus is returning from Delphi, where he had received Apollo’s terrible oracle, and Laius is on his way to Delphi, when they meet at the σχιστή οδός near Daulis. (In Euripides’ Phoenissae they are both on their way to Delphi (Phoen. 35-38), where neither of them will arrive). We may conjecture that in Aeschylus Laius is on his way to the Cithaeron in order to inquire after the infant exposed long ago (cf. Robert o.l. p. 96) but that is entirely uncertain. We are in the dark about Oedipus’ doings and whereabouts between the slaying of Laius and the triumph over the Sphinx (did he return to Polybus as in Eur. Phoen. 44 and cf. schol. ιδ. άλλως?). In any case while Thebes was being ravaged by the Sphinx he became its saviour (Sept. 776, 7), and subsequently married Iocasta (753-756; ’) See in the last instance H. Lloyd-Jones, The End of the Seven against Thebes Cl. Qu. 1959, pp. 80-115, esp· PP- 84, 5. *) Cf. Deubner o.l. p. 40 sq. and Lloyd-Jones o.l. p. 84 n. 4.

INTRODUCTION

7

the marriage is not represented as a consequence of passionate desire, for παράνοια συναγε νυμφίους φρενώλης has Laius and Iocasta, not Oedipus and Iocasta, as its object, see Groeneboom a.l.). For some time Oedipus seemed to be Fortune’s favoured child (Sept. 772-775). But * *n one way °r another the discovery of the horrors took place (we are in no position to know how) (Sept. 778-780), Oedipus blinded himself (783-84) and cursed his sons (καί σφε σιδαρονόμω /διά χερί ποτέ λαχεϊν κτήματα). The curse on the house of Laius, caused by the latter’s disobedience to the god, is represented as working throughout three generations and at the same time the connection between the tragedy of the royal house and the destiny of the polis is an important element in the texture of the whole trilogy. What happens to the house as a whole is more important than the fate of its individual members. The doom of the house works through the fatal decisions of its members in the three generations. 'Aeschylus treats the whole story as a tale of guilt and retribution’ l). Both Oedipus and Eteocles are not only bringers of doom but also saviours of the πόλις. It does not seem probable — there is nothing at any rate in the text of the Septem that would lead us to suppose it—that Aeschylus’ trilogy ‘included the curse called down on Laius by Pelops, when bereft by him of his son Chrysippus’ (Jebb, Introduction p. XVII): Euripides was probably the first to introduce the Laius-Chrysippus theme2).

2. The prior assumptions of Sophocles’

play

Sheppard’s opening sentence of his The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles runs thus: 'It is a mistake to begin the study of a drama by piecing together from the hints of the dialogue a laborious reconstruction of the incidents assumed by the author as antece­ dents of the action’. But is it ? The audience, of course, did not know (nor perhaps minded) how exactly the poet imagined the story of Oedipus when he embarked upon its dramatic treatment, but it is in my opinion a reasonable assumption that a fairly exact image existed in his mind. Otherwise it is extremely hard to see how he could have made use of the device of dramatic irony to the extent that we all know he did. And the only way we can reconstruct that image is to look for its elements in the text of the play itself. *) J. T. Sheppard, The Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles, p. XIX. ·) Cf. Deubner o.l. p. 15.

8

INTRODUCTION

On the other hand it must be borne in mind that such an image has not the character of a chronicle, chronologically and topologically complete, of the hero’s career and life before the action of the play. It will be shown that some questions we may be inclined to ask have to be left unanswered. In these cases I venture to assume that the poet did not bother to enter into details which he considered irrelevant to his plot and also that the fact that we are left in the dark about some things may be relevant to our understanding of the poet’s representation of Oedipus’ fate and the story in general. Thus we do not know whether the poet gave any thought to the time between the death of Laius and Oedipus’ triumph over the Sphinx. For all we know the problem did not exist for him. If it did, we have to note that he thought of it as irrelevant to his plot and that the slaying of Laius was the logical condition to be fulfilled before Oedipus after mastering the Sphinx, could become King of Thebes and husband of the Queen. And we must further note that in retrospect the connection between these facts was most effectively presented if nothing was said about the period between, or about what Oedipus happened to do during that time. Let us now, pace Sheppard, try to evolve the story of Oedipus previous to the action of the Oedipus Tyrannus from the facts that Sophocles gives us in this play. Laius, king of Thebes, the son of Labdacus, Polydorus’ son, whose father was Cadmus, Agenor’s son (267, 8), was the husband of Iocasta, Menoeceus’ daughter and sister of Creon (70, 85, 577). One day he received from Apollo (or from Apollo’s priests) the oracle that he would die by the hand of the son borne to him by Iocasta (711-714, cf. 852-854). The wording of the oracle as rendered by Iocasta has not the character of a formal prohibition; the words lend themselves to the inter­ pretation that it was delivered after Oedipus’ conception, though not necessarily so. Nowhere in the play is there any mention of a sin on Laius’ part, whether through the begetting of the child itself or through any deed which would have led to the oracle he received. Even if 1184, 1360 and 1397 were to be interpreted as pointing to something of the kind (which is not at all likely) we may safely state that Sophocles did not attach any importance to the possibility of Laius’ culpability. There is no question of his disobeying a divine command. Within three days of its birth the infant was handed over (by Iocasta 1173, Iocasta herself does not say so 719) to a faithful

INTRODUCTION

9

retainer or servant of Laius, who was also his herdsman, in order that it should be exposed on Mt. Cithaeron. Laius had fastened together the child’s ankles by driving a pin through them. 'Not from uncalculating savagery, but in order that he might not be reared if he were found on the mountains, but left to die’ (Sheppard ad 718). The herdsman taking pity on the child (1178) did not expose it but gave it to a Corinthian herdsman, servant of the king of Corinth Polybus who tended his flocks on the mountains of Cithae­ ron (1026-1044, 1156). Oedipus was named from his maimed feet (1036, we are not told by whom). The Corinthian herdsman, after having set free the infant from his painful fetters, brought him to his king and master Polybus, whose marriage with Merope had remained childless (1024). They adopted Oedipus and reared him just as if he was their own child. Oedipus grew up in the firm belief that he was their son, until the moment that the shadow of a doubt passed over his mind when at a drinking party a man blurted out that he was not Polybus’ true son (780). His supposed parents duly expressed their indignation at the man’s disgraceful words, but Oedipus decided to consult the Pythian oracle. The oracle’s answer was that he would have intercourse with his mother and would have children by her and that he would be the murderer of his own father (791-793). (Note that again as in the case of Laius the oracle does not command or forbid anything, but simply states that such and such things will happen). On hearing this Oedipus resolved henceforth to avoid Corinth ( for he remained persuaded that Polybus and Merope were his parents). At that same point of time Laius had set out for Delphi to consult the oracle (114, where see note). Sophocles does not mention the motive of his journey. The mentioning of the motive given by Eur. Phoen. 36 would have been harmful to Sophocles’ conception of the plot of the tragedy at that point of the action. No connection between the appearance of the Sphinx and Laius’ journey can be deduced from any word in the text. Thebes is at the mercy of the Sphinx shortly or immediately after Laius’ death; that is all we learn from the text about the matter (130). Making his way from Delphi to Boeotia Oedipus meets Laius and his retinue at the σχιστή οδός near Daulis (734); a quarrel arises, Oedipus meets force with force and kills Laius and all his servants but one who manages to escape unnoticed by Oedipus (798-813 and 118, 756). This man who happened in fact to be the herdsman who had been ordered to

IO

INTRODUCTION

expose the infant Oedipus reported to Thebes that Laius had been murdered by a gang of robbers (122, 3, 716, cf. 842, 848 sqq. and 292, see note). When Oedipus had become king the herdsman besought Iocasta to let him return to the pastures. (758 sqq., where see note). As has been already noted, nothing is said of the time between Laius’ death and Oedipus’ arrival at Thebes. At all events the appearance of the Sphinx has to be supposed to occur at the latest immediately after Laius’ departure or death (126, 7). The contents of the Sphinx’s riddle are nowhere explicitly mentioned but it would be perverse, in my opinion, for that reason to consider them as irrelevant to the meaning of this tragedy. The contents of the riddle are implied in the mentioning of the Sphinx and when Oedipus is said to have delivered the city from the Sphinx, we have to understand that he found the answer to the well-known riddle: the wording of 390 sqq., if anything, makes that clear. The reward for his deliverance of the πόλις was the throne and the wife of the deceased Laius. In the play no explicit record of these occurrences and their circumstances is to be found; it is not said, for instance, that throne and queen had been promised as a reward to whoever vanquished the Sphinx (as in Eur. Phoen. 47 sqq.). All these facts are taken for granted (and maybe Sophocles imagined them somewhat differently from Euripides’ very traditional approach—we cannot tell). King of Thebes, husband to Iocasta, father of four children these are what he is at the time of the action of the play and king and husband he became by his triumph over the Sphinx (as is implied in 442, and cp. 384, 259 sq., 1198-1203). His reign had been happy, he was revered by his people, he was regarded as the saviour of the city, he seemed to have been granted all a man can pray for, intellect, wealth, power, glory,—in brief, happiness. Now it must be admitted (and in so far there is some justification for Sheppard’s verdict) that there is still something amiss with a reconstruction such as I have tried to make. Its artificiality is manifest: the audience starting from a certain general knowledge of the Oedipus myth will, as the play proceeds, remark certain features peculiar to the poet but will never make so much as even a partial reconstruction of the poet’s starting-points. It would be more to the purpose first to enumerate the features of the Oedipus myth which were generally accepted and the knowledge

INTRODUCTION

II

of which the poet could rely on being present in the mind of his audience, and then to set forth the poet’s deviations from the common story of the events before the action of the play. But the difficulty is that such a vulgata, if it existed at all before Sophocles, remains unknown to us except perhaps in its main outlines. Where dramatic irony is obvious, the poet is mostly playing upon the audience’s knowledge of the story (thus wherever the marriage with Iocasta and the slaying of Laius are referred to); but that is not to say that wherever we have dramatic irony we can be sure that it always refers to something which is supposed to be known to the audience in detail. The audience does know of course, e.g. that Oedipus, La'fus’ son, supposes himself to be the son of somebody else but we cannot tell with any certainly if it is aware that the supposed father is Polybus, king of Corinth. If not, then 490 is difficult for the audience to follow; on the other hand, 774 is very explicit for an audience supposed to have a detailed information. 3. Course of the Action of

the

Play

Prologue 1-86; 87-150 (bipartition as in Ai., Track., El., O.C.). The first scene gives the exposition of the situation from which the action of the play starts and does so in a wonderfully dramatic way. A delegation of priests and young people are gathered before the palace as suppliants. The good and glorious King is confronted with his people in distress. The old priest of Zeus acting as spokes­ man describes the pestilence and the blight upon crops and flocks with which the city has been stricken and appeals to Oedipus as saviour of the country to deliver them again just as in the past he delivered Thebes from the Sphinx. Just as the people’s respect for and the trust in their King are manifest in the words of the priest, so are Oedipus’ concern, anxiety and magnanimity in his answer. He announces the return of Creon whom he had sent to Delphi in order to consult the oracle. No more information is given in this scene than what is needed for an understanding of the dramatic situation hie et nunc. Further necessary information will come forth at the appropriate moment. Sophocles’ method of exposition is gradual and such that what is communicated is entirely integrated in the action of every individual scene, while at the same time it casts forward to things to come. Take so simple an instance as 1. 8 ό πασι κλεινός Οίδίπους καλούμενος: it gives the required information

12

INTRODUCTION

it is suggestive of Oedipus’ glory and also of his confidence. The staging of the scene is unique in our remains of Greek Tragedy: the poet might have composed an introductory dialogue between King and Priests without the suppliants; Aeschylus would perhaps have entrusted the function of the suppliants to the Chorus entering the orchestra at the beginning of the play or after a monologue by Oedipus or somebody else. By the time of the Oedipus Tyrannus the iambic prologue before the Parodos had become so unavoidable a structural element that the method followed in Persae and Supplices was ruled out. By this prologue in which the mass of suppliants by its mere presence is highly suggestive of the concept: "King confronted with his πόλις in distress’ he prepares the audience, moreover, for the Parodos in which the situation of the people is once more, and now with all the splendour and gloom of dirge and urgent prayer, set forth. And at the end of the tragedy the contrast between the trusted and confident King, a father to his subjects, and the victim of fate, groping in the dark of his blindness for the heads of his unhappy children, will be manifest. Prologue and Epilogue are by their staging highly expressive of the course of Oedipus’ destiny: they body forth the glory and the fall by the very contrast of the visual means they use. In the second scene Apollo’s command, reported by Creon, is the point of departure for what is seemingly the action proper of the drama, the search for Laius’ murderers, which will in due time merge into the quest for Oedipus’ identity, the outcome of which will be the disclosure of Oedipus’ tragedy. Oedipus confidently declares his willingness to follow Apollo’s command (132, 145). Many elements becoming more important in the course of the play are skilfully worked into the dialogue between Creon and Oedipus and into Oedipus’ rhesis 132-146. We may even state that by its ambiguities, its extensive use of tragic ironies, the passage in its tremendous density implies the whole tragic action which will unfold in the course of the play. Its general tone will compel the audience to participate in Oedipus’ confidence and his fundamental delusion, many details of its wording will make the attentive hearer pause; is it not evident that the repeated use of tragic irony is essentially a reminder of the reality beneath the semblance, of the truth in contrast with the delusion? l) We hear something about l) See further my remarks in my Introduction to the Trachiniae pp. 11, 2.

INTRODUCTION

13

the murder of Laius, θεωρός, ώς έφασκεν, έκ.δημών 114. One of his companions survived the assault (118); the one thing he reported was ληστάς . . . συντυχόντας ού μια / ρώμη κτανεΐν νιν, άλλά σύν πλήθει χερών 122, 3· It has been noted by Voltaire and by many others after him that it is surprising that Oedipus does not follow up that hint from the start (cf. e.g. Masqueray, Notice p. 136: 'quand Oedipe apprend qu’un t&noin oculaire du crime existe encore, il s’abstient, ce qui est surprenant, d’ordonner immidiatement qu’il comparaisse devant lui. S’il le faisait, la piece irait trop vite’). The remark is beside the point (it would have been easy for the poet to avoid mentioning the survivor in this part of the play). The mention made of this man is premonitory and prepares us for his important function in the plot. From Creon’s words it does not appear whether he is still alive or dead (θνήσκουσι is rather a praesens historicum than a praesens perfectum). The one thing he said to know is cal­ culated to divert the thought of the audience from Oedipus as the murderer and to lead Oedipus astray. The theme of the one and the many, so important in the elaboration of the plot, is introduced. In the next line ό ληστής is ominously ambiguous but at the same time Oedipus’ deduction from the testimony of the man prepares for his suspicions against Teiresias and Creon later on, as does the statement 139-141. The failure to inquire further after the witness is indicative of the delusion under which Oedipus is represented as acting throughout. But in the context this failure has nothing unnatural about it (no more than do his later suspicions of Teiresias and Creon however unjust they are); his hasty inference 124, 5 is an instance of his quick intelligence led astray. By their ambiguity and tragic irony the lines 137, 8 constitute a summary of the plot. Parodos 151-2x5. The Chorus of Theban Elders intensify the picture of the city’s distress known already from the speech of the priest and lend to the cry for help the grandeur of religious invoca­ tion. This is contrived by a song which in its general outline closely follows the traditional pattern of prayer (invocation, grounding, prayer ’) ). A close connection is established between parodos and first epeisodion, for Oedipus’ first word 216 αιτείς, taking up their prayer, is followed by his declaration that he will provide the answer to their prayer 2). (I am not so sure that an 'ironical contrast of x) Cf. T. B. L. Webster, An Introduction to Sophocles, p. 127. 2) Thus, correctly in my view, G. M. Kirkwood, A Study of Sophoclean Drama, p. 203.

14

INTRODUCTION

solemn prayer addressed to all the gods and the immediate answer’ is intended, as Kirkwood l.c. will have it). By this connection the theme 'people in distress’ met by its King full of keen desire to help is amplified. First Epeisodion 216-299 · 300-462 (bipartition as in the Prologue and again in the second epeisodion; the scale is larger as in its turn that of the second epeisodion is in comparison with the first: 150, 247> 351 U- resp., a ratio of about 3 : 5 : 7). In a long rhesis Oedipus proclaims his orders regarding the finding out of the murderer(s), which culminate in the curse upon the latter and upon himself, should the murderer live in his palace and with his knowledge. It is to be noted that Oedipus is speaking time and again of one murderer (225, 231, 249, also the coryphaeus 277; two possibilities are considered 246, 7); this heightens the impression we receive from this rhesis as one continuous piece of the most crushing tragic irony, whose most obtrusive examples are to be found near its beginning (219, 220 άγώ ξένος μέν τοϋ λόγου τοϋδ’ έξερώ, / ξένος δε τοΰ πραχθέντος) and in the whole passage 258-268: the words of 245 τφ τ’ άνδρΐ τω θανόντι σύμμαχος πέλω (cf. 135. 141) are so to speak outbidden by 264 sqq. άνθ’ ών έγώ τάδ’, ώσπερεΐ τούμοϋ πατρός, ύπερμαχοΰμαι κάπί πάντ’ άφίξομαι κτλ. Still more than in the second part of the Prologue the audience will be affected by Oedipus’ passionate energy and at the same time by its consciousness that all this has been said by a man living under a terrible delusion. What we may call tragic suspense manifests itself in this mixed experience on the part of the audience, called forth by the tone and the wording which the poet makes his protagonist use. In the dialogue with the coryphaeus following Oedipus’ rhesis Teiresias’ entry is announced in advance of his arrival just as Creon’s is in the Prologue (the poet does not neglect to inform us that his summoning has been arranged at the instigation of Creon, a detail which has its importance in view of Oedipus’ suspicions of the latter). Again the king’s active care in the matter is stressed, again (as before Creon’s arrival) he shows impatience at Teiresias’ not yet being there (indubitably this impatience is among the minor symptoms of Oedipus’ ήθος). Just before Teiresias’ arrival the coryphaeus refers to the rumour that Laius had died at the hands τινων οδοιπόρων 292. We may well ask whether or not the two small divergences from Creon’s in­ formation are intentional (on the part of the poet). At any rate

INTRODUCTION

15

they pass unobserved by Oedipus, whose answer 293 (and perhaps also the sententious remark 296) is again an almost unbearable instance of tragic irony. And again, after the plural of 292, the murderer is referred to in the singular throughout the lines 293-2971). Both the illusion and the consciousness of the truth are kept alive in the mind of the audience. Up to a point the same holds good for the Teiresias scene but the way in which both delusion and truth act on the mind of the audience are very different from their operation in the preceding scenes. For here a representative of divine truth is bodily on the stage and is confronted with the victim of human delusion. Oedipus' welcome and exhortation to Teiresias bear the same mark of passionate concern for the city as his previous speeches and are full of an almost exuberant reverence for the seer (300-315). Contrasting sharply with the almost buoyant spirit of Oedipus’ introductory speech, are Teiresias’ first words: φεΰ φεϋ, φρονεΐν ώς δεινόν ένθα μή τέλη / λύει φρονοϋντι, a lament probably referring both to Teiresias’ present condition and, ambiguously, also to Oedipus’ real plight (see note a.l.). Then follows the dialogue in which Teiresias refuses to disclose what he knows and in which Oedipus expresses his surprise, his indignation, and finally his furious anger at Teiresias’ refusal. Teiresias’ stubbornness, un­ intelligible to Oedipus, leads to the latter’s accusation that it was Teiresias who had planned Laius’ murder. Whereupon the seer decides to disclose the truth, about Laius first with a certain amount of obliquity, then, when urged on by Oedipus, as bluntly as possible (362), and in top of that he points to the incestuous marriage in veiled terms. Now a ruler perfectly sure of his innocence but accused of murder, a king engaged upon the salvation of his city but learning that he is the cause of its distress, that his curse upon the murderer concerns himself, would almost certainly react as follows: he would think himself the victim of a conspiracy. Such is Oedipus’ natural reaction, in line with his deduction 124, 5 and with his accusation of Teiresias 346; and of course his suspicion falls on Creon (cf. n. ad 378). The suspicion immediately grows into a certainty and Oedipus’ speech 380-403 is divided between a diatribe on Creon’s treason and on Teiresias, who had been of no avail against the Sphinx in J) But 308 Oedipus uses the plural.

ιό

INTRODUCTION

contradistinction to Oedipus, and who now reckons to 'stand near Creon’s throne’ (399-400). The taunt is proudly rebuked by Teiresias in his reply, in which he denounces Oedipus’ blindness and foretells now entirely in the style of a prophet of evil, the fate that awaits him. In this speech occurs the staggering question ip’ οΐσθ’ άφ’ ών εΐ by which for the first time in the play this cardinal point is referred to (415; again in the ensuing dialogue 436,7). This dialogue contains between 437 and 443 the essence of Oedipus’ tragedy: in these lines an equal balance is struck between Oedipus’ nothingness and wretchedness which will be disclosed by 'this day’ and his greatness and heroism (Teiresias’ taunts 440, 442 and Oedipus’ replies 441, 443). The scene ends on Teiresias’ last speech where he repeats his prophecies now in words which leave little room for any mis­ apprehension. The truth is out but is not believed, either by Oedipus or by the Chorus (cf. 405 and the next stasimon 497-511). The audience is in a different position: the spectator knows that Teiresias is speaking the truth and trembles at his revelations; much more than in the preceding scenes he will be aware of Oedipus’ delusion. On the other hand in so far as he identifies himself with the prota­ gonist he will at the same time participate in the latter’s delusion, he will hope against his better knowledge, he will foster the illusion that Teiresias will prove to be a false prophet. For the poet has taken care that much can be said against Teiresias on the human plane. Why, if he did not want to disclose anything, did he come at all ? Why did he keep silent through all these years ? Only when provoked and feeling himself under the gravest suspicion does he lash out. Oedipus loses his temper for perfectly understandable reasons (given his ignorance) but so does Teiresias, and if Oedipus is led into inconsiderate rebukes and taunts, neither does Teiresias shrink from apparently needless cruelty.1) Oedipus’ sneering reference to his having been of no avail against the Sphinx is seemingly justified. On the human plane and as regards the immediate perception of the audience, the wrongs and the rights of the one and the other are at least equally divided. So in addition to his certainty about Oedipus’ situation the spectator is led into the same ταραγμός as the Chorus and indeed into pity and fear, and even into hope, and the intensity of this mingled state of mind is the measure of the tragic consciousness aroused by the Teiresias scene. ’) Borrowed from my paper Prophecy and Tragedy, Mnemosyne 1965, p. 36.

INTRODUCTION

17

By Oedipus’ accusation of Creon we are prepared for a scene of conflict between the king and his brother-in-law. Both in the first and in the second scene of this epeisodion Oedipus’ marriage has been emphatically mentioned or alluded to (by Oedipus 260 sqq., by Teiresias 366 sq., 422 sq., 458, 9); so the spectator will be looking forward to Iocasta’s appearance at some moment in the course of the action. First Stasimon 463-511. The first part of this choral song (str. and antistr.a) refers to Apollo’s command and (implicitly) to Oedipus’ measures against the murderer (the references to the latter are in the singular throughout); in highly metaphorical terms the murderer is depicted as a hunted animal brought to bay by the persecuting oracular power of the god and its executioners. Again tragic irony is at work; for, although the Chorus are emphatically supposed not to think of Oedipus (as is proved by the second strophic pair), what they say actually applies to Oedipus. The second part expresses the Chorus’ reaction to the Teiresias-scene. Although they are deeply disturbed, their trust in Oedipus remains unshaken. For the time being they are sceptical about the truth of Teiresias’ prophecy; Oedipus saviour of the city can not be the perpetrator of a crime. It is noteworthy that here for the first time (490) Oedipus is explicitly called 'son of Polybus’ (contrasting him with the Labdacidae): the Chorus are supposed to remain convinced of Oedipus’ Corinthian origin. The connections of the song with the rest of the play are not confined to those with the preceding epeisodion. The first choral pair may also be considered as the counterpart of the third strophe and antistrophe of the Parodos: the imminent triumph of the divine power over the defilement of the city announces the fulfil­ ment of their prayer for divine aid. The second antistrophe with its reference to Oedipus’ triumph over the Sphinx, guarantee of their trust in him, confirms the priest’s viewpoint in the Prologue. Second Epeisodion 513-633; 634-696; 697-862. Two long scenes between which the scene with κομμός serves as an emotive winding up of the first scene, the one with Creon, and as a natural transition to that between Oedipus and Iocasta. The scene with Creon is a demonstration of Oedipus’ delusion. Creon’s moderate and rational argumentation is frustrated by Oedipus’ passionate anger. Again we have to remember that Oedipus’ accusation of Creon is the selfKamerbeek,

IV

2

ι8

INTRODUCTION

defence of a man who feels himself at bay and who by his quickness of intellect and temper imagines himself to have found out the truth of a situation into which he feels himself driven by foul means. On the other hand Oedipus’ contest with Creon brings the former dangerously near the overbearing attitude of the typical tyrant (particularly at its end in the άντιλαβαί-passage 626-630) whereas Creon, in contradistinction to Teiresias, does not lose his temper, does not show any malignancy and retains his dignity throughout. It is easier for the spectator to identify himself with Oedipus against Teiresias than with Oedipus against Creon, because here his anger is directed against a man who does not know any more about the real state of affairs than Oedipus himself: the one thing he knows and tries to drive home is his own innocence. That is not to say that all the wrongs are on the side of Oedipus: in his zeal to prove his innocence Creon does not for a moment enter into Oedipus’ situation which has been created by Teiresias’ utterings, and at which Creon does not express any distress. We may even feel that his long rhesis 583-615 is somewhat irritatingly reasonable and not quite up to the high standards of rulership which Oedipus evidently has set for himself. But, all the same, Creon’s reasonabless is the measure of Oedipus’ delusion and the deadlock of their contest leaves the spectator in an uneasy state of mind about Oedipus. Iocasta, for whose entrance the spectator has been prepared by 11- 577-58° (Oedipus’ words 580 prepare him even for the outcome of her intervention), and the Chorus together prevail upon Oedipus to put an end to the contest and to let Creon go unhindered (the latter has put himself under a curse, should he prove to be guilty). But Oedipus exclaims that the Chorus by entreating him to act in that way is seeking Oedipus’ ruin: such is the consequence of Oedipus’ reasoning. For if Creon is not guilty, Teiresias did speak the truth and Oedipus is the murderer; to Oedipus’ mind Teiresias’ words are only understandable in the context of a conspiracy plotted by Creon. Creon gone it appears that Oedipus remains as disturbed as before and as much convinced of Creon’s guilt. Now Iocasta who does not for a moment doubt the latter’s innocence takes the only logical course to quieten her husband’s mind: speaking from her own experience she sets out to demonstrate to Oedipus the general unreliability of soothsayers and oracles. She relates the oracle once given to Laius announcing that the child begotten by him from Iocasta was to kill him: but Laius was killed by robbers

INTRODUCTION

19

at a three-forked road and the child before it was three days old had been thrown away in the mountains, its ankles fastened together. It is not the last detail but the 'three-forked way’, that has the effect of startling Oedipus: this will prove the Sv δ πόλλ’ άν έξεύροι μαθεϊν (cf. 120). Oedipus is reminded of his killing a man and his retinue at such a place. Iocasta’s story is based on the statements of the one survivor of Laius’ servants, already mentioned by Creon (118); now Oedipus asks whether the man is present in the palace. Iocasta’s answer (758 sqq.) clearly indicates that we are to understand that the man knows the new king to be Laius’ murderer. (Since this servant will prove to be identical with the herdsman who brought the infant Oedipus to Mount Cithaeron we may even ask whether the poet means us to understand that he suspected the new king to be Laius’ son, but there is nothing in the text, either here or in the last epeisodion, which would warrant such an assumption and it is not essential to think of it for a correct understanding of the plot). Oedipus wants the servant, now a herdsman, to be sent for. But before this is done, the poet makes Oedipus, at Iocasta’s request, tell her the reasons for his anxiety (δεινώς άθυμώ μή βλέπων ό μάντις ή 747 *s fhe startling resume of Oedipus’ reaction to Iocasta’ story designed to do away with the fear of soothsayers’ words) and by way of preamble relate, briefly, the story of his life. Thus the poet gets the opportunity of connecting together the oracle which Oedipus received at Delphi after his departure from Corinth, and the story of the deed which, without Oedipus’ knowing it, was its partial fulfilment and which was shortly afterwards to be followed by the fulfilment of the other part. The attempt to evade the oracle led to its being fulfilled (cf. 796 sqq.). After having recounted the bloody adventure at the three-forked way (a real resurrection of the past before the mental eye of the hearer), Oedipus laments his fate should the man he killed prove actually to be Laius (813-833) and here dramatic irony has a different effect from that what it has in the first half of the play. For here Oedipus is himself stricken with fear, into which the hearer enters, but the hearer is at the same time aware of the fact that what Oedipus fears is only a small part of what he actually has to fear. The hearer is keenly aware of the shift from masterful confi­ dence to fear and anxiety which has taken place in Oedipus and which is expressive of his gradually approaching the truth by trial

20

INTRODUCTION

and error. But there is still one point which does not tally with his fears: Laius was murdered by a gang of highwaymen. This motif, recurring thrice in the course of the play (122,292,716), and implic­ itly cropping up wherever a plurality of murderers is assumed, here does not only lead away from the truth but provides Oedipus with his sole ground for hope (836) and in this he is of course encouraged by Iocasta: the servant will be unable to retract his evidence and even if he did, the murder of Laius will not be in accordance with Apollo’s oracle (848-854). In this scene the two oracles are brought together which, if taken seriously and if Oedipus did kill Laius, allow of only one inference: Laius’ and Iocasta’s son will kill Laius, Oedipus will kill his father; conclusion: if Oedipus did kill Laius, he is Laius’ and Iocasta’s son. From the premises: Laius’ son will kill Laius, Oedipus, not being Laius’ son, killed Laius, Iocasta draws the inference that oracles are untrustworthy. In Iocasta there is to be perceived a shift from unbelief in the human interpreters of oracles to unbelief in the oracles themselves (cp. 712—853 and 7O9~857 sq.). She wants to draw the inference because the other way round would be unbear­ able. Oedipus agrees reluctantly (καλώς νομίζεις 859~986) but repeats his wish to see Laius’ servant. Second Stasimon 863-910. The Chorus deal with the issues raised by the preceding epeisodion from the standpoint of religion as well as from that of the survival of the city. They are roused to fear for the consequences of Oedipus’ possible guilt, his not following up the command of Apollo, Iocasta’s rejection of the validity of oracles. They do not draw the inferences from the oracles nor do they overtly charge Oedipus and Iocasta with ΰβρις; their fears, under­ standable enough after the two preceding scenes, are on the other hand indicative of their failure to perceive Oedipus’ real moral greatness. And as to the oracles: oracles must come true if religion is to stand and the existence of man is to make sense. But it is as yet uncertain whether Oedipus really did kill Laius (cp. the Coryphaeus’ words 834, 5, with which the Chorus’ utterances here are not at variance): if Oedipus did not kill Laius, it does not follow that the oracles are untrustworthy; if they are not, it follows that Oedipus is not Laius’ son.

Third Epeisodion 911-923; 924-949; 950-1085. Iocasta's words (911-923) and action strikingly contrast with the Chorus’ last

INTRODUCTION

21

words and with the fears implicit or expressed in the preceding song. Oedipus' anxiety and disturbance, incisively depicted in her speech, have made her turn to the gods and to Apollo in particular. Perhaps no detail of the tragedy is more expressive of the chasm between inexorable divine will and human futility. Iocasta’s entrance is a surprise for the spectator, who is expecting Laius’ servant, but a greater still is the arrival of the Messenger from Corinth. Iocasta’s prayer seems to have been heard by the god, for the man declares to Iocasta when she asks him what he has come to tell: αγαθά δόμοις τε καί πόσει τω σφ, γύναι. Polybus is dead and Oedipus is to be made King of Corinth. Iocasta rejoices at this confutation of oracular truth and calls for Oedipus, whose fears ought to be taken away by it. And Oedipus does follow her lead but remains afraid of the other half of the oracle (976); her attempt to brush away his fears, with a reference to τύχη holding sway over Man’s destiny and to the futility of the fears engendered by dreams of sexual intercourse of a man with his mother, is of no avail. Now the Messenger intervenes: in order to free Oedipus from his fears, he discloses that Oedipus is not the son of the Corinthian royal pair: He himself had received him, an infant with pierced ankles, from a herdsman of Laius’ cattle, when he himself was a herdsman on Mt. Cithaeron. The revelation is brought about in a stichomythia running from 1008 to 1044; the function of the stichomythic form as a dramatic means for conveying the truth to one ignorant of it has nowhere been put into practice to a more ghastly effect—with the exception of the one between Oedipus and Laius’ servant in the next epeisodion. The Theban herdsman appears to be identical with Laius’ servant, survivor of the massacre, according to the Coryphaeus who refers Oedipus to Iocasta for confirmation, thus leading up to the last dialogue between the two. She of course has understood the whole truth and makes a last desperate attempt to withhold Oedipus from seeking further. But he is blind to the truth and at the same time wants to continue his search for it. The reversal of the relationship between the two in the course of the scene is striking. Her recklessness has passed into mortal agony, his fear into recklessness: έγώ δ’ έμαυτόν παΐδα της Τύχης νέμων / τής εύ διδούσης ούκ άτιμασθήσομαι (ιο8ο, ι). The words constitute the culmination of his delusion (and as such of the tragic irony, that most important

22

INTRODUCTION

structural element in the play) but also come near to that eminently human dignity which may be called amor fati.

Third Stasimon 1086-1109. The Chorus take their cue from the words of Oedipus quoted above and sing and dance an excited song about Oedipus’ divine descent.x)

Fourth Efieisodion 1110-1185. As in the Prologue Oedipus is looking out for the arrival of someone who is expected to answer a question of life or death. But in the meantime the question: 'what has to be done about the city in its extreme distress’ has first shifted to the problem: 'who murdered Laius’, which narrowed down to: 'was Oedipus the murderer’, and this in its turn changed into: 'who is Oedipus’. So Laius’ servant is not asked whether he sticks to his former testimony concerning Laius’ slaughter but he is confronted with the Corinthian Messenger, his fellow herdsman in the mountains of Cithaeron at the time of Oedipus’ exposure. And in this brief, breath-taking scene the whole truth is disclosed: τά πάντ’ άν έξήκοι σαφή (1182). Fourth Stasimon 1186-1222. A dirge for the frailty of human existence and the futility of man’s happiness, as exampled by Oedipus’ fate. A record of his glory and heroism contrasted with his extreme misfortunes and of the Chorus’ helplesness in the face of such misery. Exodos 1223-1296; κομμός 1297-1366; 1367-1415; 1416-1530. Preliminary to the great report of the Exangelos, we hear his announcement of the terrible evils to be disclosed and particularly of Iocasta’s death (after a brief intervention by the Coryphaeus). Then follows the narrative of Iocasta’s suicide and Oedipus’ self­ blinding. Further the Exangelos prepares Chorus and audience for Oedipus’ appearance, which now follows immediately. In a κομμός with anapaestic introduction and in which the lyric metres are almost exclusively given to Oedipus, the full measure of his misery is expatiated on, whereupon, in a long rhesis, Oedipus answers the Chorus’ remark that he would have been better dead than blind while alive and again enlarges upon his wish never to have survived his exposure, and again upon his horrible deeds and his godforsaken condition, and again implores to be done away with. q See further preliminary note in the Commentary.

INTRODUCTION

23

In the third scene with Creon (1416- end) the latter treats Oedipus with decency and dignity but nevertheless the difference in stature between the two men is maintained. Thus Oedipus’ passionate desire to be sent away from the country meets with Creon’s timorous and meticulous answer that the god has to be consulted on that point. And a certain amount of self-satisfaction and condescension is not to be denied in the portraiture of Creon in this scene (just as in the former), whereas Oedipus remains, in his misery, the hero conscious of a destiny, however terrible (1457). His taking leave of his daughters adds a nuance of personal tender­ ness to the generally grim pathos of the end.

3. Composition, Unity and Meaning

It is clear that the impression of unity we get from the Oedipus is primarily caused by the figure of the protagonist, present on the stage from the first scene to the last, absent only during the short introductory scenes of the second and the third epeisodion (and during most of the choral songs). The form of the diptych-composi­ tion, to be discerned in different degrees in the older plays (Aiax, Trachiniae, Antigone), has been superseded by a structure in which the action remains principally centred on the destiny of one man, alive before the spectators throughout the play. The problem does not arise whether he or his opponent is really the main figure of the tragedy (as in the Antigone] Oedipus has no opponent at all, to put it somewhat exaggeratedly), Iocasta’s fate is bound up with his, as Deianeira’s with Heracles’, but there can be no question of a tragedy equally divided between the two of them (however 'tragic’ a figure Iocasta is), Oedipus does not depart the stage and his life leaving others to fight out the tragic points at issue. At the end of the play we are not so much looking back for the meaning of his destiny (as in the case of Aiax, Deianeira, Antigone) as seeing it before us in the blind man on the stage. So much, by way of preliminaries, for the play being centred on one man’s destiny. The action proper of the play can be described as a search, an enquiry, a quest. Set on foot by Apollo’s answer concerning the means to avert the pestilence reported by Creon in the second scene, the quest pervades the whole course of the play up to the end of the last epeisodion.

24

INTRODUCTION

Oedipus, prosecutor of the search, turns out to be its object as well. The shifts in the action or in the problems the action sets out to solve (search for the murderers of La'ius -> is Oedipus himself the killer —> who is Oedipus) mark the stages by which this apparently paradoxical result is reached. Since the action proceeds from Oedipus (it was he who sent Creon to Delphi) and recoils so to speak upon himself, the action itself notwithstanding its shifts, in a sense even because of them (their consequentiality is such that they are throughout felt as set in motion by one and the same mainspring) is as much a unifying element in the whole as the protagonist himself: the two are inextricably bound up with each other. The course of the quest is conditioned by Oedipus’ fundamental ignorance of the real situation and by his ‘character’, which combines the traits of keen intelligence bent on drawing unwarranted con­ clusions, of a temper quick to a fault, of generous readiness to stand in the breach for his people, of a masterfulness inherent in his position, of a deliberate will to find out the truth. Of course we may inversely aver that the structure of this character as conceived by the poet is the outcome of the position, and the situation in which he is placed and of the action he has to achieve. His suspic­ iousness, his verging on the brink of ΰβρις are the common attributes of the image of kingly or tyrannical power in Greek thought of the Vth and IVth century but these typical traits are unobtrusively adapted to the portraiture of the figure as a whole and to the action. The fierceness of his temper which shows in the scenes with Teiresias, Creon and Laius’ herdsman matches the way he dealt with Laius at the three-forked road. But that is not to say it is meant to suggest a fundamental culpability on the part of Oedipus: the slaying of Laius is expressly represented as an act of self-defence. Oedipus’ ignorance is from the start of the play up to the last epeisodion impressed on the mind of the spectator by the almost extravagant use of ‘dramatic irony’. If we take the trouble to consider all the indubitable occurrences of this device (59-61, 105, 120, 137-141, 219-222, 249-251, 258-268, 293, 397, 743, 821-833, 851-854, 928, 946^953^964-967, 976, 984-986, 1014, 1080 sqq., 1086-1109) and if we bear in mind that the spectator, though on the one hand identifying himself with the protagonist as represented in his action, in his delusive hopes, is on the other hand constantly reminded of the very delusiveness of this action, we have to conclude

INTRODUCTION

25

that the dramatic irony directly deriving from the presuppositions of the play is the element -par excellence which lends to its dramatic structure its incomparable unity and which unmistakably points to the sense which its action is intended to convey: the tragic unveiling of reality from the shrouds of human delusion, the delusiveness of human good fortune, the frailty of human inferences in contrast with divine truth. Another way of looking at the contents of the play is this: two deeds in a man’s past determine his (and his wife’s) real (and awful) situation in the present and since he is a King this state of affairs endangers the very existence of the city ruled by him. The danger threatening the city directly derives from the defilement of its King, which makes itself manifest by the mysterious plague. The King, who in the past had delivered the city from the Sphinx by his courage and intelligence (in consequence of which he had perpetrated his second awful deed—as unwittingly as the first), endeavours, with equal energy and courage, to live up to his renown and to rescue the city a second time. He had solved a riddle —a new riddle has to be solved. The riddle which at first presented itself as the unsolved question of the identity of his predecessor’s murderers, in the end proves to be the riddle of his own identity. The present reality is revealed by the investigation into the past, the whole truth of a hero’s terrible destiny is disclosed and contrasted with its specious appearances. The past is so to speak reenacted in the search which forms the action proper of the play. The validity of the oracles given to Lai'us and to Oedipus is vindicated by the outcome of the search and since the latter itself was ordered by an oracle we may safely state that the oracles taken together are expressive of the inevitability, the irrevocability of man’s deeds and destiny. But since it is the King himself who pursues his search, even when this course of action shows itself full of risk for his own existence, since after the last discovery, he finds the force to bear his fate, and since after all the solving of this riddle again implies the salvation of the city (although in the text of the tragedy this is nowhere expressly stated), it seems permissible to regard the tragedy of Oedipus not only as an exemplification of human ignorance contrasted with divine omniscience, of the frailty and speciousness of human fortune and happiness contrasted with the grim realities of existence, but also of human greatness holding its own against all Fate can do.

26

INTRODUCTION

3a. Recurrent metaphors and motifs

Recurrent imagery may of course be expressive of the poet’s intentions with the play as a whole. If a system of interlocking metaphors occurring in the course of a tragedy is really discoverable it may be considered as symbolizing the meaning of the play (or at least part of it); by their echoing each other or by an effect of contrast they contribute to the unity of the whole in a way analogous to that of parallel or contrasting scenic effects. The same holds good for recurrent motifs in ratiocination, and for the evoca­ tion of past events, of localities and the like. That is not to say that the bearing of one isolated, impressive simile (or image) on the play’s meaning may not be more important than a series of related metaphors to be combined from various parts of the text: the simile of 477-479 is a case in point. There is a real danger in relying too much on imagery research as a means of understanding the meaning and unity of a drama, especially in the case of Sophocles. The interpreter may, for instance, be looking out for a single dominant theme symbolized by one set of metaphors and then either attach too much importance to what actually sheds some light on one aspect of the action without however encompassing the full meaning of the play, or, even conclude that the play 'in a sense, has no interpretation’ at all *). Such a conclusion comes from staking too much on the effiency of imagery or motif research in dramatic poetry in which the con­ ditions are so very different from those in lyrics. Professor Knox2) has made much of the 'verbal complex’ relating to the physician’s art which occurs in the Oedipus, along­ side that referring to the mathematician’s: ‘They are appropriate and significant images for the revolutionary nature of man’s attempt to assert his mastery over nature by means of his intelli­ gence ...’·) Oedipus is the physician and the sick man (as such he is revealed by the verbal complex of medical metaphors), just as he is 'both actor and patient, the seeker and the thing sought’, 'a paradeigma of the paradoxical nature of man’s greatest achieve-

*) Cp. H. Musurillo S. J., Sunken Imagery in Sophocles’ Oedipus, A. J. Ph. 1957. P· 51· ’) Oedipus at Thebes, 1957, Ch. Ill pp. 139 sqq. «) O.l. p. 139.

INTRODUCTION

27

merits’. Now I do not deny that there is much of value in the author’s statements and especially in his comparisons between Sophoclean terminology and medical vocabulary, but what I do deny is that the poet has used medical terminology in order to represent Oedipus, imaged as physician and sick man, as a symbol of the meaning of the play. The series of medical terms simply derives from the fact that the starting-point of the tragedy’s action is the λοιμός of Thebes and that Oedipus is its source of infection. It is really laying too great a strain on 68 (ήν S’ εδ σκοπών ηΰρισκον ϊασιν μόνην) and on 218 (άνακούφισιν κακών) to conclude from these words that the poet wants us to see Oedipus as the physician, the more so since Oedipus himself has declared ώς έγώ I ούκ έστιν ύμών οστις έξ ίσου νοσεί. Still less can I believe that in άνακουφίσαι (23), έμπείροισι (44), δύσφορ’ (87), χειμάζον (ΐθΐ) 2), φλόγα πήματος (ΐ66), άκάθαρτον (256), πάθημα (554)> άποκρίνας (640), κομίζειν (678), προΰλεγον (973) we should recognize instances of this verbal complex. I cannot but feel that in endeavouring to make a list of significant medical terminology or metaphor we should be content to note 59-61 (~ 93, 4), certainly 68 (ϊασιν), άνήκεστον τρέφειν g8, 217, 636, 1061, 1396 (κάλλος κακών δπουλον) and we should beware of considering Oedipus’ self-blinding as a surgeon’s operation. Similarly the related motifs of the one and the many and of identity (the murderer—robber—or murderers—robbers, way­ farers; Sv γάρ πόλλ’ άν έξεύροι μαθεϊν 120; ά σ’ εξισώσει 425 > combined in ού γάρ γένοιτ’ άν εις γε τοϊς πολλοΐς ίσος 845) are ex­ pressive of the meaning of the plot but do not, in my opinion, call up to the hearer’s mind the image of the mathematician, embodied in Oedipus. When Teiresias 420 sqq. speaks to Oedipus of what is in store for him thus: βοής δέ τής σής ποιος ούκ έσται λιμήν, / ποιος Κιθαιρών ούχί σύμφωνος τάχα, / όταν καταίσθη τον ύμέναιον, δν δόμοις / άνορμον εΐσέπλευσας, εύπλοίας τυχών; and the Chorus sings (after the cata­ strophe) 1207 sqq. ίώ κλεινόν Οΐδίπου κάρα, / ω μέγας λιμήν / αύτός ήρκεσεν κτλ,, it is clear that the repetition of the imagery is signific­ ant, although there remains much uncertainty as to details (cf.

') 0.1. pp. 147 and 138. 3) Τόδ' αίμα χειμάζον πόλιν, more likely a continuation of φοινίου σάλου 24.

28

INTRODUCTION

n. ad 420, 421). But I am not so sure whether or not we have to extend the connection also to 194-197 εϊτ’ ές μέγαν / θάλαμον Άμφιτρίτας / εϊτ’ ές τόν άπόξενον όρμον / Θρήκιον κλύδωνα (it is possible, for the imprecation which is meant for 'Ares’ does refer to Oedipus because the polluted Oedipus = Ares) and still less whether the maritime imagery of 22 sqq, 51 (?), 56,7, 170 (?), 183 (?), 695, 6 has anything to do with the imagery of 420 sqq. and 1207 sqq. *) 4. The Date of

the

Play

We have no external data with the exception of Ar. Ach. 27 ώ πόλις, πόλις if we reckon these words as an incontestable parody of 1. 629: this would provide us with 425 as terminus ante quern 2). It has been often maintained that the λοιμός from which the action takes its start and which may be Sophocles’ own invention is inspired by Athens’ terrible ordeal of 429 3). But the λοιμός may have belonged to the tradition, though we have nothing to corrob­ orate this; alternatively the poet may have taken his idea from the Iliad. Nevertheless Professor B. M. W. Knox has, in my opinion, made a good case for the connection between the historical and the dramatic plague ♦). A traditional blight and a plague are combined in the Oedipus; there is a certain analogy between the situation in Thebes and Athens’ real situation of 429. O.T. 190 Άρεά τε τόν μαλερόν ignores the (fictive) dramatic situation. "Αρης (Thebes’ protective deity κατ’ εξοχήν) is identified with the 'plague’: this is what must have occurred in the consciousness of the Athenians under the scourge of war and plague together (pp. 138, 9). I am not so sure whether Knox is right in contending that 11. 164-166 are only understandable if they refer to a time when the plague raged for the second time (427-6) nor am I convinced by a series of

q Ci. Musurillo o.l. p. 42. *) F. Marx, De aetate Oedipi Tyranni fabulae Sophocleae, Festschrift Theodor Gomperz, Wien 1902, pp. 129-140, p. 134. His date is 427. q Thus Pohlenz, Die Griechische Tragodie1, p. 220, Webster, Introduction to Sophocles, p. 14; the connection is denied by W. Schmid G.L.G. I 2 p. 261 n. 2. Sceptical J. T. Sheppard, Oedipus Tyrannus p. 100, A. Lesky G.G.L.1 p. 315· q The Date of the Oedipus Tyrannus, A.J.Ph. 1956, pp. 133-147.

INTRODUCTION

29

pretended parodies in Aristophanes’ Equites (424). So in my opinion the margin of uncertainty is larger than Knox assumes. But 425 (his date) seems possible if we disregard the alleged parody in the Acharnians. With regard to structure a date half way between Antigone and Philoctetes seems satisfactory. A date some years after Pericles’ death is far from improbable.

COMMENTARY Le veritable g6nie dramatique... se reconnait toujours A la decision de 1'ouverture.1

Prologue 1-150 A group consisting of childem (cf. 16), adolescents (cf. 18) and aged priests (17, 18), holding olive-branches with garlands in their hands, is sitting on the steps of the altar (s) before Oedipus’ palace. Enter the King, coming out of his house. He is a man in the prime of life. 1. τέκνα: In addressing the group of suppliants, in which the young are in the majority, Oedipus naturally uses this word. But since this group is representative of the whole city reposing its absolute faith in Oedipus’ power to save his citizens from the plague, the word is at the same time expressive of the father-son relation between the good ruler and his subjects. Cf. schol. φιλόδημον καί προνοητικόν τοϋ κοινή συμφέροντος τό τοϋ Οΐδίποδος ήθος καί εύνοιαν έχων από τοϋ πλήθους δι’ ών αύτούς εύηργέτησεν εικότως οδν κέχρηται τω τέκνα ώσπερεί πατήρ. Moreover it should be borne in mind that the King’s appearance at the beginning of the play has to be seen in striking contrast with his last entry and exit; there the helpless Oedipus is asking Creon for the permission to touch his childem. It is perhaps not beside the point to note that the Messenger from Corinth, when perceiving Oedipus’ ignorance of his real relation to the king and queen of Corinth, addresses him by ώ παϊ (ιοι8). (τέκνον, however, is used even by the maiden-chorus speaking to Eteocles when they are addressing him as the voice of the πόλις, Aesch. Sept. 686). Κάδμου τοϋ πάλαι νέα τροφή: Cf. Racine, Esther I. 1 'de l’antique Jacob jeune post0rit0‘. The meaning of νέα is partly determined by its being in contrast with τοϋ πάλαι (‘of the present day’ x ‘of olden times’), partly by the youth of the majority of these suppliants. So there is some ambiguity. But if one is referring to the present generation as opposed to former generations it cannot be otherwise: what is ‘new’ can hardly be distinguished from what is ‘young’.2) *) Ch. P6guy, Les Suppliants paraltiles, p. 67, Cah. de la Quinzaine VII 7. *) Οίκτρόν δέ τό νέα schol.

32

COMMENTARY

Thus I think there is no reason to suspect or to alter the text as proposed by Mr. A. D. Fitton Brown Σ) (ώ τέκνα Κάδμου τοϋ πάλαι νεοτρεφή). But τροφή calls for some comment: it must mean ‘off­ spring’ ; instances of this meaning are very rare. Mr. Fitton Brown is right in rejecting Aesch. Sept. 785-6, listed by L.-Sc. s.v. Ill; but Eur. Cycl. 189 μηκάδων άρνών τροφαί seems to be a case in point. It will not do to interpret with Campbell: ‘objects of my care’. For forms of τρέφομαι approximating forms of γίγνομαι in meaning cf. Phil. 3 ώ κρατίστου πατρός Ελλήνων τραφείς, Ai. 557 οΐος έξ οίου ’τράφης, ib. 1229. The idea is: ‘you that are the present nurse­ lings of Cadmus’ ancient city’. The argument that the verse-structure would be better if Κάδμου depended on τέκνα is a misconception of the interrelation between syntactical pause and caesura. It is of course significant that the name of Cadmus, founder of Thebes and Laius’ great-grandfather, is recorded in the first line (cf. 267-8). 2. θοάζετε: A verb θοάζω ‘to sit’ occurs in Empedocl. 4. 8 and Aesch. Suppl. 595 and its occurrence here is assumed by the first part of the schol. a.h.l. (άντΐ τοϋ θάσσετε) and by Plut. de aud. poet. 6. 22 E. Its form can be explained by change of suffix from *θοάσσω = θαάσσω, θάσσω, denominative of *θόακος = θακος or θώκος (Frisk s.v.). The homonym θοάζω ‘move quickly’, frequently used by Euripides, has its defenders here also, both ancient and modem: ή θοώς προκάθησθε (second part of the schol.) and thus G. Hermann, Ellendt, Campbell and others. But έδρας θοάζειν = ‘to hasten to sit down (as suppliants)’ seems an improbable phrase (cf. Jebb, Appendix}; moreover the haste would seem to be irrele­ vant. So we reject the explanation. τίνας ποθ’ έδρας τάσδε μοι θοάζετε: There can be some doubt as to the category of the accusative, έδρα may be taken as concrete (‘seat’) or as abstract (‘sitting’), but τίνας favours the second view: so our passage had better not be listed with the instances of the accusa­ tive with κεισθαι, στηναι, ήσθαι denoting the place occupied, as is done by K.-G. I 313 Anm. 13. The accusative is internal: ‘why are you sitting thus’, but the concrete ‘these seats’ is implied in the phrase, μοι is ‘precatory’. 3. ίκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν έξεστεμμένοι: The ΐκτήριοι κλάδοι or ίκετηρίαι are olive (or laurel) branches, round which woolen garlands have been entwined. So the phrase seems meant to convey ίκτηρίοις x) Cl. Rev. N.S. II 1952, pp. 2-4

PROLOGUE, VSS. 2-10

33

κλάδοισιν έξεστεμμένοις κεκοσμημένοι. But the literal meaning is: ‘by means of their suppliant boughs well provided with woollen garlands’. Or perhaps ίκτηρίοις κλάδοισιν might be considered as a dativus respectus (cf. K.-G. I 440.12). στέμμα δέ έστι τό προσειλημένον έριον τω θαλλφ. 4, 5. όμοϋ μέν . . . όμοϋ δέ: simul. . . simul. There is no real contrast between the two members; the repetition of όμοϋ stresses the simultaneity of the actions involved: the burning of incense on the altars, the invocation of Paean the Healer mingled with groans of grief. For the last two cf. 186-7. παιάν here as well as there has to be understood as έπί καταπαύσει λοιμών καί νόσων άδόμενος 1), clearly betraying its origin as an evil-averting magic song; cf. Nilsson, Ges. d. Gr. Rel. I2 543. 6. άγω: ά refers to the circumstances, the causes of all the things mentioned in 11. 2-5. 6, 7. παρ’ άγγέλων . . / άλλων: Either αγγέλων or άλλων is, logically speaking, redundant, but the contrast 'myself hear (and see)’ x ‘to hear from messengers, from others' is, in this way, marked as strongly as possible, and thus Oedipus’ readiness to be helpful is underlined. The repeatedly recurring redundancy of Oedipus’ mode of expression is characteristic of his generosity and energy: 58, 63 sq., 137-141. 8. ό . . . καλούμενος: πασι goes with κλεινός: ‘I who am called Oedipus, famous in the eyes of all’. (Thus correctly Jebb; πάσι is certainly not neuter—the schol.’s alternative—and the translation 'I who am called by all the famous Oedipus’ sounds somewhat ridiculous). Campbell’s is an elegant rendering: ‘I world-renowned Oedipus by name’. The spectators now know for certain who is before them. But the words are also entirely ‘in character’: they are expressive of his self-confidence, of his certainty that he will inspire confidence in others too. 9, 10. ώ γεραιέ: the aged priest of Zeus (cf. 18). πρέπων έφυς: The construction is remarkable for two reasons: (1) it is periphrastic (2) it is personal. It combines the notions of: πρέπει σοι (πρό τώνδε φωνεϊν) and πέφυκας (προ τώνδε φωνεΐν). The personal use of πρέπειν in this sense is rare; it may be that the normal meaning of personal πρέπειν (‘to be conspicuous among’) *) Proclus, Chrestom. ap. Phot. Bibl. cod. 239 p. 321 A Bekker (quoted by Nilsson l.c.). Kamerbeek,

IV

3

34

COMMENTARY

has played a certain part in Sophocles’ coining of the phrase (cf. Campbell: ‘πρέπειν here appears in transition from 'being conspic­ uous’ to ‘being suitable”). But πρό τώνδε certainly goes with φωνεϊν; πρό = in behalf of (cf. O.C. 8n). 10. 11. τίνι τρόπφ καθέστατε: According to Jebb τίνι τρόπω does not announce δείσαντες ή στέρξαντες, that is to say these words would mean είτε δ., είτε στ., not πότερον δ. ή στ. This seems unlikely; τίνι τρόπω finds its logical unfolding in the disjunctive δ. ή στ. But the real difficulty of the words lies in the meaning of στέρξαντες. In my opinion the sense of 'being resigned’ (even if we should make ώς θέλοντος . . . παν depend on it) has to be discard­ ed *): it would be a strange supposition to think that they have come to him because they began to feel resigned and if the words ώς . . . παν should be taken with στέρξαντες, the latter’s meaning would have to be forced into something like: ‘because you have come to the resigned persuasion that’. M. Croiset’s translation 'est-ce crainte ou t&noignage d’affectueuse confiance’ also strains the meaning of στέρξαντες too much. Jebb’s 'having formed a desire’ (thus also Mazon and others) appears to be the only correct interpretation. But perhaps more should be made of the aorists: 'is it because of sudden fear (inspired by what is going on) or rather because of a sudden desire (that something should be done about it)’. For στέργω ‘to desire’ cf. O.C. 1094. The v.l. στέξαντες (A and apparently Σ—ή παθόντες—) has to be rejected: στέγειν does not mean ‘to suffer’ in classical Greek, though it does mean ‘to sustain’ since Hellenistic times; since στέρξαντες could hardly be rendered by παθόντες, the reading may represent an old—not Byzantine— conjecture. 11. ώς: 'in the conviction that'. 12. δυσάλγητος: less common than ανάλγητος Ai. 946; ‘unfeeling’, cf. fr. 952 P., with Pearson’s note. 13. μή ού: because of the negation implied in δυσάλγητος. K.-G. II 214 Anm. 8 and A. C. Moorhouse, Studies in the Greek Negatives, 1959, P· 62. Cf. infra 221, O.C. 359-60. τοιάνδε έδραν: lift, such a sitting (of suppliants). 14. άλλ’: ‘well.’ G.P.2 p. 18. κρατύνων = κρατέων, as always in Soph.; cf. infra 904. *) Even if we modify this meaning by translating ‘having steeled yoursel­ ves to endure’ (J. T. Sheppard).

PROLOGUE, VSS. XO-l8

35

15. Note the parallelism with the structure of 1. 2 and the assonance of ήμας, ήλίκοι, προσήμεθα, suggestive of the suppliants’ Plight. 16. βωμοϊσι τοΐς σοΐς: the altar(s) in front of the palace. We cannot be sure whether a real plural is meant, cp. Trach. 238. The altar of Lycean Apollo is meant (cf. 919). 17. 18. οϊ δέ . . . ιερής: I do not see much advantage in adopting Bentley’s ίερεύς, as is done by Roussel and the Budd editors 1). Roussel’s idea viz. that the only old man present is Zeus’ priest has its own difficulties. When we read Mazon’s translation, we become aware of this: 'Les uns n’ont pas encore la force de voler bien loin, les autres sont accablds par la vieillesse; je suis, moi, pretre de Zeus; ils torment, eux, un choix de jeunes gens’. We are asked to suppose that οϊ. . . βαρείς is a plur. maiestatis* 2) and that the ήθέων λεκτοί (ήθεοι are not younger than fourteen) are the same as o£ . . . σθένοντες. It is true that in the rest of the scene the other priests are forgotten (31, 58, 147) but this difficulty is hardly more serious than those with which we are confronted by Bentley’s reading. It seems then right to try to make what we can of the transmitted text (reading, of course, ιερής). έγώ μεν Ζηνός: a case of μέν solitarium (G.P.2 380 sqq.) after a personal pronoun, 'implicitly contrasted with other persons’ (here: ol δέ άλλων θεών). Then follows a third category; since we cannot read οϊ δέ τ’ (not Attic, G.P.2 532), we have to choose between οίδε τ’ (‘and these here’) and οϊ δ’ έτ’ ('and moreover as a third group’, thus Elmsley and Pearson3), the latter quoting Eur. Bacch. 694 as amended from X. π. 1834, Cl. Qu. 1929, p. 90); this latter solution seems the better one. (The reading in L1 οί δ’ επ’ (if indeed it has to be recognized as such) may have arisen from a clumsy attempt at emendation in order to make the other priests appear as the chosen leaders—ot έπι των ήθέων λεκτοί—of the young people; it should be discarded). There is nothing strange in the ήθεοι forming a group by itself among the suppliants: cp. the ήθεοι sent to Delos Arist. Άθ. Πολ. 56.3. Not being married and so αγνοί they are particularly fit for the purpose. x) Also by M. L. Earle, Notes on Sophocles's Oedipus Tyrannus, Cl. Rev. 1899, p. 34°· 2) Thus already schol. ad 17, though reading Ιερείς. 3) And R (cf. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 45).

36

COMMENTARY

It is part of the irony of the situation that the unpolluted youth are crying for help from Oedipus. 19. λεκτοί: rare instead of έκλεκτοί, λογάδες, έξαίρετοι. Aesch. Pers. το δ’ άλλο φϋλον: Campbell’s view ‘and there is another gathering which’ is contradicted by the natural meaning of φϋλον; the words mean: the rest of the people. 20, 21. Jebb and others are indubitably right in stating that πρός . . . σποδω does not explain άγοραΐσι; both τε’β are connective. άγοραΐσι: in the (two or perhaps more) market-places. For (possibly) two άγοραί Jebb refers to Paus. IX 12.3 and Xen. Hell. N 2.29. But the plural may be poetical. Παλλάδος διπλοΐς/ναοΐς: one of these must be the temple of Όγκα Παλλάς; anyone approaching Thebes from Athens must have seen it on his left, while he had the Ismenion on his right. Which other temple is meant, we can only guess. Ίσμηνοΰ . . . μαντεία σποδω: the temple of Apollo Ismenios, S.-E. of the Electran Gates, on a hill called Ismenios, near the river Ismenos; Ismenos is moreover Apollo’s son. The temple was a centre of divination (Pind. Pyth. XI 6, Hdt. VIII 134), according to Philochorus *) of divination by burnt offerings (hence Valckenaer’s έμπύροισι instead of ίροΐσι Hdt. Z.c.), as was for instance practised at Olympia on the altar of Zeus by the Iamidae (Pind. ΟΙ. VIII2 sqq.). It seems unnecessary to suppose that Sophocles is thinking of the altar of Apollon Spodios of which Pausanias IX 11.7, 12.1 is our sole witness. (Cf. M. Holleaux in Melanges Weil, 1898, 192 sqq., and the discussion in Hitzig-Bluemner’s Pausanias «./.). Athena, Artemis (with a temple on the άγορά) and Apollo are the three deities invoked by the Chorus 158-167. 22, 23. σαλεύει. . . σάλου: the metaphor recurs partially 694696. I do not think there is any connection with the harbourmetaphors referring to Oedipus’ and Iocasta’s marriage (as apparent­ ly supposed by H. MusuriUo S. J. Sunken Imagery in Sophocles' Oedipus, A. J. Ph. 1957, 36-51). Cf. also 56, 7. σαλεύει: intr. (the passive is found Aesch. Prom. 1081) ‘to be tempest-tossed’ (L.-Sc.). Cf. El. 1074 πρόδοτος δέ μόνα σαλεύει Ήλεκτρα; Rhes. 249 σαλεύη πόλις. The same metaphor (belonging *) Σ ad 21.

PROLOGUE, VSS. I9-27

37

to the imagery of the ship of state, as old as Archilochus) Ant. 162, 3 τά μέν δη πόλεος άσφαλώς θεοί/πολλώ σάλω σείσαντες όρθωσαν πάλιν. The image seems to carry on in άνόρθωσον πόλιν 46 and in άσφαλεία τηνδ’ άνόρθωσον πόλιν 5Χ· It is noteworthy that with later authors σαλεύειν has the sense of riding at anchor (lit. and metaph.) and σάλος of open road-stead as opposed to a harbour, σάλος lit. Phil. 271. (A very interesting metaphorical instance occurs in Democr. fr. 148 ό γάρ όμφαλός πρώτον έν μήτρηισιν άγκυρηβόλιον σάλου και πλάνης έμφύεται, πείσμα καί κλήμα τώ γεννωμένω καρπώ καί μέλλοντι). The etymology of σάλος is uncertain (in modern Greek the word seems to be mixed up with ζάλη, cf. Frisk s.v. ζάλη). κάρα: a metaphor within a metaphor: the image shifts from a sinking ship to a drowning man (somehow the same image seems to be implied in άνέχουσιν 173 24. φοινίου: here ‘deadly’, ‘murderous’. Cf. Ai. 351 ϊδεσθέ μ’οίον άρτι κϋμα φοινίας ΰπό ζάλης άμφίδρομον κυκλεϊται. But see note there. 25. κάλυξιν έγκάρποις: cf. Aesch. Ag. 1392 κάλυκος έν λοχεύμασιν ('when the sheath is in labour with the ear’ Ed. Fraenkel). There is a small shift in the relation of the three datives to φθίνουσα: the first two may be called datives of respect, the third, by means of άγόνοις, coming close to a causal dative. Κάλυξ ‘covering’, ‘shell’, ‘husk’ of fruit. 25, 6. φθίνουσα μέν . . . φθίνουσα δ’: the epanaphora suggests the ubiquity and unceasing progress of the blight. Cf. O.C. 610. άγέλαις βουνόμοις: άγέλαις βοών νεμομένων. Compare Ant. 1022 άνδρόφθορον αίμα = αϊμα άνδρός φθαρέντος and similar cases (K.-G. I 262 and Anm. 1) 1). The adj. recurs El. 181 βούνομον άκτάν. (It is not absolutely sure, whether we have to assume as nom. sing. βούνομοςΟΓ βουνόμος). 26, 7. τόκοισί τε I άγόνοις: ‘travail bringing no children to the birth’ (L.-Sc.). There is no question of the birth of abnormal beings; there is a blight on the land, the herds and the women, causing ster­ ility and miscarriage. On the other hand there is a pestilence carrying away young and old alike. Cf. G. Daux, Oedipe et le Fleau, R.E.G. 1940, 97-122, rightly criticising M. Delcourt’sSZeriZiZc's et Naissances malefiques (see especially pp. 105, 106, 109). The case mentioned by Plut. Rom. 24. I (έκ τούτου λοιμός εμπίπτει, θανάτους μέν αιφνίδιους άνθρώποις άνευ νόσων έπιφέρων, άπτόμενος δέ καί καρπών άφορίας καί >) Schmid

G.L.G. I 2. 151 sq.

k

38

COMMENTARY

θρεμμάτων αγονίας), though not the same in all respects, is more nearly comparable than the one we find in Plut. Publ. 21.2 (πασαι γάρ αί χυοϋσαι τότε γυναίκες έξέβαλλον άνάπηρα, καί τέλος ούδεμία γένεσις έσχεν). The idea, of course, that an epidemic is coupled with an epizootic, both considered as the manifestation of a curse, a divine wrath, is widely-spread throughout the ancient world and the same holds true for sterility overtaking crops, cattle and popula­ tion. Cf. e.g. Hdt. VI 139. i, Dion. Halic. I 23 (quoted by Jebb) (here we find in fact the combination of miscarriage and birth of άνάπηρα which is lacking in Sophocles'description of the plague). 27. εν S’: έν is adverbial, 'and similarly’, cf. my note ad Ai. 675, where O.T. 27 had been wrongly interpretated in the first edition: έν does not go with σκήψας, δ’ is not = γάρ but continuative, the λοιμός έχθιστος has to be distinguished from the blight on the fruits etc. The λοιμός is personified as a πυρφόρος θεός, in fact as destructive Ares, cp. 166, 190. That is to say the pestilence, is up to a point, identified with the disasters of war. B. M. W. Knox is perhaps right in stressing this remarkable fact when arguing for dating the play in 425 (The date of the Oed. Tyr. of Soph., A. J. Ph. LXXVII 1956, 133-147, cp. id., Oedipus at Thebes, 1957, pp. 10 and 200). Would any people more likely have been struck by such an identification than an Athenian audience in time of war who have just survived the great plague? Plague and Ares are coupled, but not identified, in the Suppl. of Aeschylus (659-66, 678-85), as remarked by Knox, Oedipus at Thebes, p. 200, 15. πυρφόρος: though primarily to be considered as belonging to the image of Ares, with whom the plague is identified, the word may also convey the notion of πϋρ = πυρετός, as Jebb will have it. 28. σκήψας: intr. as in Aesch. Ag. 302, 308, 310, 366; Prom. 749; Sept. 429. A σκηπτός is a stroke of lightning, metaphor, sudden calamity, Aesch. Pers. 715 λοιμού τις σκηπτός (cp. Ant. 418). 29. ύφ’ οδ κενοΰται: cf. Aesch. Suppl. 659 sq. μήποτε λοιμός άνδρών τάνδε πόλιν κενώσαι. μέλας δ’: the elision at the end of a trimeter, rather frequent with Sophocles, is in keeping with his propensity to strong syntactical enjambment; but perhaps δ’ should be taken with the next line. 30. πλουτίζεται: alluding to Πλούτων = Hades. Cf. Groeneboom ad Aesch. Prom. 806 and for Πλούτων (= ‘wer Reichtum hat’) Nilsson, G.G.R.V p. 471, v. Wilamowitz, Gl. d. Η. II p. 160.

PROLOGUE, VSS. 27-38

39

31, 2. σ’ .... έζόμεσθ’ εφέστιοι: σε ίκετεύομεν έπί την εστίαν σου (τον βωμόν) έζόμενοι (or την εστίαν έζόμενοι). 33, 4. έν τε συμφοραϊς βίου: συμφοραί events, circumstances, συμφορά plight into which man is brought by them (παν έστι άνθρω­ πος συμφορή Hdt. I 32.4). (Withβίου Aesch.Eum. 1020). ταϊς βιωτικαϊς συντυχίαις (schol.). έ'ν τε δαιμόνων συναλλαγαϊς: 'conjunctures caused by the gods’, cf. ad Track. 844,5. I prefer this interpretation, with Jebb J), Sheppard and Mazon among others2), above the alternative 'dealings with the gods’ (schol., W.-B.2, Campbell, Groeneboom and others). The contrast with συμφοραϊς βίου is more striking; moreover the reference to the Sphinx is clearer than if we follow the scholion (έν ταϊς πρός τό θειον κοινωνίαις καί φιλίαις τω—Wolff— στοχάζεσθαι της των θεών διανοίας). 35, 6. άστυ Καδμεΐον: goes with μολών. έξέλυσας . . . δασμόν: ‘unloose’, 'make an end of’ (but not: ‘paid it off’ as in L.-Sc.). ‘The δασμός was as a knotted cord’ (Jebb); we may be certain that a play upon δεσμόν is implied. Compare the common use of λύειν in phrases like λύειν νόμον, λύειν τό παράνομον and also λύειν — to solve (τήν άπορίαν, τό ζήτημα), σκληρας άοιδοΰ: either ‘imposed by’ or Tendered to’ . . . σκληρας άοιδοΰ: The phrases designating the Sphinx are note­ worthy throughout the play: 130 ή ποικιλωδός Σφίγξ, 391 ή ραψωδός κύων, 5θ8 πτερόεσσα κόρα, H99 τ“ν γαμψώνυχα παρθένον χρησμωδόν. Cf. τάν άρπαξάνδραν κήρα Aesch. Sept, yjb, Σφίγγα δυσαμεριαν πρύτανιν κύνα Aesch. fr. 236 Ν2. These periphrases are suggestive of the monster’s uncanny nature, they come on the one hand near to kenningar, on the other to ‘Decknamen’. 37, 8. ούδέν έξειδώς πλέον: cf. 397 ό μηδέν εΐδώς Οίδίπους. Καί ταϋθ’: ‘adding a circumstance heightening the force of what has been said’ (L.-Sc.), mostly with a participle. After άλλά the sentence is rounded off not by a second participial clause (as might be expected) but by two finite verbs on a par with έξέλυσας from which όρθώσαι βίον containing the idea complementary to έξέλυσας depends. 38. προσθήκη θεοϋ: more forceful than σύν θεώ; προσθήκη h.l. = aid. In the Teiresias-scene Oedipus recalling his feat does not ή following Ellendt. ·) Cf. V. Ehrenberg Sophocles and Pericles, 1954, p. 112.

40

COMMENTARY

make any mention of divine assistance (cp. 396-398). The priest is making his appeal to a man who—such is his conviction—will act with the aid of the gods; in point of fact Oedipus is instrumental in Thebes’ suffering under the divine wrath. έξειδώς . . . έκδιδαχθείς: the use of έξ- as a reinforcing preverbium is exceedingly frequent in Soph. 40. νυν τ’: It is safer to follow L in reading τ’ than G’s δ’, as is done by Pearson. A case can be made for τ’ instead of γ’ 35 (the reading, as it seems, of EG) as we read in Campbell’s text (‘τ’ preparing the way for νϋν τε in 1. 40’, cf. infra 694-696 where the problem is similar). πασιν: ‘in the eyes of all’ (cf. 1. 8). 41. πρόστροποι: only here and Phil. 773 ‘suppliant’. 43. του; thus L and Φ; που AL“. του appears to be ‘authentic’, but we cannot be sure it is what Soph, wrote. A corruption που > του is as easy to imagine as a conjecture του > που in order to avoid twice του. Both give excellent sense. Construe: είτε του θεών φήμην άκούσας , εϊτ’ άπ’ άνδρός του οΐσθα. φήμη has its special meaning of ‘utterance prompted by a god’ (L.-Sc.) Χ). For οΐσθα άπό cp. καπό μάντεων ταύτη κλύω O.C. 1300. 44, 5. τοϊσιν έμπείροισι: It is his εμπειρία for which above all they appeal to Oedipus; ώς refers to the foregoing sentence as a whole, not to the είτε clauses in particular. τάς ξυμφοράς: ‘the issues’, ‘the results' (τάς συντυχίας καί τάς άποβάσεις των βουλευμάτων schol.). ζώσας: ούκ άπολλυμένας (schol.), ‘live and prosper’ (Campbell), καί: The point is that the έμπειροι have not only insight into a situation—on the ground of their εμπειρία—but also meet with success when they have decided on the course to follow. One has to bear in mind that γνώμη very often designates the intellectual grasp of a situation with regard to the question how to act. 46. ώ βροτών άριστ’: here, as in 1. 40, Oedipus’ outstanding άρετή is stressed and so Thebes’ reliance on him. άνόρθωσον: cf. 39, 50,51, 695. 47. εύλαβήθηθ’: not ‘urbi cave’ (Ellendt) but ‘cave tibi ipse.’ From the start Oedipus’ own involvement in the fate of Thebes is stressed. His own reputation, his worth as a king is at stake. >) But not in the sense that Oedipus is regarded as having a miraculous and private intercourse with the gods’, as is rightly remarked by Sheppard a.l).

PROLOGUE, VSS. 4O-54

41

By the king’s excellence a country thrives and prospers (Od. XIX log sq. is aptly quoted by Bruhn; the passage surely refers to very ancient beliefs about kingship); equally its calamities will be ascribed to his failures and even to his guilt. 47-49. ώς: Instead of a subordinate clause depending on εύλαβήθηθ’ a new main sentence follows connected with the preceding one by ώς (= έπεί) and divided into three members, the first two of them are in μέν . . . 8έ relation, the last by means of άλλα set in contrast to the second. But the subjunctive μεμνώμεθα (we should neither read μεμνώμεθα with Eustath., nor μεμνήμεθα) J) depends more or less on the idea deduced from εύλαβήθηθ’. On the whole the schol.’s paraphrase is correct:ϊθι ούν καί εύλαβήθητι μή τήν προϋπάρχουσαν δόξαν έπι τη εύποιία άπολέσης. 48. σωτηρα:Τ1ιβ supreme paradox of the play consists in this that Oedipus is not only the city’s saviour but also very nearly its destroyer. της πάρος προθυμίας: genit, causae, προθυμία: Oedipus’ eagerness and promptness. His portraiture is entirely that of a πρόθυμος; cf. ii sq. 2) 49. μεμνώμεθα: First the genitive, then the two participles depend on the verb. 50. στάντες ές ορθόν: cf. Thue. V 102 στηναι όρθώς. 51. άσφαλεία: ώστε ασφαλή είναι. Cf. Ant. 163, 4· άνόρθωσον πόλιν: 46· The literal repetition is suggestive of the urgency of his appeal. 52. 3. καί. . . καί: the first και is logically redundant; cf. G.P.2 p. 306 fcorresponsive, καί in both clauses’, but Denniston does not list this instance). ‘Just as ... so now also’. 52. αίσίφ: frequently used of omens, faustus; δρνις does not differ from οιωνος (Ar. Av. 720). Cf. αίσίφ σίττη Call./r. 191. 56 Pf. την τότε τύχην: ‘the good fortune of that time’. The word-order lends as it were the favourable meaning of αίσίφ to τύχην. 53. ίσος γενοϋ: ‘show yourself the same man’ (as at the time). ‘Oedipus, destroyer of the Sphinx’, is the standard he has to live up to. 54. είπερ άρξεις: ‘if really you will continue to reign’. There is no verbal contrast with κρατείς (thus rightly Jebb), merely variation J) I fail to see how Pearson could suggest: ‘optativum fortasse noverat Σ’. *) προμηθείας G R γρ is an inferior reading.

42

COMMENTARY

of expression (Sheppard argues that κρατεΐν suggests the danger of the despotic frame of mind, wrongly in my opinion). 55. ξύν άνδράσιν: on a par with κενής, κενής: κενοϋται 29. 56. 7. Cf. Ale. 112. 10 L.-P. άνδρες γάρ πόλιος πύργος άρεύιος (or άρεύιοι), quoted by Σ and by schol. Aesch. Pers. 349; Aesch. Pers. 348, 9 έτ’ άρ’ ’Αθηνών έστ’ άπόρθητος πόλις; /άνδρών γάρ δντων έρκος έστίν άσφαλές. Thue. VII 77· 7 (end of Nicias' last speech) άνδρες γάρ πόλις, καί ού τείχη ούδέ νήες άνδρών κεναί (cf. Hdt. VIII 61. 2). But in our lines πύργος and ναϋς are compared to each otherx), 22 sqq. the city had been compared to a ship in distress. 57. έρημος: the Attic accentuation according to Hdn. Gr. 2. 938. άνδρών μη ξυνοικούντων: epexegetic of έρημος and, with the latter, an irregular instance of 'polar expression’, cf. Phil. 31 κενήν οίκησιν άνθρώπων δίχα. The words are well rendered by Mazon: 'Un rempart, un vaisseau nesont rien, s’il n’y a plus d’hommes pour les occuper’. 58. ώ παΐδες οίκτροί: cf. ad I. γνωτά κούκ άγνωτά: a typical example of polar expression. Much stress is laid by it on his consciousness of the situation. 60. καί νοσοϋντες: as if the sentence were to run ού νοσείτε (έξ ίσου) ώς εγώ; the expressiveness is much enhanced by the very natural anacoluthon. Moreover there is a contamination between ώς εγώ . . . ούτως νοσεί and έμοί . . . έξ ίσου νοσεί. It remains to be seen whether νοσεί depends on ότι or whether the clause has to be considered as independent. The latter alternative seems the more likely and so καί has to be rendered by'and yet’ (cf.G.P.2p. 292 (9)). 62. τό . . . ύμών άλγος: more emphatic than the normal order τό άλγος ύμών. 62, 3. είς έν’ . . . κούδέν’ άλλον: again very emphatic by means of a sort of polar expression. We have to bear in mind that the tragedy is in fact centred on the εις μόνος who is delivering this speech. 64. σ’: for the elision of non-enclitic σέ cf. O.C. 800. σέ not only the priest but each of the citizens personally. 65. ύπνω . . . εύδοντα: an emphatic εΰδοντα, καθεύδοντα. Badham’s ένδόντα is a shrewd but needless conjecture. Cf. Phil. 225, 6 δκνω/ δείσαντες. Or we may say that εύδω = a strong κάθημαι ('be in­ active’), whose meaning is emphasized by ύπνω. On γε cf. G.P.2 P- 582. *) This had been forgotten when the line was quoted with πόλιν instead of έσω (Stob. flor. 48.6).

PROLOGUE, 55-72

43

66. δή: a pathetic emphasizing of δακρύσαντα, according to DennistonG.P.*2 p. 215; but I think a temporal force is more natural here ('j’avais . . . repandu ddja bien des larmes’ Mazon). 67. φροντίδος πλάνοις: πλάνοις and not πλάναις must be read, as appears from Σ x) 'in the wanderings of thought’ (Campbell); the whole phrase is a fine instance of the road-metaphor, so important in the evolution of Greek thought2). But it is possible that φροντίς does not mean here 'thought’, but 'care’, 'anxiety’ and that φροντίδος πλάνοις has to be interpreted: 'in the wanderings 'never’> 'not at all’ is in itself understandable, setting aside the problem whether or not the two ού πω’β in Homer are basically different. Cf. infra 594 (here an ironical interpretation is possible), El. 403 (Kaibel’s rendering 'bis jetzt bin ich hoffentlich noch nicht so toricht’ seems forced), infra 1130 (if we follow Lac πω must be translated by 'ever’). Cf. A. C. Pearson, Sophoclea II, Cl. Qu. XXIII 1929, p. 91, and v. Wilamowitz ad Eur. Ion 546 (another case where nondum seems impossible). It is hardly necessary to state that Oedipus’ words belong to the sequence of dramatic ironies that is integral with the texture of the play. 106. τούτου θανόντος: seemingly a genitive absolute but after­ wards to be connected with τούς αύτοέντας (or = ύπέρ τούτου θανόντος—instead of τούτω θανόντι—with τιμωρεΐν). έπιστέλλει σαφώς: synonymous with άνωγεν . . . έμφανώς 9θ· 107. τούς αύτοέντας: the form, only twice attested in classical Greek (here and as a v.l. El. 272), must be considered as a 'recompo­ sition dtymologique’J) instead of the normal αύθέντης. The two meanings 'murderer’ and 'master’ are best explained by assuming an original meaning 'doer’, 'author’, 'responsible’ and an etymology connected with άνύω2). (Sophocles’ recomposition renders im­ probable a confusion between αύτ-έντης and |αύτοθέντης as supposed by Kretschmer); the meaning 'master’ once in Eur. Suppl. 442. τιμωρεΐν: Soph, uses the active of the verb in cases where the ’) Cf. P. Chantraine, Encore Αύθέντης, ’Αφιέρωμα στη μνήμη τοϋ Μανόλη Τριανταφυλλίδη, Athenes i960, ΡΡ- 89-93, Ρ- θ9 η. 2, where see bibliographical references; Frisk s.v. ·) Cf. συνέντης = συνεργός Hesych. See further F. Zucker, Αύθέντης und Ableilungen, Sitz. Sachs. Ak. Phil.-Hist. Kl. 107.4, Berlin 1962.

PROLOGUE, VSS. IO5-II4

51

middle is more usual and vice versa·, the singular use 1. 140 is attributable to the dramatic irony the lines are meant to convey. χειρί: with τιμωρεΐν: 'by force’. τινας: indubitably the correct reading; nobody would have bothered to alter τινα—if this were the authentic reading—into τινας, whereas τινα has all the appearances of an easy conjecture. The interpretation of τινας is not so self-evident ('whosoever they are’ Campbell): among the examples listed by K.-G. I 663 and the commentaries there is none of τις in the plural so used {Ant. 252, O.C. 289). We cannot say for certain whether S. means us to under­ stand that the ambiguity in respect of the number of Laius’ mur­ derers originated with the oracle itself or with Creon’s inter­ pretation. At any rate there is no reason for Oedipus, for the moment, to connect the deed with his own adventure at the three­ forked road. Creon’s report of the story told by the one survivor of the onslaught (122) reaffirms the belief in more than one murderer; Oedipus’ ό ληστής (124) is another instance of tragic irony which the poet puts into his mouth. 108, 9. τόδ’ . . . ίχνος: Logically, it is true, τόδ’ may be easily considered as an enallage for τησδε, but τόδ’ . . . ίχνος graphically represents the task now looming up in his mind. For ίχνος cp. ιχνεύω 221, 475. 110. έν τηδ’ έφασκε γη: the answer was implied in ώς τεθραμμένον χθονί έν τηδ’ (the μίασμα is caused by the presence of the murderer). So Creon does not render here another part of Phoebus’ answer, he proceeds to add a half-pedantic, half-oracular piece of gnomic wisdom, amounting to ζητείτε καί εύρήσετε. 112. Oedipus continues to ask questions; in this dialogue with Creon there are at least a dozen. We have to assume that Oedipus is absolutely in the dark as to the circumstances of Laius’ death and we should bear in mind that this assumption is the conditio sine qua non for the structure of both myth and drama. 113. τωδε συμπίπτει φόνω: 'meet with’, cf. Ai. 429. Historic present; since the idea 'to die’ is implied, its character may well not differ from θνήσκουσι n8 (cf. Humbert, Synt. gr. § 175, Rem.) but it is perhaps better to stress its lively expressiveness. 114. θεωρός: 'consultant of an oracle’ (Delphi of course). We are not told the aim of his journey and we are perhaps not entitled to assume that it is necessarily the same as that mentioned by Eur. Phoen. 36 τόν έκτεθέντα παίδα μαστεύων μαθεΐν / εί μηκέτ’ εΐη.

52

COMMENTARY

But if it is (and it is hard to imagine the journey not having a definite aim in Sophocles’ conception), Creon’s discreet silence is in keeping with his political character—1) as well as being necessary in view of Oedipus’ unsuspecting ignorance on which the plot turns. Iocasta does not express any doubt as to the death of her and Laius’ child (856). 114. ώς έφασκεν: Laius. 115. ώς άπεστάλη: 'du jour qu’il en fut parti’ (Mazon). 116. 7. ούδ’ άγγελος. .. κατεϊδ’: It is possible to supply ϊκεθ’ with άγγελος (or—as is done by Groeneboom—ήν) but perhaps better to take both the notion άγγελος and κατεϊδ’ with both members of the sentence so that the complete meaning would run thus: 'was there no eye-witness who reported nor any travelling companion who having seen the deed could tell about it’. At any rate the άγγελος and the συμπράκτωρ are distinguished, the latter undoubtedly belonging to Laius’ retinue, the former not necessarily so. 117. έχρήσατ’ άν: sc. the report (to be supplied as object with έκμαθών). 118. γάρ: 'No, for ..cp. G.P.2 p. 73. φόβψ: We cannot determine whether φόβψ going with φυγών has to be connected also with the following words, as Campbell will have it. 119. είδώς: 'with certainty’. 120. τδ ποιον: Oedipus grasps as it were this one possible datum; on the article with τίς, τί, ποιος cp. K.-G. I 625 sq.; cf. infra 291, O.C. 893, El. 671. έν . . . μαθεΐν: The one thing from which inferences might be made is taken itself as the agens of the inferences; πόλλ’ goes both with έξεύροι and μαθεΐν (epexegetic infinitive) 2). Again, the dramatic irony of the words is clear. 121. αρχήν βραχεϊαν: Campbell’s idea ('perhaps an association from the end of a thread’) deserves consideration. 122. 3. ού μια /ρώμη: ούχ ενός άνδρός ρώμη. 124. ό ληστής: Even if (as is probable) we have to take the singular referring to the plural as an idiomatic collective use, the wording is ominous. *) Thus Bruhn, Einleitung p. 3 and C. Robert, Oidipus p. 96. But Creon may as well have been left in the dark about Laius' intentions. !) Groeneboom’s έξεύροις μαθών weakens the text to a deplorable extent.

PROLOGUE, VSS. II4-I28

53

124, 5. έπράσσετ’: For the pregnant meaning of πράσσειν 'stir up’, 'intrigue’ cf. e.g. Thue. V 83. 1 ύπήρχε δέ τι αύτοϊς καί έκ τοϋ "Αργους αύτόθεν πρασσόμενον; Plut. Themist. c. 23.2.3. τι is the subject1). ξύν άργύρω: 'with the aid of . . .’, 'by means of . . .’ Cf. e.g. infra 643 σύν τέχνη κακή. 126. δοκοϋντα ταϋτ’ ήν: By this periphrasis the state of affairs (we might say un temps de soup fon) after Laius’ death, at Thebes, is thrown into relief2). 'Such were indeed the suspicions afloat at the time’. Λάιου δ’ όλωλότος: Though these words are genit, absol. (a dative going with αρωγός or with αρωγός έγίγνετο would have been more appropriate, if the connection with the following sentence had to be made very close), we cannot be sure whether άρωγός is solely meant to denote 'helper for us’ or also 'avenger for Laius’. 127. έν κακοϊς: Is Creon meant to think of the troubles caused by the Sphinx ? Probably so. The difficulty is that nowhere in the course of the play is there any connection explicitly stated, or implied, either between the Sphinx’s appearance and Laius’ deed (εις τόν παράνομον έρωτα τοϋ Χρύσιππού) or between its appearance and Laius’ journey. It is possible to read in this sentence: the city was in trouble and had hoped for relief by Laius’ journey to Delphi, but Laius dead, no one was—for a time—able to help us nor to revenge him. But these are idle speculations. The poet apparently does not want us to remember the information supplied about Laius and the Sphinx which we can read in schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 1760. We can not know whether the Sphinx is supposed to have made her unwelcome appearance before or after Laius’ departure, before or after his death; the odds are in favour of the latter. 128. κακόν δέ ποιον: ' 'in the fulness of time’ (Campbell’s translation). Since the χρέος has to be understood as a ritual obligation, connected with a fixed day, the phrase has perhaps a more precise meaning than it appears at first sight. 156. πάλιν: is suggestive of an old obligation, whose neglect may be supposed to have caused the pestilence and which, resumed, may be the means of salvation. έξανύσεις χρέος: έξανύω with the god as subject has the same meaning as (often) κραίνω, viz. ‘to ordain’, cf. Aesch. Ag. 369 with Ed. Fraenkel’s note, Sufifil. 13 and elsewhere (cp. also a compound like πυθόκραντος). χρέος has its full meaning of ‘debt to be paid’, ‘obligation’, not the vague sense of ‘affair’, ‘matter’ frequent in poetry. With the dative μοι it can be translated by ‘impose’. 157. With the invocation of Φάμα the strophe returns, in an almost archaic fashion, to its starting-point; the same metrical pattern underlines the repetition. χρυσέας τέκνον Έλπίδος: since (as is noted by Groeneboom) the hope of salvation urges people to consult the oracles. Cf. Thue. V 103. 2 . . . μηδέ όμοιωθήναι τοϊς πολλοϊς, οΐς παρόν άνθρωπείως έτι σώζεσθαι, έπειδάν πιεζομένους αύτούς έπιλίπωσιν αί φανεραί έλπίδες, έπί τάς άφανεϊς καθίστανται, μαντικήν τε και χρησμούς καί δσα τοιαϋτα μετ’ έλπίδων λυμαίνεται. So the response is—in a sense—the outcome of their hope.

PARODOS, VSS. 155-163

59

χρυσεας: χρϋσέας as sometimes in lyrics (see L.-Sc. s.v.). 159. πρώτά σε: Φ, A, the only possible reading, against πρώταν γε ΣΤΡ or πρώτας σε L. κεκλόμενος: LA Eustath., κεκλομένφ ASL8 is probably Moschopulos’ conjecture in order to avoid the anacoluthon; but the anacoluthon is certainly acceptable. Cf. K.-G. II pp. 105-107. The sentence opens as if εύχομαι προφανήναι were to follow (cp. Jebb). κέλεσθαι often does not differ from καλέω, έπικαλέομαι with the Tragedians, cp. e.g. Aesch. Suppl. 40 νϋν S’ έπικεκλομένα. Άθάνα: see note ad 20 supra. 160. γαιάοχον: in the sense of πολισσοϋχον, cf. Aesch. Suppl. 816 γαιάοχε . . . Ζεϋ. άδελφεάν: the older, poetic form of the word (άδελφεή Hom. and Hdt., άδελφεά Pind.), also O.C. 535, not used in Attic prose. Since it must refer to Artemis’ relation to Athena, its etymology was not felt: cp. ομοπάτρια . . . άδελφή Men. Georg. I0-I2. 161. κυκλόεντ’ άγορας θρόνον: the θρόνος probably consists of the circular market-place or a circular part of the market-place. εύκλέα: thus L, εύκλεα ΦΑ; both forms are good Greek, but the latter is metrically impossible. Pind. Nem. VI 29 has εύκλεα. Schol. L notes: Εύκλεια’ ’Άρτεμις οΰτω παρά Βοιωτοΐς τιμαται and see on Artemis Eukleia v. Wilamowitz, Gl.d.H. I pp. 184, 51). It is, of course, possible to see in the adjective, going with θρόνον, an allusion to Artemis Eukleia (as is done by Jebb), but perhaps Elmsley—followed by Bruhn and Pearson—is right in conjecturing Εύκλεα (though it must be admitted that Εύκλεα < Εύκλεια < Εύκλεια is hardly warranted by cases like Hom. ώκέα < ώκεϊα, ποεϊν < ποιεϊν 2) ). 163. τρισσοι: Here the triad Athena, Artemis, Apollo is invoked, at the end of the ode Apollo, Artemis, Dionysos. Triads in cults, oaths and prayers are common. άλεξίμοροι: only here. Soph, used (or coined) άλεξίπονος as epithet of Asclepius, fr. 4. 1 Diehl = Page PMG 737 (b) I 1. Example: άλεξίκακος. προφάνητε: similar use, in an invocation, in Ale. 34. 3 L.-P. Cf. Ant. 1149. The comparable and well-known use of έπιφαίνομαι, επιφάνεια begins much later. ’) Further M. Guarducci in Studi e Materiali di St. de Rei. XtV 1938, I-XI and XV 1939, 58-61. a) Lejeune, Traiti de Phonitique, § 237.

6o

COMMENTARY

164. εϊ ποτέ καί προτέρας: cp. the general note on the Parodos, supra. δπερ: here, as at Aesch. Sept, in, with the thing to be averted. Must we say that ύπέρ with genit. = ‘as a defence from’ is a varia­ tion on the normal use = ‘in defence of’ or ought we to derive both from a more general meaning: ‘on account of’, ‘on behalf of’, from which the causal use is also easily understandable ? As is often the case with prepositions, the interrelations of its meanings are not very clear. Schwyzer-Debrunner II 521 give a remarkable example occurring in an Pamphylian inscr. ίαμα Γίλσιιος ίίπαρ καί αίκίας 'gegen Bedrangniss und Misshandlung’ Del.3 686. 2 (IVa). Clear examples of the causal meaning are yielded by Ant. 932 κλαύμαθ’ υπάρξει βραδυτήτος ίίπερ and Eur. Suppi. 1125 βάρος . . . ούκ άβριθές άλγέων δπερ. The reference of ών infra 188 is not entirely certain. 165. όρνυμένας πόλει: the dative goes in the first place with όρνυμένας; it may be considered as a dativ. incommodi or a dative used on the analogy of the one depending on verbs of attacking. Secundarily it may also be understood with ήνύσατε εκτοπίαν as a dativ. commodi. ήνύσατ’ εκτοπίαν: a strong expression of the idea for which in later Greek εκτοπίζω served. Since άνύω can denote almost all the meanings of efficio and conficio l) (even: ‘make an end of), the phrase is not so strange; εκτοπίαν is a proleptic predicative adjunct. έκτόπιος, without example before Soph., recurs infra 1340, O.C. 119. It does not differ from έκτοπος; the meaning ‘foreign’, ‘strange’ (the first interpretation of Σ a.h.l.) has to be rejected and the scholion’s alternative explanation ο έστιν εκτός καί άπό των τόπων τής πόλεως to be accepted. 166. φλόγα πήματος: in accordance with 190-192 τδν μαλερόν, δς . . . φλέγει. Cf. Ai. 195· Σ notes ad άτας: τής άπό τής Σφιγγός, possibly this is correct (cf. 38). The recurrence of έκτόπιος 1340 is perhaps significant: the cause of the present calamity will prove to be Oedipus himself: άπάγετ’ έκτόπιον conveys about the same idea as ήνύσατ’ έκτοπίαν = ύπερόριον έποιήσατε. 169. πρόπας: Hom., and the Tragedians. J) Cf. II. XI 365 ή θήν σ’ έξανύω γε καί ύστερον άντιβολήσας.

PARODOS, VSS.

164-X75

6l

170. στόλος: the ‘people’, but probably to be felt as the ‘ship’s crew’ (~ 23). ούδ’ ένι φροντίδος εγχος: οΐον ούκ 'ένεστί τω νω της φροντίδος έγχος, τοϋτο δέ οΐον τδ διά της βουλής και προμήθειας γινόμενον άλέξημα καί άμυντήριον. Jebb prefers to take φροντίδος as a genit, subjectivus (‘a weapon discovered by human wit’); we may also think of a genit, explicativus ('there is not found amongst us a thought where­ with to defend ourselves, as with a sword’, Campbell). Groeneboom compares Eph. 6. 16-17: τόν θυρεόν της πίστεως . . . την μάχαιραν τοϋ πνεύματος, εγχος is used by Sophocles in the sense of ‘weapon’ and specially of ‘sword’. 171. φ . . . άλέξεται: = άλεξητηριον, quo arceat, άλέξεται is future, cf. Xen. An. VII 7.3 and infra 539. 171-173. Cf. supra 25-27, infra 270 sq. 171. εκγονα: to be understood as the fruits of the earth. 172. κλυτάς: not ornamental: the contrast between glorious earth and the blight on the crops is relevant to the pathos of the context. 172,3. τόκοισιν: If we take the dative as instrumentalis (‘by births’ Jebb) it is easier to understand the words as referring to still-born childern and not, in the first place, to the death of the women (which is less relevant to the context). On the other hand, if we interpret, with the schol. ad 173, τόκοισιν = έν τόκοισιν, the idea of miscarriage may still be implied in ΐηίων καμάτων ούκ άνέχουσι. It has to be noted that in translations of the passage based on the former interpretation the idea ‘happy’ is often supplied with 'births’ (cp. Groeneboom, Mazon). άνέχουσιν: έκ μεταφοράς των άνω νευόντων (legendum νεόντων ?) μόγις έν τω νήχεσθαι (thus rightly schol., wrongly L.-Sc. s.v. B 5 ‘cease from’); cf. Od. V 320. ΐηίων καμάτων: The schol. may be right in noting as a possible interpretation: ή ότι έπίφθεγμα (sc. ίή ίέ) κοινόν έστι καί Άρτεμίδος, αι δέ γυναίκες έν ταϊς άνάγκαις τάς τοιαύτας άφιάσι φωνάς (at any rate the connection with 1. 154 has to be recognized and a reference to Apollo, god of the λοιμός, seems to be implied). A rendering such as ‘grievous’, ‘mournful’ (θρηνητικών schol.) does not do full justice to the implications of the text. 174, 5. άλλον ... άλλω: ‘one close upon another’ (Campbell). For the dative (without έπί) in a phrase denoting close succession and ‘addition’ cf. El. 235 μη τίκτειν σ’ άταν άταις, Eur. Hei. 195 δάκρυα

62

COMMENTARY

δάκρυσί μοι φέρων, Or. 1257 μή τις πήματα πήμασιν έξεύρη. All the instances have in common the element of paronomasia; this dative tends to be adnominal: cf. φόνφ φόνος Οίδιπόδα δόμον ώλεσε Eur. Phoen. 1495 1)· I fail to see how προσ- in προσίδοις could have assisted the omission of επί (as is supposed by Campbell). 174-176. For the whole sentence the comment of the schol. ad 175 is excellent; άλλον έπ’ άλλφ ϊδοις άποθνήσκοντα, ώς όρνιθες έν τη πτήσει άλλος έπ’ άλλφ πέτεται. So we have to supply from άλλον ... άλλφ όρνει with όρνιν or include άλλον άλλφ also in the comparison άπερ εόπτερον όρνιν; this seems more natural than to consider όρνιν as a collective noun. The great and sombre picture of the souls of the deceased has­ tening to the shores of Death as if they were swarms of birds recurs in Verg. Aen. 305-310-312 (see for a supposition as to its origins Norden a.l. *2) ). It has a superficial likeness to the comparison II. Ill 2 sqq. The comparison with the birds may have been suggested by the wide-spread image of the soul of the dead as a winged εϊδωλον (not to be confused with the notion of 'Seelenvogel’, perhaps not Greek3)); cp. Eur. Suppl. 1142, Hipp. 828. 175. άπερ: for άπερ = ώσπερ cf. Gow ad Theocr. 18. 17. 176. κρεϊσσον άμαιμακέτου πυρός: the implied comparison goes with the action of the sentence as a whole and is called forth by the destructive effect of the πυρφόρος λοιμός. The hearer or reader gets the impression of a swarm of birds against a sky aflame. άμαιμακέτου: an epic epithet (of Chimaera II. VI 179, XVI 329, of the fire vomited by her Hes. Theog. 319) of obscure etymology and uncertain meaning; ‘irresistible’ (?). 177. εσπέρου θεοϋ: Hades of course is meant and his realm is located in the west as in the Odyssey. 179. ών . . . βλλυται: ών: των θνησκόντων. For the genit, with άνάριθμος cf. note ad Track. 247. Since άνάριθμος ‘without count’ denotes ‘uncounted’, ‘innumerable’ as well as ‘not able to count’ (in this respect an adjective of this formation stands on a par with the adjectiva verbalia on -τος), the phrase is less bold than may appear at first sight. 'The city not able to count her deaths is x) See Schwyzer-Debranner II 157 c). 2) I do not think it likely that Sophocles borrowed his image from a Ήρακλέους κατάβασις. 8) See Nilsson, GGR I2 p. 197 and p. 195 sq. For another view cf. L. Radermacher, Mythos und Sage, 1938, p. 72.

PARODOS, VSS. I74-185

63

perishing’ = 'by these innumerable deaths the city perishes’. Note the place of άνάριθμος (for the form see ad Track, l.c.) corres­ ponding to that of άνάριθμα in the strophe. 180. δέ γένεθλα: a noteworthy instance of a good reading pre­ served by A going with GR and Pap. Soc. It. 1192 against the impossible δ’ ά γενέθλα of LZ1 (notwithstanding the note νηλέα τά μή τυχόντα ελέους) (δ’ άγενέθλα Thom. Mag.), (γένεθλον'offspring; race, descent’, γενέθλη ‘race, family; offspring’ are both good classical Greek and both poetic). νηλέα: passive, cf. Ant. 1197,8: νηλεές / κυνοσπάρακτον σώμα Πολυνείκους. 181. θαναταφόρα: on the α (η) in the juncture of a compound with an o-stem cf. Schwyzer I 438 sq.; cf. e.g. έλαφαβόλον Track. 213. ‘Spreading death’ (by contagion), cf. for the idea Thue. II 50 and 51. 4. The word is found in medical writers with the meaning: ‘causing (bringing) death’1). I do not see why we should interpret ‘with death upon them’, as is suggested by Campbell. *θανατάφορος, which would mean 'carried away by death’, does not occur any­ where. The reading of AGR, θανατηφόροι, is impossible; Pap. Soc. It. 1192 goes with L. 182. 3. έν δ’: see note ad 27 supra. ‘And meanwhile’ (J.) is nearer the mark than‘darunter’ (Bruhn). The note of Σ. a.l. έκ τούτου δήλον ότι καί τέλειοι άπέθνησκον (indubitably indicative of an old controversy) is not unjustified. 184, 5. άκτάν: ‘edge’ seems to be a reasonable interpretation in view of the meanings of ora. The gloss έξοχήν, on the other hand, is in keeping with Hesych. άκτη επι προύχούση · έν τω έξέχοντι μέρει τοΰ αίγιαλοΰ, and with the identification of άκτή with άκρα (see the interpolation in Hesych. s.v. άκτή; Frisk does not exclude a connect­ ion with άκρος). This and a comparison with όχθος (όχθη) may lead to a translation: ‘eminence,’ 2) ‘barrow’, ‘mound’, (cp. τύμβου . . . έπ’ όχθω τωδε Aesch. Cho. 4 ~ άκτή χώματος ib. 722). Nor should we exclude the possibility of a metaphorical use by which the altar would be likened to a coast or rock on which ship-wrecked sailors (= the suppliants ~ στόλος 170) have taken refuge (see Campbell’s *) And cp. Aesch. Cho. 369 (with αίσα). ’) Thus Dain for instance in a note a.l. in Mazon's translation; Groeneboom combines the two ways of interpretation.

1

64

COMMENTARY

note ; his comment on Sophocles’ tendency to repeat the same word (~ 177) within a few lines, in a different connection, is also noteworthy). The phrase has to be taken in a collective sense; all the altars of the city are meant. άλλοθεν άλλαι: Two constructions are possible: either we have to supply the notion of ‘coming’, ‘flocking together’ (facilitated by the verbal connection of ίκτηρες), as is done by Mazon ftoutes de partout affluent au pied des autels’) or the phrase goes with έπιστενάχουσιν (Campbell, Jebb). The syntactical pattern of the sentence would seem to be slightly in favour of the first course. 186. παιάν δέ λάμπει: a striking instance of synaesthetic or intersensal metaphor. See W. B. Stanford, Greek Metaphor, pp. 4759 and cf. Aesch. Pers. 395 σάλπιγξ άύτη πάντ’ έκεϊν’ έπέφλεγεν, Eur. Phoen. Vy]”] έπεί δ’ άφε'ιθη πυρσός ώς Τυρσηνικής / σάλπιγγος ήχή, Bacch. fr. 4. 4° Sn. ύμνοι φλέγονται, infra 473 ελαμψε . . . φάμα. The effect on the hearer is comparable to the effect of the image evoked by the comparison in 176. In the one case a swift movement, in the other a sound is meant to be perceived at the same time as a visual image of blaze or glare. 187. ομαυλος: ‘accompanying’; the poet in using the word may have thought of αύλός (cf. ξυναυλία Aesch. Sept. 839, Ar. Eq. 8 sq.) as well as of αύλή (ομαυλος 'living together’ P. Oxy. 1083 fr. I. 8 *2), όμαυλία ‘dwelling together’ Aesch. Cho. 599); cp. my note ad At. 892 (πάραυλος). 188. ών υπέρ: ών is probably neuter, so that the meaning of ΰπερ is the same as at 1. 164. ώ χρυσέα θύγατερ Διός: Athena must be meant, cf. 158, the deity first invoked, to whom they revert before uttering their prayer proper. For χρυσέα cf. 157. 189. εύώπα . . . άλκάν (or rather: Άλκάν): Άλκά is personified in the same way as are Φάμα and ’Ελπίς. She is a fair saviour (perhaps also a daughter of ’Ελπίς), whose radiant face gives promise of salvation (cf. the idea implied in δμματι supra 81 in connection with έν τύχη σωτηρι). 190. After the imperative πέμψον the contents of the prayer are continued by an acc. c. inf. construction depending on the idea λίσσομαι or δός; τε is connective. >) The same interpretation is defended by Wolff-Bellermann2; cp. D. van Nes, Die Maritime Bilderspraehe des Aischylos, thesis Utrecht 1963, p. 173. 2) = Page L.PP 31.6.

PARODOS, VSS.

X86-I94

65

"Αρεα: Though associated with λοιμός by Aesch. Suppl. 659-666 (cp. ib. 678-683) Ares is nowhere else identified with Pestilence x) (as is rightly remarked by B. M. W. Knox, Oedipus at Thebes, 1957, p. 200). In my opinion Mr. Knox is also right in his view that this fact has its bearing on the dating of the play: Ares is one of Thebes’ important protecting deities and the identifying of Ares and Pestilence by Sophocles is only to be understood as a consequence of the terrible years of war and pestilence experienced by the poet and his compatriots *2). μαλερόν: in Hom. always of fire; cf. for this and for φλέγει ad 166. 191. άχαλκος άαπίδων: without bronze shields; K.-G. I 401 Anm. 6. Cf. El. 36 άσκευος άσπίδων τε και στρατού, O.C. 677 άνήνεμόν τε πάντων χειμώνων; Eur. Andr. 7Τ4 άπαιδας ημάς τέκνων. 192. περιβόατος: around whom cries (of woe) are uttered. This is better than the active interpretation, not impossible in itself. (On the problem in general cp. Ed. Fraenkel ad Aesch. Ag. 12. Pl. Phil. 45e uses the word in its active function). άντιάζων: ‘encountering’ (as an enemy in battle). Though this meaning is unusual in Tragedy, G. Hermann’s conjecture άντιάζω (accepted by Nauck and Bruhn) is unnecessary. 193. νωτίσαι: ‘turn one’s back’ (never; ‘make a person turn his back’); so Ares is subject, παλίσσυτον δράμημα cognate accus., πάτρας (our country) genit, separativus going with the whole phrase (if we read έπουρον in the next line), παλίσσυτος: not in Hom.; Ap. Rh. I 1206. 194. έπουρον: έπουρον Lac (novit Σ, etiam1), έποϋρον R, άπορον G (novit Σ), άπουρον AL“ (novit Σ). Campbell and Jebb seem right in preferring έπουρον. άπουρον has the appearance of a conjecture (probably old) caused by πάτρας; its meaning would be ‘far from the boundaries’ and the form is an ionism (the word does not occur elsewhere). έπουρον has to be taken in a passive sense: 'carried by a favouring wind’, in which a certain irony may be felt. Cf. έπουρίζω Ar. Thesm. 1226 τρέχε κατά τούς κόρακας έπουρίσας; Track. 815, 6 ούρος όφθαλμών έμών / αΰτη γένοιτ’ άπωθεν έρπούση καλώς, έπουρος in an active function ib. 954, 5 γένοιτ’ έπουρος έστιώτις αέρα, ήτις μ’ άποικίσειεν έκ τόπων ... (Η νωτίσαι could be taken to have causative meaning, one would be tempted to read πάτρας άπ’ ούρον). q But see for Ares as a generally destructive force Ai. 706. 2) Knox, A. J. Ph. 1956, p. 138. Kamerbeek,

IV

5

66

COMMENTARY

194-197. For a similar polarity cf. Track, ioo sq. Those are right who interpret μέγαν θάλαμον ’Αμφιτρίτης and Θρήκιον κλύδωνα as the Atlantic and the Euxine respectively: the two most distant seas are required l). It remains possible in the case of Θρήκιον κλύδωνα to think in particular of the sea near the coast of Salmydessus (as is done by F. Chapouthier, LaMer deThrace, R.E.G. 1924, pp. 405-410; cf. the so called Strasbourg epode Archilochus (?) 79 D.). 196. τον άπόξενον όρμον: άπόξενον = a strong άξενον (cp. άπότιμος = άτιμος infra 215). It is needless to alter όρμον into όρμων: άπόξενος όρμος means about the same as όρμος άνορμος 197. Θρήκιον κλύδωνα: in apposition to όρμον; κλύδων: ‘turbulent sea’. 198. 9. τελεί . . . έρχεται: Without τελεί the words may be taken to mean: ‘If Night leaves something undone’ (or better: 'spared'), 'this is assailed by Day’, έπέρχομαι ‘come upon’ is also construed with the accus., although the dative is more usual (cf. L.-Sc. s.v. I 2 έρως γάρ άνδρας ού μόνους έπέρχεται Eur. fr. 431 Ν.2). If τέλει is left unaltered, the interpretation offered by Σ and accepted by Campbell viz. έπί τφ έαυτης τέλει (it has, then, to be taken with the protasis) is far from convincing. (The dative can be illustrated by El. 193 οϊκτρά μέν νόστοις αύδά). If taken with the apodosis, its meaning must be either 'in the end’ (Pind. Pyth. I 35 τελευτφ φερτέρου νόστου τυχεϊν 2) lends some support to this possibility) or = διά τέλους, omnino, Elmsley, Ellendt with a late scholion, rejected by Jebb and by Dodds ad Eur. Bacch. 860 (Διόνυσον, δς πέφυκεν έν τέλει θεός). To consider τέλει as a dativus finalis is against Greek usage. J.-E. Harry’s idea (Notes sur les Tragigues Grecs, Rev. de Philol. 1930, 198 sq.) of taking τέλει as an anticipation of επέρχεται and τοϋτο as the object of the phrase τέλει επέρχεται leaves us with a very distorted sentence. It is perhaps better to follow Jebb and others in accepting Hermann’s easy suggestion τελεΐν: epexegetic infinitive, emphatically placed at the beginning of the sentence. But a case can perhaps be made for: τελεί γάρ, ει τι νύξ άφή· τοϋτ’ έπ’ άμαρ έρχεται, whereby τελεί has to be taken as intransitive (cp. El. 1417 τελοϋσ’ άραί; cp. Kayser’s idea 3): τελεί γάρ· εϊ τι νύξ άφή, etc. with Ares as subject of τελεί). Then άφή = ‘leaves undone’. J) Cf. Eur. Hipp. 3. ’) Quoted by Pearson in his apparatus. a) Accepted by Sheppard, who remarks: ‘Notice also that there is here a tragic ambiguity which makes the words apply to Oedipus’.

PARODOS, VSS.

194-208

67

As to the plague’s activities by night and by day cp. Hes. Erg. 102 νοϋσοι δ’ άνθρώποισιν έφ’ ήμερη, at δ’ έπ'ι νυκτί αύτόματοι φοιτώσι . . . For νύξ (and αμαρ) as the subject of the action cp. Track. 29 sqq. 200, τόν, ώ : Hermann’s supplement is necessitated by the metre and rendered probable by G writing ταν instead of τόν. A fire of a higher class, so to speak, is invoked against Ares’ fire. 203. Λύκει’ άναξ: That Soph, could hear λυκοκτόνος in Λύκειος can be seen from El. 6, 7. Further we may compare Aesch. Sept. 145, 6 καί σύ, Λύκει’ άναξ, Λύκειος γενοϋ / στρατω δαίω (where see Groeneboom’s note); since the Argives are alluded to by λύκους Suppi. 760, it does not seem probable that Λύκειος γενοϋ Sept. 145 means ‘show yourself a wolf’1). At Ag. 1257 the epithet is chosen, because of the designation of Aegisthus as λύκος 1259 (thus Weicker, Schneidewin, Groeneboom and cp. Ed. Fraenkel a.l.). So here Apollo, patron of the flocks, is invoked against their destroyer, the wolf = Ares. Cf. also ad 208; Nilsson GGR I2 536 sq. τε: correlative with τε 2θ6. χρυσοστρόφων: all the saviour-gods are connected with gold, cf. 152, 158, 188, 209; ‘made of twisted gold’ (L. Sc.), only here. 204. άγκυλάν: or άγκυλών ΦΑ, not άγκύλων L (άγκύλος or άγκύλον does not exist as noun); here ‘bow-string’, a Sophoclean catachresis2), the proper meaning being loop, noose, thong of a javeline. 205. ένδατεϊσθαι: passive, καταμερίζεσθαι εις αύτόν. Cf. Eur. Her. 218 λόγους όνειδιστηρας ένδατούμενος 'fling about’. Not middle in the sense of ‘celebrate’ (a supposed meaning perversely derived from Her. l.c. 3) ). On ένδατεϊσθαι see my note ad Trach. J 55· The nomen agentis, so we can argue (cf. for instance Jebb), has enough verbal force to function as a participle, ύφηγητής is a rare word, but ύφηγέομαι is not. 967. κτανεΐν: thus LGRA (the Budi apparatus does not mention this although the text has κτενεΐν). The aorist is perfectly acceptable; for instances where metre allows no change see Goodwin G.M.T. § 74. Three resolutions in one verse; contrast the heavy rhythm of the next three lines, in which Oedipus, slowly as it were, realizes the supposed truth. 968. έγώ 8’ 88’ ένθάδε: ‘and here am Γ (Jebb). 88’ (with ενθάδε) is the predicate, άψαυστος is apposition to the subject. For another instance of a nominal sentence with a demonstrative as predicate cf. O.C. 138 88’ εκείνος έγώ and cf. in general C. Guiraud, La phrase nominale en grec, 1962, p. 293. The emphasis is on the predicate and 88’ ένθάδε is felt as a unity. Different the schol.: έγώ ό ένταϋθα ών ούκ έλαβον δόρυ . . . 969. άψαυστος έγχους: 'without so much as having touched a sword', άψαυστος is ‘active’ but compare for excellent discussions of this matter Fraenkel ad Aesch. Ag. 12, 238 and Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. (077-9. It is of course not necessary to assume here the meaning ‘sword’ for έγχος but in view of Sophocles’ fondness for this mannerism I hold it advisable to do so. 969, 70. εϊ τι μή ... κατέφθιθ’: an afterthought based on the idea ') Or we may state that ώστε μή . . . γένος closely goes with άλλος, which amounts to the same.

THIRD STASIMON, VSS. IO86-IO94

209

απείρων: Soph, used απείρων = άπειρος inexpertus', cf. Hesych. άπείρονας · άπειράτους. Σοφοκλής Θυέστη (fr. 266 Ρ.). Evidently on the analogy of άπειρων, epic form of άπειρος 'boundless’. 1089-1092. άπειρων ούκ έση ... μη οΰ σέ γε . . . αΰξειν: If we alter nothing we have to take as the subject of the acc. c. inf. either ήμας (to be supplied from ημών) x) or τάν αΰριον πανσέληνον. The latter course is taken into consideration but rejected by Jebb, who rejects also the former course and prefers to write Οίδίπουν (subject of the inf.). Pearson accepts Blaydes’ σ’ έμε (a less probable cor­ rection than Οίδίπουν). I agree with Jebb that to supply ήμας makes for harshness (but it is in my opinion not impossible); I fail, however, to see any real objection against τάν αΰριον πανσέληνον as subject: the notion of time itself as the agent is very characteristic of classical Greek and of Sophocles in particular. Its place (before μή ού) lends a somewhat proleptic character to the construction. τάν αΰριον πανσέληνον: sc. ώραν or νύκτα. If both αΰριον and πανσέληνον are taken in their strict sense, we may well ask to which particular night the Chorus (or the poet) alludes. Some commentators (W.-B., followed by Jebb) argue for the Pandia, immediately following the great Dionysia, held at full-moon in the middle of the month Elaphebolion. But this would be a case of an allusion to circum­ stances extra tragoediam alien to Sophocles. Perhaps we should attribute to τάν αΰριον πανσέληνον the less strict meaning of ‘the next full-moon’ and assume that the Chorus is thinking of a παννυχίς in honour of Dionysus such as were common in Thebes and elsewhere (thus in substance Jebb in the second half of his note); in my eyes it is a vain enterprise to try to date the Oedipus by means of these words (as is ventured by L. Roussel). 1091, 2. πατριώταν: ‘fellow-countryman’ i.e. having a common πατρίς (Boeotia) with Oedipus. τροφόν: always fern, in Hom. Od., masc. in Eur. Her. 45, El. 409; of a city (O.C. 760), of Γη or with χθών. If ματέρ’ is not corrupt, it does not matter whether we take it as masc. or as fem. But ματέρ’, said of the Κιθαιρών and on a par with πατριώταν, remains strange, notwithstanding "Ιδην μητέρα Θηρών. I wonder whether πατριώταν is sound: if the text would run πατρίαν γαν Οίδίπου etc. it would be easier to understand (cp. Ant. 806 γας πατρίας). 1094. ώς έπίηρα φέροντα: It appears from Empedocl. 96.1 έπίηρος *) Thus already Σ. Kamerbeek

IV

14

210

COMMENTARY

χθών that the epic phrase έπί ήρα φέρειν (= ήρα έπιφέρειν) had given rise to the adject, έπίηρος; so there is no need to read έπί ήρα, as is done by Jebb. 1095. τοΐς έμοΐς τυράννοις: the Chorus mean Oedipus, but the plural heightens the tragic irony of the song. 1096. ΐήιε: cf. 154. σοί δέ: for the postponement of δέ after the vocative cf. Denniston GP.2 p. 189 (2). 1097. άρέστ’ είη: a periphrasis equivalent to άρεσκόντως έ'χειν, cf. Eur. I.T. 581. αρεστός, not in Homer, is known from Semonides 7.46 D. onwards to Men. Epitr. 112 and later authors; not in Aesch., Eur., Ar., in Soph, only here and Ant. 500. The prayer to Apollo crowns the tragic irony; Σ notes: άναγκαίως πρός τον ’Απόλλωνα άποτείνει διά τό άρξαι των χρησμών, 1098-1102. The difficulties of these lines are the following: (1) we cannot be quite sure whether it is correct to write άρα 1099 (άρα MSS), for in ϊδρις 1087 the first syllable may be either long or short (it is long O.C. 525) and although the metre seems to point to a short syllable, another metrical interpretation of the lines is not to be excluded:

either: —w— —w—or —w— —v—v.

V* ——---

—

---

With άρα we might put a first mark of interrogation after έτικτε and take ταν (this correction has to be made in any case) μακραίωνων as a partitive to be supplied with ; the corrupt words in the second half of 1101 may then easily to be supposed to have con­ tained something in contrast with ταν μακραιώνων . But the other metrical interpretation (with ιδρις and άρα) is decidedly better and the supposed contrast may still be hidden in the corrupt half line. (2) προσπελασθεΐσ’ is a syllable too short and its con­ struction with a genitive hardly acceptable; πελασβεΐσ’ with the genit., although rare, is possible (cf. Phil. 1327). Lachmann’s πατρός, generally accepted—to be taken as a proleptic predicategives tolerable sense and is attractive from the viewpoint of palaeo­ graphy, but a case can be made also for a noun in the dative de­ noting marriage-bed or the like (κοίτα for instance). (3)ή σέ γε θυγάτηρ (with τις added before the noun in A) is unmetrical and

THIRD STASIMON, VSS. IO95-IIO8

211

bad sense; Arndt’s ή σέ γ’ εύνάτειρά τις, adopted by many editors, is a fairly satisfactory conjecture (cf. Aesch. Pers. 157). If we feel the need for a contrast with μακραίωνων, we may think of ή σέ τις γάτου κόρα (or if the Doric genitive is preferred γάτα) on the sup­ position that κόρα had been eliminated by its gloss θυγάτηρ and that the rare word γάτου (cp. γήτης Track. 32) had suffered corruption because it was not understood (the process would even be easier to understand on the supposition that the original text ran ή σε γαίτις κόρα, but the quantity of the first 1 of γαίτις is then an un­ certain point). Λοξίου is then on a par with Πανός depending on πελασθεϊσ’ to be supplied from the preceding sentence; θυγάτηρ may have crept into the text from the evidently mistaken scholion άρά τις προσπελασθεϊσα τοϋ Πανός ή τοϋ ’Απόλλωνος θυγάτηρ (its additional remark και γάρ ούτος νόμιος is to the point). 1103. πλάκες: h.l. referring to mountain-plateaux, highlands, cf. Phil. 1430. άγρόνομοι: ‘affording pasturage in the wild’, cf. Ant. 786. 1104, 5. εϊθ’ . . . είθ’: there is some irregularity here in the use of είθ’ . . . εϊθ’, for the first εϊθ’, besides correlating the first of these two clauses with the second also functions as the connecting link with the preceding suppositions which have been expressed as questions; so the first εϊθ’ amounts to 'or perhaps, either . . .’. ό Κυλλάνας άνάσσων: Apollo νόμιος immediately reminds the Chorus of Hermes god of the herdsmen, and then Dionysus, closely connected with the Nymphs and god of the όρειβάσια is mentioned. Just as in the Parodos 209 sqq. he is the last mentioned. 1106, 7. εύρημα δέξατ’: Dindorf’s insertion before εύρημα (adopted by Pearson) is not indispensable. 1108. Έλικωνίδων: Aac, Έλικωνιάδων LGRis excluded by metre. We must giant to v. Wilamowitz that the relevance of the Nymphs of the Helicon is not self-evident in this context and so his con­ jecture έλικωπίδων (accepted by Bruhn, cf. Hes. Theog. 298) may be right. On the other hand, Dionysus’ connection with other than Theban Nymphs is also emphasized in the fourth stasimon of the Antigone (1126 sqq.), in a Theban context. Fourth Epeisodion 1110-1185

συμπαίζει was the last word of the song in which the Chorus carried away by Oedipus’ baffling delusions had evoked the phan-

212

COMMENTARY

tastic possibilities of Oedipus’ divine origins in the mountainous playground of herds and gods and nymphs. In diametrical contrast with this the action proper of the play is brought to its awful climax in this very dense scene, in which every word works towards bringing about its only possible end, the final and irrevocable disclosure of reality. The very briefness of the scene is in inverse proportion to its immense dramatic force. 1110. During the song Oedipus has remained on the stage. Now the old herdsman in the company of servants of the king is seen ap­ proaching from the left of the spectator, just as Creon in the Prologue. συναλλάξαντα: intr. 'have intercourse with’, 'meet’, as infra 1130 and Eur. Heracl. 4. Dramatic irony in the same vein as supra 105. In a sense the man is, so to speak, the incarnation of Oedipus’ past. On πω see ad 105 and ad 1130. 1110, 11. κάμε . . . σταΘμασθαι: prepares for τη δ’ επιστήμη σύ . . . χιΐ5· σταΘμασθαι measure > estimate > ‘conjecture’; the word is άπαξ in Soph, and the special meaning not common. πρέσβεις: here = πρεσβϋται, γέροντες, as in Aesch. Pers. 840, Eur. Her. 247. τον βοτηρ’: We remember that Oedipus had expressed the wish to see the only servant of Laius to survive the murder (765). This was the οϊκεύς τις of 756, who had asked to be sent away έπι ποιμνίων νομάς (761), hence referred to by Oedipus as τον άνδρα τον βοτηρα (§37), hut as τον εργάτην at the end of the second epeisodion (859). The Corinthian Messenger, who was himself a herdsman, had received the infant Oedipus from a ποιμήν άλλος (1040), who was Laius’ βοτηρ (iO44), referred to by Oedipus as τόν βοτηρ’ 1048, when inquiring of the Chorus after the man’s possible identity, and who, according to the Chorus was one and the same as the οϊκεύς, βοτηρ, εργάτης of the second epeisodion, sent for by Oedipus. As a herdsman he is, of course, recognizable by his garments, but Oedipus gives other reasons for recognizing him. 1112. όνπερ πάλαι ζητοϋμεν: i.e. since 765. 1112, 3. έν . . . γήρα: not much different from an instrumental dative without έν (Ellendt s.v. έν 2 h). ξυνάδει: ‘to agree with’; the metaphorical use is less common than one would expect (first instance Heracl. 10, not elsewhere in Tragedy, but compare συνωδός frequent in Euripides). τωδε τάνδρΐ; i.e. the image of the man such as I had formed it in my mind.

FOURTH EPEISODION, VSS. IIIO-II28

213

σύμμετρος: strengthens and rounds off the idea expressed by ξυνάδει τωδε τάνδρί. The method of inference is akin to that implied in 73 (ξυμμετρούμενον, for which cp. also 963). 1114. άλλως: ‘d’ailleurs’, cf. Eur. Ion 618; ‘independently of this’ (Campbell). ώσπερ οΐκέτας: less straightforward than όντας οΐκέτας would be. But perhaps the use is comparable to unemphatic tamquam, in Latin. 1115. έπιστήμη: 'certain knowledge’, as in Trach. 338. 1116. προΰχοις τάχ’ άν που: the probability of the idea expressed is overemphasized. 1117. 8. γάρ: ‘yes, indeed’. ώς: a clear case of restrictive ώς, cf. οΓ 763 and the subtler use of ώς 1078. 1120. ή τόνδε φράζεις; : 'is this the man you meant' φράζειν is used as, more commonly, λέγειν. τόνδε . . . τούτον: the appurtenance of οδε to the first, οδτος to the second person is here very much in evidence. 1121. ούτος σύ . . . βλέπων:Τ1ιβ old man is standing half turned away from the king, evidently loath to submit to the interrogation. For ούτος σύ, a not very friendly way of address, cf.rii. 1047 ούτος, σό φωνώ, Track. 402 ούτος, βλέφ’ ώδε (note adrii. 71). 1123. ή, : the comma is essential to a correct understanding of the words. For the man’s status cf. note ad 1047-1052. ή δούλος, (Bude editors) is not recommendable. 1124. μερίμνων: ‘exercising’, a rare meaning (cp. meditari in Latin). 1125. τά πλεΐστα τού βίου: an uncommon phrase for maiorem ■partem vitae; strictly speaking the words refer to the periods of his life. 1126. χώροις . . . πρός τίσι ξύναυλος ών: either a redundant ex­ pression comparable to e.g. Ai. 464 γυμνόν . . . των αριστείων άτερ, or ποίμναις has to be supplied going with ξύναυλος ών (Campbell, Bruhn); I prefer the latter. μάλιστα: ‘chiefly’ (closely connected with τίσι). 1127. πρόσχωρος: τώ Κιθαιρώνι. 1128. τόν άνδρα . . . μαθών: Since οΐδα with a personal object means ‘to know the character of’ ( which is irrelevant here) τόν άνδρα τόνδ’ has to be construed with μαθών: ‘do you remember having . . .’ (cf. 1142), 'are you aware of having’, μανθάνειν, in its

214

COMMENTARY

turn, with a personal object, can hardly be taken to mean ‘to make the acquaintance of’: it means rather ‘to observe’, 'to perceive’; the object is then usually accompanied by a participle. So the servant’s δρώντα (1129) is a natural continuation of Oedipus’ question but it does not follow that Pearson is necessarily right in putting a comma after μαθών on the supposition that Oedipus’ words are interrupted. τήδέ που: apparently referring to Κιθαιρών . . . πρόσχωρος τόπος. By τον άνδρα τόνδ’ Oedipus refers to the Corinthian Messenger. But a misunderstanding on the part of the servant (τον άνδρα τόνδ’ could be understood to refer to Oedipus himself) is not to be excluded 1). Such a misunderstanding would be in keeping with the mental state of one who was the prey of great anguish (as the servant must supposed to be when appearing before Oedipus, cf. 758 sqq.); again it is not beyond Sophocles’ subtlety to make Oedipus express himself, at this juncture, in ambiguous terms (τήδέ που may also easily be understood to mean ‘somewhere in these parts’, not referring to Κιθαιρών etc.). Moreover, if the construction of the servant’s first words is natural, the same does not hold good for their purport, unless he has actually misunderstood Oedipus. 1129. ποιον άνδρα καί λέγεις; : ‘καί, following an interrogative, denotes that the question cuts at the foundations of the problem under consideration’ (Denniston G.P.2 p. 313 (b) ). ‘What sort of a man do you mean ?’ (id. ib. p. 315 (ε) ). Cf. Track. 314 τί δ’ οίδ’ έγώ; τί δ’άν με καί κρίνοις, Eur. Hipp. 92 ούκ οϊδα’ τοϋ δέ καί μ’ άνιστορεϊς πέρι; (In Dutch καί may be rendered by ‘eigenlijk’). ποιον may denote 'what sort of’ or may be taken as an emphatic τίνα. The servant seems to be at a loss about τύν άνδρα τόνδ’ (Oedipus ? he knows that Oedipus is the murderer, but then how could Oedipus possibly ask him this ? After the ominous δρώντα—cf. 296—he checks himself and asks his second question. Then Oedipus puts him wise by pointing at the Messenger τόνδ’ δς πάρεστιν). 1130. ή ξυναλλάξας τί πω: on πω ‘ever’ see ad 105 supra', it is the reading of L in litura and of GR; πως A is a vulgarization and που (Bodl., Pearson) without real authority and weak. If ποτ’ is really what L wrote first ξυναλλάξας ποτέ (Tournier, Bruhn) would be possible but strikes me as another vulgarization of the rare use of πω x) Cf. E. Sofer, Zu Soph. K. Oei. 1128 f., Wiener Studien XLVI 1928, 225-226.

FOURTH EPEISODION, VSS. II29-II37

215

without negative, ή ξυναλλάξας LAG R (but η is in L correction of ή) is much better than ή ξυνήλλαξας A, evidently a smoothing away of the syntactical difficulty: Oedipus continues his questioning and ξυναλλάξας is on a par with μαθών, best rendered by 'having ever had anything to do with him’ (cp. Campbell and supra mo). 1131. ούχ ώστε γ’ εΐπεΐν: cf. supra 361. μνήμης δπο: ‘at the prompting of memory’ (Jebb, who compares ύπο- in ύπομιμνήσκω, ύποβολεύς); Pearson (and likewise Dindorf, Bruhn, Groeneboom) prefers Reiske’s άπο ('δπο would be a solecism’ Sophoclea III, Cl. Qu. 1929, p. 171) but άπο rather fails to give the required sense, viz. that his memory does not help him to remember the man x) (Jebb’s rendering in his translation ‘from memory’ seems to me less accurate than the one given in his commentary, for that is exactly μνήμης άπο). εΐπεΐν comes near to ‘affirm’. 1132. With an eagerness comparable to the Messenger’s in Track. (402) the Messenger prepares to come to the rescue. κούδέν γε Οαϋμα: cp. infra 1319 καί θαϋμά γ’ ούδέν. In both phrases I should prefer to consider καί . . . γε as interrelated, και being adverbial (‘actually’) and belonging to Denniston’s rubric (2) (III) G.P.2 p. 158, but καί may also be considered as connective (if>. p. 157). (Denniston does not list these instances). σαφώς: goes with άναμνήσω: ‘nettement’ (Mazon). 1133. άγνώτ’: cf. note ad 677. 1133, 4. εύ γαρ οΐδ’ότι / κάτοιδεν: The playing upon the meanings of οΐδα (‘know’ and ‘remember’) is comparable to that of the Phylax upon the meanings of δοκεΐν Ant. 323 ή δεινόν, ω δοκεΐ γε, και ψευδή δοκεΐν. 1134-1137. If the text is sound, τον Κιθαιρώνος τόπον is either an accusative of the sphere of motion (‘governed by the general notion of traversing or occupying in what follows’, thus Campbell) or the sentence, begun as if a verb ενεμον or ένέμομεν were to follow with πλησιάζων as a predicative adjunct, leaves τόν K. τόπον without proper government by substituting έπλήσιαζον for ενεμον πλησιάζων (thus in substance Jebb); at any rate the sentence comes near to an anacoluthon, the more so since πλησιάζω does not govern an accusative and is followed by its normal dative. Possibly a line has been lost after 1134 or something has to be altered in the text. *) Cp. Mazon’s excellent translation: ‘Pas assez pour que ma mdmoire me laisse r6pondre si vite’.

2l6

COMMENTARY

The least unsatisfactory conjecture is Heimsoeth’s νόμων διπλοϊσι ποιμνίοις, — έγώ S’ ένί — / έπλήσιαζε τωδε τάνδρι (= έμοί), adopted by W.-B2., Bruhn, Groeneboom. Less attractive is Roussel’s reading (a combination from Margoliouth, Dindorf and others): προς Κιθαιρώνος τόπον .... έπλησίαζον άνδρε τώδε. I had thought of κάτοιδ’ δτ’ ενεμε but upon reflection I do not think it convincing: epic ήμος, excellent in itself but fairly scarce in Tragedy (not in Aesch., four times in Soph., once in Eur.), would have had few chances to creep into the text. So, retaining my doubts about its soundness, I leave the text unaltered (with Campbell, Jebb, Pearson, Dain-Mazon). 1134, κάτοιδεν ήμος: meminit cum. 1135, 6. As the text stands, the best we can do is to supply from έπλησιάζον τώδε τάνδρι, with δ μέν διπλοϊσι ποιμνίοις; since πλησιάζω in this context contains a notion of reciprocity this is easier than it seems at first sight. 1136, 7. τρεις δλους . . . χρόνους: The accusative of duration at the end of the sentence can be used as an argument in favour of the rather vague accusative of the sphere of motion at its beginning: between them they seem to effectuate a nice syntactical balance. έκμήνους: Porson’s certain correction of έμμήνους, which does not yield any satisfactory sense; but the corruption must be old, since the scholia in L vainly attempt to interpret the reading. τρεις δλους . . . χρόνους: their six months’ intercourse occurred thrice. άρκτοϋρον: i.e. the autumnal rising at dawn (or the heliacal rising) of Bootes, shortly before the autumnal equinox. χρόνους: χρόνος = a period of time, just as Phil. 715 δεκέτει χρόνφ, Track. 164 χρόνον τρίμηνον. 1138. χειμώνα: thus L’s reading, indubitably to be preferred to χειμώνι RA as a lectio difficilior, which is excellent in itself: 'the commencement of the action and its continuance are thought of together’ (Campbell); moreover there is a tendency in Greek to use the accusative not only to denote duration but also the point of time. 1138. επαυλα: ‘folds’, 'dwellings’; cf. O.C. 669; not different from σταθμά. 1139. ήλαυνον: the object has to be supplied. The fullness of expression in these two lines, so to speak, makes up for the elliptical phrasing of 1135, 6 and may serve as a pointer to the correct understanding of the latter.

t

FOURTH EPEISODION, VSS. II34-XI54

217

1140. λέγω . . . ή ού λέγω: cf. supra 353. τι τούτων: with Attic άστειότης for ‘all these things’; cp. Bruhn, Anhang § 260. πεπραγμένον: predicative adjunct. The words amount to: ‘did the things I mention really happen or not ?’ 1141. καίπερ έκ μακροϋ χρόνου: elliptical phrase, amounting to καίπερ μακροϋ τοΰ χρόνου όντος έξ ού ταΰτα έπράττετο. 1144. τί 8’ έστι; cf. 319· 'What do you mean by this?’ 1145. ώ τάν: cf. Dodds’ excellent note ad Bacch. 802; ‘a polite and respectful form of address’, used in speaking to parents and social superiors, but also between equals, frequently calling at­ tention to an admonition or a proposal. Not in Aesch., three times in Soph. (Ichn. 98, Phil. 1387), four times in Eur., 21 times in Ar. (strange error in L.-Sc.), Pl. Apparently colloquial, but not fami­ liar: Sir, my good Sir, ‘good my Lord’. 1146. ούκ εις όλεθρον: cf. 430. In a flash the whole abominable truth has become clear to the herdsman. In a vain attempt to ward off the unavoidable he rises his staff against the Messenger and is about to strike him. ού σιωπησας έση: periphrasis of the future II, comparable to σημήνας γενοϋ 957, but the phrase combines the notions: ‘hold your tongue at once’ and ‘keep silent once for all’,oiy4oov and σιωπών 1147. ά: for ά in warnings and reproofs cf. Phil. 1300 ά, μηδαμώς, μή, πρός θεών, μέθης βέλος. μή κόλαζε: ‘pas de coups’ (Mazon), which is better than Jebb’s ‘chide him not’, for although κολάζω can be used with the meaning of ‘to rebuke’ (cp. Ai. 1108), this is much less relevant here. 1149. φέριστε: in Tragedy only here and Aesch. Sept. 39. It is perhaps remarkable that Sophocles makes the man address the king in this striking way now he is aware that he is not standing before a murderer and stranger but before the legal heir to Laius’ throne. 1151. άλλως: ‘to no purpose’; i.e. ‘to anything but a good one’ (Campbell). 1152. Oedipus raises his staff. The very stiffness of the wording and the rhythm is expressive of Oedipus’ inexorable tension of mind. 1153. αίκίση: the middle is more frequent than the active, without any difference in meaning. 1154. ούχ ώς τάχος: cf. 945.

2l8

COMMENTARY

άποστρέψει χέρας: as a preliminary to flogging. Cf. At. 71 σε τον τάς αίχμαλωτίδας χέρας / δεσμοϊς άπευθύνοντα. But here there is not necessarily a question of binding the old man; 'twist back’. 1155. δύστηνος: έγώ. άντίτοϋ; : in return for what ? > ‘wherefore?’, τί προσχρήζων: sc. κελεύεις άποστρέψαι χέρας. The ‘caesura media’ lends the line a rhythm which is perhaps suggestive of the herdman’s helplessness. 1156. τον παϊδ’ . . . δν ούτος Ιστορεί: cf. ΙΙ50· The repetition is expressive of Oedipus’ sole preoccupation. When in passion a man is apt to repeat an expression once chosen. 1157. τηδ’ ημέρα: ‘that day’ (τηδ’ because that day is the day upon which all his thoughts are directed now, the day with its fatal act which he lives over again). 1158. ές τόδ’: όλέσθαι sc. τοΰνδικον: τό άληθές; thus Σ and Hesych. 1159. διόλλυμαι: the present instead of the future expresses the certainty about what is bound to happen. Cf. Bruhn, Anhang § 102.1. With still more emphasis the perfect is so used, cp. Phil. 75, 6 (cf. GoodwinG.M.T. §§ 32 and 51). 1160. ές τριβάς έλα: ‘will be driving at delay’ (Campbell). Other instances of the same phrase do not occur but other phrases with intr. έλαύνειν are comparable: Hdt. II124.1 ές πασαν κακότητα έλάσαι (quoted by Jebb), Eur. Heracl. 904 έγγύς μανιών έλαύνει (Campbell). The future expresses: 'he is bent on . . .’ 1161. ού δήτ’: ‘giving the he to a positive statement’ (Denniston G.PA p. 275 (iv) ), cf. Track. 1208. 1161. πάλαι: going with είπον and referring to 1157; cf. note ad 449. 1163. Again caesura media (but here softened by the elision); cf. 1155. ‘The postponement of the negative, and the unusual rhythm. . .assist the effect of reluctance and constraint’ (Campbell). 1165. μή .. . πλέον: cp. Iocasta’s outcry 1060. 1166. δλωλας: cf. note ad 1159. ταϋτ’: possibly better ταΰτ’ (Schaefer, Sheppard). 1167. τοίνυν: ‘well then’, ‘τοίνυν is conditioned by the command implied in the threat of 1166’ (Denniston G.P? p. 572), ‘puisque tu m’y forces’ (Roussel). των . . . γεννημάτων: usually considered ambiguous in the sense that either a son of Laius or a son of one of his household slaves can be understood (‘τών Λαίου being genitive of οί Λαίου’ Jebb, but

FOURTH EPEISODION, VSS. II55-II7O

219

this is unnecessary: the ambiguity can be thought to reside in the genitive Λαίου: originis or possessivus}. But the natural inter­ pretation of the words is of course the former. So it is understandable that A. Wolfx) has argued for the following interpretation of 1167, 8:‘Nun denn, es war ein Knabe von des Laios’ Samen’. 'Gezeugt mit einer Sklavin oder in seines Hauses echtem Stamm ?’ This, however, raises the problem, whether or not, Oedipus would have referred by δούλος to a child of Laius and a female slave: it would seem to run counter to the legal conceptions of heroic times as well as of Vth century Athens 2), but one might argue that Oedipus’ use of the term is an emotional exaggeration. τις: κατά σύνεσιν, whether των Λάιου γεννημάτων means ‘Laius’ cnildren’ or ‘children belonging to Laius’ household’ (but in the latter case the κατά σύνεσιν construction seems harsher, particularly if we accept Jebb’s idea). The use of τις, however, is the easier to understand inasmuch as the word παϊς is constantly present in the mind of both dramatis personae and audience. 1168. έγγενής: belonging to his family. But the word is not used (so far as we are aware) as a synonym of γνήσιος opp. νόθος (and this is another drawback to A. Wolf’s interpretation). It is possible that the poet has made Teiresias use the same word (452) deliber­ ately. 1169, 70. πρός αύτω γ’ εΐμί: cf. Men. Epitr. 244-46 καί σφόδρα I Siv εγγύς ήδη καί πρός αύτφ παντελώς / άναδύομαι (cp. the use of έπί Pl. Phil. 18 d έπ’ αύτφ γε ήδη γεγονότες ζητείτε). λέγειν: either epexegetic to the phrase πρός αύτω γ’ εΐμί τώ δεινώ (with τό δεινόν understood: thus Jebb, Campbell, Bruhn cf. Anhang § 127 III) or adjunct of δεινώ (cp. 1297 ώ δεινόν ίδεϊν πάθος, O.C. 141 δεινός μεν όραν, δεινός δέ κλύειν, Thue. I 122.2 εΐ καί δεινόν τω άκοϋσαι—though here the case is somewhat different—: thus Mazon: ‘j’en suis au plus cruel d dire’). The ellipse in Oedipus’ retort is easier to supply if we accept the former course of interpretation, particularly if we read in 1170 άκούειν following Plut. Mor. 522 c, 1093 b with the majority of the editors; the MSS of Soph, have άκούων, retained by Campbell, perhaps not so impossible a reading as is generally thought but yielding a much less striking retort on the part of Oedipus. L) Wiener Studien, 1915, pp. 367, 8. 2) L. Beauchet, Droit prM II 407, who is right in rejecting Pl. Leg. XI 930 d as evidence to the contrary.

1

220

COMMENTARY

1171. γέ τοι δή: somewhat stronger than the reluctant τοίνυν 1167 (implying: ‘indeed, since you will hear the whole truth, I am obliged to be frank’); the combination is not common, έκλήζεθ’ is still slightly non-committal; accordingly he wants to leave it to Iocasta to complete the disclosure of the truth. 1171, 2. ή έσω . . . σή γυνή: the wording is suggestive of the man’s uncertainty as to how to designate Iocasta, the queen, Laius’ wife as well as Oedipus’, Oedipus’ mother. The poet makes him decide on σή γυνή, as an afterthought. 1173. The tension of the stichomythia culminates in these four lines divided between the speakers (άντιλαβαί). Note the symmetry (as often in the most classical art not a complete one) in the division: Oedipus’ part diminishes from four feet to one, the herdsman’s augments from two to five. In 1174 and 1175 Oedipus’ words cover the line up to the penthemimeres. ή γάρ δίδωσιν ήδε σοι: for this is the inference from the fact that the herdsman referred to Iocasta and the next inference is that she is the mother, δίδωσιν is historical present and felt as a past tense, as appears from άναλώσαιμι 1174. Not quite in harmony with Iocasta’s story 718, 19. Perhaps the poet did not want to stress too much Iocasta’s τόλμα in her words to Oedipus. But I do not consider the difference as significant. It was after all as much Laius’ deed as her own. 1174. ώς: defines πρός τί χρείας as referring to the purpose envisaged by Iocasta. Cf. K.-G. I 472 Anm. 1 and cf. Trach. 1182 with note. τί χρείας: = τίνα χρείαν cf. Phil. 174; χρεία does not mean ‘aim’, but ‘use’, referring to the question what the shepherd was to do with the child. The same could have been expressed by ώς τί χρήσαιο αύτώ; (cp. cases like O.C. 398 όπως τί δράση and elliptical phrases such as ώς τί, £να τί, cf. K.-G. II 520; it is possible—cp. the shepherd’s answer, a straightforward final clause, in which ώς seems to echo the first ώς of the line—that here we have some amount of contamination between ώς as described in K.-G. I 472 Anm. I and this ώς in elliptical phrases). άναλώσαιμι viv: for άναλίσκειν ‘destroy’, ‘kill’ (of human beings) cf. Aesch. Ag. 570, Soph./r. 516 and fr. 892 P., with Pearson’s note. 1175. τεκοϋσα τλήμων: well rendered by Campbell: ‘Its mother! had she the heart’, who aptly quotes Eur. Ion 960 τλήμων σύ τόλμης, ό δέ θεός μάλλον σέθεν.

FOURTH EPEISODION, VSS. II7I-I184

221

θεσφάτων: cf. supra 908 and for the oracle cp. 711 sqq., 853 sq. 1X76. ποιων: Oedipus’ ΐστορεΐν πλέον perseveres to the bitter end. τούς τεκόντας: generic plural, referring to the father alone. But the wording of the whole sentence (ήν λόγος) is in the same slightly non-committal vein as 1171. 1177. άφήκας: 'hand over’ (but the meaning ‘let loose’, ‘set free’ is also present). The schol. remarks: παρατηρητέον ότι τύν γέροντα μετεπέμψατο έπί τύ άνακρϊναι τον φόνον τοϋ Λαίου και προβληθέντος ετέρου τίνος έπί τό άγαγκαιότερον τρέπεται. See ad 1180. 1178, 9. ώς. . . δοκών άποίσειν: ώς is either elliptic (ώς < άν τις άφείη > δοκών) or derives from a contamination between δοκών άποίσειν and ώς άποίσοντι < άφήκα >. 1180. έσωσεν: cf. 1030 σωτηρ γε. Note that the herdsman is not asked to give evidence about the murder of Laius (for which he was at first summoned). The cer­ tainty of Oedipus’ identity is such that his slaying of Laius is selfevident. This is implied in his own words 1182. 1182. ιού ιού: cf. note ad Track. 1143 and supra 1071. έξήκοι: cf. L.-Sc. s.v. II 2 ‘to have come to an accomplishment’, ‘turn out true’. Cf. IOII μή μοι Φοίβος έξέλθη σαφής, Track. ΧΙ74 ταΰτ’ ούν έπειδή λαμπρά συμβαίνει (cp. note ad 902· 3 supra). Σ has the gloss άποβαίη. 1183. ώ φώς: The leitmotif of φώς and σκότος, of seeing and blindness (cf. the Teiresias scene) reappears in this wish; the line prepares for the act of self-blinding. The schol., however, may be right in noting: εδ πεπλαγίασται (i.e. the wording has been made ambiguous) ό λόγος ώς την πήρωσιν αίνιττομένου άλλ’ έπί τον θάνατον αύτώ ό λόγος· (but the words which follow are very foolish: άπορήσας γάρ ξίφους έαυτύν έτύφλωσεν). 1184. άφ’ ών ού χρήν: If the oracle to Laius (cf. 713,4) is meant to be in the nature of a warning, as in Aeschylus and Euripides, the meaning is self-evident; if not, then Jebb’s comment is possibly correct: ‘since he was foredoomed to the acts which the two fol­ lowing clauses express’. With some circumspection Campbell: ‘This is partly said with reference to the oracle given to Laius, and partly with the same general feeling of horror with which he speaks of himself afterwards, infra 1383’x). *) Cf. C. M. Bowra, Sophoclem Tragedy1, p. 164: ‘He means simply that it would have been better if he himself had never been born’.

222

COMMENTARY

1184, 5. ξΰν οΐς τ’... οδς τε:Τ1ιε functions of the generic plural have to be considered for each individual case; here no ambiguity is intended, no non-committal undertone is present. We may state that by the plural the concinnity of the tricolon is heightened but more important is the pathetic solemnity which by its use is lent to the sentence as a whole. The Sophoclean enjambment underlines the unity of the powerful sentence by which Oedipus’ fate is summed up. Fourth Stasimon 1186-1222

In all but absolute contrast with the almost frenzied illusionism of the preceding choral ode stands the dirge which bewails human nothingness in Oedipus’ tragic fate. Just as in the preceding stasimon the Chorus take the cue from Oedipus’ last words. The most dra­ matic disclosure of Oedipus’ very special case enacted in the tense and unbearable dialogue of the preceding scene is bfted on to the higher plan of lyrical comment, by which Oedipus’ fate is repre­ sented as paradigmatic of the human condition, but in such a way that the misery of the man Oedipus is not lost sight of, nor his greatness. The particular and the general are interwoven as one would expect them to be by the classical tragic Chorus. The illu­ soriness of human happiness in general and the horror of Oedipus’ real state are the poles between which this most tragic of songs moves. 1186. ίώ: probably ίώ, see the antistr. and cf. 162, where ίώ is certain. γενεαί: ‘generations’, as in οίη περ φύλλων γενεή .... 1187, 8. ώς . . . έναριθμώ: not, as Jebb will have it, ‘how abso­ lutely do I count you as living a life which is no life’ but: ‘how I count you as nothing’ (‘je ne vois en vous qu’un n6ant’ Mazon) ‘while you live’ and no more is it correct to construe (with Bruhn) ώς ύμας καί τά μηδέν ίσα έναριθμώ: cf. Thue. Ill 14.1 ίσα καί ίκέται έσμέν (ίσα καί τό μηδέν = ίσα τω μηδένε). Cp. also Track. 1107 κάν τά μηδέν ώ and with a subject in the plural Ai. 1275 τά μηδέν όντας, ζώσας alludes to the conception that nobody is to be called happy till after his death (thus correctly Campbell) (cf. note ad Track. 1 and cp. the end of this tragedy 1528 sqq.), for this conception is at the root of the following lines and again of the antistr. and the first three lines of the next strophe (άλλαγα βίου). 1190. τας εύδαιμονίας: by the article εύδαιμονία is represented as

FOURTH STASIMON, VSS. I186-II95

223

the aim of human striving. Striving and aim are expressed in an image 1197-1199. φέρει: = φέρεται (as SO often, cf. 590). 1191. δοκεΐν: SC. εύδαιμονίαν φέρειν or εύδαίμον’ είναι. It is not possible to be sure whether δοκεΐν is ‘objective’ (seem) or ‘sub­ jective’ (imagine); I am inclined to side with Jebb who chooses the former ('Who wins more of happiness than just the seeming, after the semblance, a falling away’) against e.g. v. Wilamowitz (‘Wem, wem ward I mehr vom Gliick als des Wahnes Rausch / und vom Wahn die Erniichterung’). 1192. δόξαντ’: a nom. c. inf. construction would have been equally possible. δόξαντ’ άποκλΐναι: note the ‘confective’ force of the aorists. άποκλΐναι: 'to decline’ (like the westering sun, Campbell). Cf. Hdt. IV 181.4. άποκλινομένης της ημέρας. Intransitive use of κλίνειν and compounds is common. 1193. τδ σόν . . . έχων: τδ σόν is the reading of the MSS (τον is not in GR, as is wrongly stated in Dain’s apparatus); the majority of editors prefer to read τδν σόν, for which the schol. τδν σόν βίον παράδειγμ’ έχων is no argument since τδν σδν βίον may have been meant to explain τδ σόν. It cannot be maintained that responsion forbids us to read τδ σόν and provided we take παράδειγμ’ as the predicative adjunct I do not see why we should not accept τδ σόν as the object of έχων with τδν σδν δαίμονα as its appositional ex­ pansion (thus W.-B. and Campbell). 1194. δαίμονα: the divine power as it is revealed in the unbreak­ able union of destiny and the individual > an individual’s destiny or fate in which the divine power is revealed. Similarly Ai. 534 (with note), Track. 910. Cf. G. Francois, Le Polytheisme et I’Emploi singulier des mots θεός, δαίμων, Bibi. Fac. de Phil, et L., Liege. CXLVII, 1957, pp. 340 sqq. 1195. Οίδιπόδά: this form of the vocative only here; cf. the genitive Οίδιπόδά supra 496, Ant. 380 and the accusative Οίδιπόδαν O.C. 222., evidently taken from epic usage (also used by Aesch.). 1195, 6. βροτών I ούδέν: thus with G. Hermann the majority of editors (W.-B.’stext is an exception); MSS have ούδένα: this would involve a resolution of the first longum of the choriamb, which would seem improbable, although not quite impossible (cf. Eur. I.A. 781 Ά δε Διδς Έλένα κόρα, see Koster, Traiti2 X 14). βροτών ούδέν ‘no being among men’ (Jebb) is comparable to fr. 724.4 P.

I

224

COMMENTARY

"Αρης γάρ ούδέν των κακών λωτίζεται (this line is quoted by schol. BL II. B 833, characteristically with the reading ούδένα), to βρότειον ούδέν supra 709, up to a point to τοΰτο Ant. 334, and to Phil. 446 ούδέν πω κακόν γ’ άπώλετο. 1197-1201. όστις . . . άνέστα: ng8 έκράτησας LGRA, but 1201 άνέστα LacS, άνέστας GRL“A. Since a corruption έκράτησε > έκράτη­ σας is intelligible but not a corruption άνέστας > άνέστα, we have probably to assume that έκράτησε . . . άνέστα is the original reading, although it remains a strange fact that Lac, though reading άνέστα, has έκράτησας. (If we posit an original reading έκρατησας .... άνάστας—Elmsley’s conjecture—the facts of the transmission are still less easy to account for; I note in passing that έκράτησας is not metrically impossible). The turning from Oedipus (1193) to Zeus (1197 sqq.) and again from Zeus to Oedipus (1202 sqq.) must have caused the confusion (but nobody would have taken exception to the text if the unanimous tradition had run έκράτησας . . . άνέστας (or άνάστας) ). With the third person, the vocative ώ Ζεϋ is easier to understand than with the second person; with the latter it would be more in the nature of an inserted exclamation. {Track. 993-995 would not present us with a satisfactory parallel, W.-B. adduce Phil. 1233). For the transition from participial to finite construction (κατά μέν φθίσας . . . άνέστα) cf. Track. 836, 7; it would perhaps be better to alter δ’ (i2oo) into τ’, see note ad Trach. 836, 7 and Denniston G.P.2 374, 5. 1197. καθ’ ύπερβολάν: ύπερβαλλόντως (Hesych.), ‘with surpassing skill’. τοξεύσας: referring either to his having come upon his good fortune (in general: cf. Eur. Troad. 643, 4 έγώ δέ τοξεύσασα της εύδοξίας / λαχοϋσα, πλεΐον τής τύχης ήμάρτανον) or to his solving the Sphinx’s riddle (in particular: ‘his lucky shot’: cf. γνώμη κυρήσας 398), which seems the better interpretation. It was this very τύχη which proved to be his undoing: cf. 442. 1198. πάντ’: accusative of respect. 1199, 1200. τάν γαμψώνυχα . . . χρησμωδόν: cf. supra 36, 130, 39G 508. 1200, 1201. θανάτων ... πύργος: on the metaphorical use of πύργος cf. note ad Ai. 159, for the genit, separ, cf. e.g. Eur. Med. 1322 ερυμα πολέμιας χερός. 1202. έξ οδ: the meaning is causal as well as temporal. 1202, 3. καλή / έμός: One may be tempted to read έμδς / καλή

FOURTH STASIMON, VSS. II97-I206

225

(Elmsley) in order to remove the hiatus and to be able to consider 1202-1204 35 one period, but the hiatus between 1190-91 (not to be removed by simple means) does not favour this proceeding *). There is something to be said for άμδς (found in Liv p, see Pearson’ apparatus), but complete respons’on is not necessary. 1203. τά μέγιστ’ . . . ταϊς μεγάλαισιν: the wording intensifies the contrast with the fall as described in the next strophe. 1204. άκούειν: epexegetic infinitive. See in general Goodwin G.M.T § 763 and for άκούειν and όραν (άκοϋσαι and ίδεΐν) in particular §768. 1205. 6. In the text of the MSS τις έν πόνοις τίς άταις άγρίαις (^-ο- — S2V-) there is a lack of correspondence with 1214 (^— v-^-). Various remedies have been tried, none entirely convincing (nobody has tampered with 1214, and rightly so). W.-B., Jebb, Pearson, Mazon-Dain accept G. Hermann’s τίς άταις άγρίαις, τίς έν πόνοις, but (1) πόνοις—without any attribute—is a lame anticlimax after άταις άγρίαις; (2) the ‘redundant government’ in έν πόνοις ξύνοικος (for ξύνοικος cannot be construed with άλλαγά βίου) is a real difficulty (there is of course nothing to be said against έν occurring in the second member of the phrase τίς άταις άγρίαις, τίς έν πόνοις, but the words of the transmitted text allow of Campbell’s interpretation ‘who more in woe, who more associated with fierce calamities’, which is impossible with the transposition). The instances adduced to vindicate the redundant government do not carry conviction; Jebb refers to 1126 but there Campbell’s and Bruhn’s interpretation seems preferable, nor is fr. 950 quoted by W.-B. a case in point (ούκ έστι γήρας των σοφών, έν οίς ό νους / θεία ξύνεστιν ημέρα τεθραμμένος. Cp. Pearson’s very full comment). Eur. Hipp. 1219 would supply us with a good parallel (καί δεσπότης μέν ίππικοϊς έν ήθεσι / πολύς ξυνοικών but there Valckenaer’s ίππικοϊσιν is generally accepted (also by Barrett) 2). It would seem that v. Wilamowitz’ reconstruction of the text meets the two objections formulated above: τίς άταις άγρίοισιν έν πόνοις ξύνοικος3) (but at *) Though it is arguable that the case is not the same; the strophe can be divided in one period of three dimeters, two of two, one of four. If we accept this division, it follows that Elmsley's correction (or Blaydes' καλή τ’) is necessary. Otherwise we have to divide: one period of three, two of two, one of one, one of three—a not very convincing division. 2) Perhaps we may compare (up to a point) O.C. 1133, 4 ω τίς ούκ ένι / κηλίς κακών ξύνοικος. 3) U. von Wilamowitz, Lesefriichte CCLXXIV, Hermes, 1930, p. 251. Kamerbeek

IV

15

226

COMMENTARY

the cost of the pathetic τις, twice repeated), V. Coulon’s 1) τίς άταις, τις άγρίοισ έν πόνοις meets one (but he retains τίς). With the text as transmitted as well as with these conjectural readings it is necessary mentally to supply αθλιότερος from the preceding line: ‘it is not possible to supply μάλλον with ξύνοικος from άθλιώτερος’ (rightly, Jebb). A way of meeting this difficulty and at the same time the metrical problem is Gleditsch’s τίς άταις, τίς άγρίοις πόνοις , accepted by Bruhn and Groeneboom. 1206. ξύνοικος: A man is said to ‘dwell with’ evil, calamity etc. as well as conversely evil etc. is said to ‘dwell with’ a man (cp. L.-Sc. s.v. συνοικέω I 3 a and b) Cf. El. 785, Phil. 1168, 0 C. 1134. άλλαγα βίου: instrumental dative. We are reminded of 11. 33, 34. 1207. ΐώ κλεινόν Οίδίπου κάρα: cf. 1. 8. 1208 a-1209 b ω μέγας λιμήν: cf. supra 422, 3· ώ . . . πεσεϊν: Of the two interpretations in the scholia (ώ ύποδοχή εις τδ άμφω δέξασθαι, σέ καί τόν πατέρα' ή οτι μήτηρ ήν καί γυνή ή Ίοκάστη) the first is substantially right: καί = atque going with αυτός, παιδί is predicative adjunct to ώ and by its placing the contrast with πατρί is emphasized; since the subject of πεσεϊν has to be borrowed from ώ it can take with it a new predicative adjunct in the dative, sc. θαλαμηπόλο) (this word renders the second inter­ pretation of the scholia impossible). W.-B.’s rendering is correct: 'ihm, dem Sohne, geniigte dieselbe Statte wie einst dem Vater, um daselbst ais Ehegatte zu ruhen’ and Pl. Resp. 412 d ώ καί ξυμφέρειν ήγοΐτο τά αύτά καί έαυτω offers a good illustration of the construction. θαλαμηπόλω: in Homer 'waiting-maid’, here with literal, etymo­ logizing meaning ‘bridegroom’ (‘who moves in the bride-chamber’). The only difficulty which remains is μέγας (Brunck’s αύτός for αύτός is certain); possibly Mazon’s 'meme port terrible’ comes near the truth, but if we consider μέγας λιμήν as the predicative adjunct to ήρκεσεν (αυτός sc. λιμήν being the subject) we may also think that the idea ‘sufficient’, explicit in ήρκεσεν, is anticipated and implied in μέγας.—Note that there is no synaphea between the short cola (mainly dochmiacs) from 1207-1209 b. 1210-1212. (πώς... τοσόνδε: Mazon’s translation is perfect: ‘Comment, comment le champ labomA par ton pere a-t-il pu si *) V. Coulon, Note sur Sophocle, O.R. 1204-1206 el 696, R.E.G., 1956. pp. 446-448·

FOURTH STASIMON, VSS.

Ι2θ6-Ι2ΐ6

227

longtemps, sans rtvolte, te supporter, 0 malheureux ?’ The meta­ phor is continued infra 1256, 7, 1485, 1497. Cf. Ant. 569 άρώσιμοι γάρ χάτέρων είσίν γύαι; Aesch. Sept. 754 i Men. Dysc. 842, 3 άλλ’ εγγυώ παίδων έπ’ άρότφ γνησίων / την θυγατέρ’ ήδη. For άλοξ in particular cf. Eur. Phoen. 18. But the meaning of the metaphor in O.T. has to be related to the fact that as the result of Oedipus’ gruesome deeds and defilement the blight is on the fruits of land, cattle and women alike (supra 2.^-2.'], 171-173). 1213. άκονθ’: v. Wilamowitz’ άκων has to be rejected. The correct interpretation for instance in Campbell: ‘has surprised thee with a discovery thou didst not intend’ (with reference to supra 132). The disclosure by Time is Oedipus’ undoing, cf. supra 438. Not only in.poetry is Time represented as the power who reveals crime and outrage: cf. Antiph. IV 4.11 τον δέ μιαρόν τω χρόνω άποδόντες φήναι τοϊς έγγιστα τιμωρεϊσθαι ύπολείπετε (~ id. V 86). See further Ai. 646, 7, fr. 301 P. πρός ταϋτα κρύπτε μηδέν, ώς ό πάνθ’ όρων / καί πάντ’ άκούων πάντ’ άναπτύσσει χρόνος, fr. 918 Ρ. πάντ’ έκκαλύπτων ό χρόνος εις φως άγει. 1214, 5. δικάζει . . . τεκνούμενον: It seems better to take πάλαι with δικάζει (as is done by Hermann, Brulin and Groeneboom) than with τεκνοϋντα και τεκνούμενον, because, if we assume that δίκη, cosmic balance, has been upset by Oedipus’ deeds, it is logical that χρόνος (= the continued existence of the cosmos) has been striving after the redress of balance from the start, δικάζει: ‘is sitting in judgement’ (cf. Denniston ad Eur. El. 1094) > ‘brings to justice’, 'redresses’. τον άγαμον γάμον τεκνοϋντα καί τεκνούμενον: τεκνοϋντα καί τεκνού­ μενον are attributes of τόν άγαμον γάμον; of the γάμος is said what properly belongs to Oedipus himself (‘begetter’ and ‘begotten’). There is no better rendering to be thought of than Jebb’s: ‘the monstrous marriage wherein begetter and begotten are one’ (Jebb has ‘have long been one’, but he follows Ellendt in taking πάλαι with the participles, which I think unlikely), τεκνοϋντα καί τεκνούμενον form a sort of hendiadys. Commentators compare O.C. 266, 7 τά γ’ έργα μου I πεπονθότ* έστί μάλλον ή δεδρακότα. The alternative inter­ pretation, which construes τόν τεκνοϋντα καί τεκνούμενον (= τόν γαμοΰντα 8ντα τέκνον καί τίκτοντα) άγαμον γάμον (cognate accusative), preferred by Campbell, has to be rejected: it seems to overstep the limits even of Greek syntax. 1216. ίώ ... τέκνον: The metre is restored by inserting ώ (Erfurdt)

228

COMMENTARY

or, ώ, (G. Hermann) before τέκνον. Bothe’s Λαϊήιον seems to me preferable; cf. Eur. I.A. 756 Φοιβήϊον δάπεδον (guaranteed by metre) and perhaps Soph. fr. 152.3 Άχιλληίου. We may then hear in it an echo of ίηίων / καμάτων 173,4 (and cf. 1096). Such a play on the patronymic adjective which designates Oedipus would not be against Sophocles’ spirit (cf. Ai. 430-432); cp. also fr. 632 P. ίήιος = Hesych. ίήιος . . . άλλα και θρήνον σημαίνει, ώς Σοφοκλής Τρωίλω καί Ίων Εΰρυτίδαις. (But the intensifying prefix λά- seems to be restricted to the language of comedy, cf. Ar. Ach. 664 with van Leeuwen’s note). We may note that ίώ Λαϊήιον τέκνον rhythmically corresponds more closely to ίώ κλεινόν Οΐδίπου κάρα in the strophe. This is the more advantageous since they form a strikingly con­ trasting pair in sense, as is well remarked by Bruhn. 1217. είθε σ’ είθε α: Wunder’s is often accepted, Mazon’s έ seems better; I should prefer , which is also Friis Johansen’s idea x); cf. Ai. 190. 1217 b. μήποτ’ είδόμαν: not so much expressive of the Chorus’ ‘egoism’ as of the sentiment that Oedipus, Laius’ child, should never have survived at all. We may even ask whether it would be possible to construe 1216-1217 b in quite another way than is always done: could Λαϊήιον τέκνον be considered as a predicative adjunct ? ‘Would I had never seen you as Laius’ child’. The idea would be more convincing if we insert after Λαίειον (Λαϊήιον would then be impossible): Λαίειον τέκνον. But even if the idea has to be rejected (I do not know instances of όραν with two accu­ satives), the fact remains that the sentence in which they utter the wish never to have seen him opens with the vocative Λαίειον (or Λαϊήιον) τέκνον. It is not Oedipus, it is Oedipus, Laius’ son, they wish in vain never to have seen. 1218, 9. The MSS text runs: οδύρομαι γάρ ώς I περίαλλα ίαχέων. It appears from 1208b, 1209 (where no synaphea is possible) that synaphea is no more possible between these two lines. So Jebb’s conjecture ώσπερ ιάλεμον χέων (accepted by Pearson) has to be rejected. It is even improbable that ώς in itself can stand at period end (no certain instances in Soph.: El. 1437 is not comparable since there the strophe is in favour of synaphea). Following Seidler the editors read δύρομαι instead of οδύρομαι. There are more in­ stances where transmitted οδύρομαι has to be changed into δύρομαι, *) Lustrum 1962. 7, p. 245.

FOURTH STASIMON, VSS. I2I7-I222

229

thus Med. 159 μή λίαν / τάκου δυρομενα σόν εύνάταν; but οδύρομαι, is in itself as correct a form in Tragedy as δύρομαι. The rest of the lines also is often considered as corrupt, particularly ώς περίαλλα: Jebb for instance does not think that phrases such as ώς έτητύμως, ώς μάλιστα offer good parallels. These expressions are discussed in K.-G. II 415 A. 15. Soph, himself has ώς έτητύμως El. 1452 (but El. 1439 ώς ήπίως is no case in point, ώς having the force of quasi), Pl. and Dem. use ώς έτέρως and further we have ώς πανύ, ώς μάλα, ώς τό πολύ, ώς έπί τό πολύ, ώς αληθώς etc.. περίαλλα occurs in Eur. fr. 115 N.2 (Andromeda — Ar. Thesm. 1070 sqq.) τί ποτ’ ’Ανδρομέδα περίαλλα κακών / μέρος έξέλαχον, in Pind. Pyth. 11. 5 δν περίαλλ’ έτίμασε Λοξίας, Paean 9· 47 ° πόντιος ’Ορσοτρίαινα νιν / περίαλλα βροτών τίεν, in Theocr. 12. 28 (but not with ώς, as is wrongly said by Groeneboom: ώς is there a conjunction), in Ap. Rh. and Nic., and also in Soph./r. 245 P. (Thamyras) νόμων / οδς Θαμύρας περίαλλα μουσοποιεϊ. περίαλλα means ‘preeminently’ and is used with refer­ ence both to the subject and to the object of the sentence. There is nothing against the use of περίαλλα here and not even against ώς περίαλλα in itself (although there are no other instances) but for the metrical difficulty of ώς. If we place ώς before οδύρομαι, leaving out γάρ, we get: ώς όδύρομαι / περίαλλα ίαχέων. Possibly ώς = quippe had been glossed by γάρ, the latter found its way into the text and ώς was retained in the wrong place. (There are a number of instances in Soph, where ώς = quippe is implicitly interpreted by γάρ in the scholia: O.T. 54, 56, Ai. 39, 131, Track. 392, O.C. 425, 1229). As to περίαλλα ίαχέων, the a of ίάχω or ίαχέω can be either long or short in Tragedy; so we can read περίαλλ’ ίαχέων (thus Campbell). But an object with οδύρομαι would be welcome: so I should prefer περίαλλα αχέων; for άχέω = ήχέω cp. Trach. 866 ήχεϊ τις ούκ άσημον, άλλα δυστυχή / κωκυτόν εϊσω κτλ.. περίαλλα refers to the object (that alone makes sense), which renders the insertion of the more desirable. 1220. έκ στομάτων: If the strong enjambment is accepted (there is no such enjambment in the strophe) Campbell’s interpretation seems to hit the mark: ‘like έκ θυμοϋ, with my whole power of utterance’. 1220-22. τό δ’ ορθόν είπεϊν: It depends upon the interpretation of the whole sentence whether δέ has to be taken as conective or as adversative, 'to say the exact truth’; όρθός is among the key­ words of this tragedy: cf. 419, 505, 528, 853.

230

COMMENTARY

άνέπνευσα. . . δμμα: There is no doubt about the meaning of the first member of the two: ‘by your doing I recovered’; the reference is to Oedipus’ slaying of the Sphinx. On the second member the interpreters are divided. The scholion, truncated in L but apparently complete in G, runs thus: άνέπνευσα διά σε καί νϋν κατέμυσα τό δμμα έξ οΰ δηλοΐ και έπηρθημεν περισωθέντες ) Cp. L. Bergson, The omitted augment in the messengers' speeches of Greek tragedy. Eranos LI, 1953, pp. 121-128.

236

COMMENTARY

bolts (thus Jebb), but this seems still less natural than if κοίλα refers to the effect of Oedipus’ onrush on the doors. But Theocr. 24. 15 σταθμά κοίλα θυράων can not serve as a parallel for this use of κοίλα (cf. Gow a.I.). 1264, 5. πλεκταΐς . . . όρα νιν: LGRA concur in πλεκταΐς έώραις; it is possible that έώραις is a corruption from αίώραις, for αιώρα (prop, ‘swing’) would seem to be the classical form; hence Jebb and others write πλεκταΐσιν αίώραισιν leaving out ό δέ and conjec­ turing ό δ’ ώς 1265 (note that Lac has there όπως δ’). But is it not possible to read αίώραις with the first syllable shortened? Such a shortening1) would be unusual, especially in dialogue; on the other hand the reading αιωρήσασα O.C. 1084 is probable, but cd- is short. Those who retain έώραις do so in the conviction that έώραις can be defended by means of μετέωρος, αίώραι means 'swinging noose’ or ‘halter’. It is possible that the Athenian audience was reminded of the Dionysie rite of the Aiora2) by the very striking use of the term, the more so since the aition of this rite was said to be connected with Erigone’s death by hanging. 1264. έμπεπλεγμένην: Lac has έμπεπληγμένην (not έκπεπληγμένην Dain in apparatu), which would mean 'where she had been dashed into the noose’; but the intr. use of έμπλήσσω Od. XXII 469 and Hesych. έμπλήξαι · έμπεσεΐν will hardly support this singular meaning of the partic. perf. pass, (thus in substance Jebb). έμπεπλεγμένην means ‘entangled in’ (cp. the instances in L.-Sc. s.v.). In πλεκταΐς... έμπεπλεγμένην some κακοζηλία may be discerned. 1265. If Jebb’s reading is accepted, it is better to read also ό δ’ ώς than όπως δ’ L (Wecklein, Roussel) as is done by Blaydes, Campbell, Jebb and others. Cf. Ant. 1226 ό δ’ ώς όρά σφε, El. 736 ό δ’ ώς όρα (both in a Messenger’s speech). If we retain έώραις, δ’ (in L) has to be considered as a slip. βρυχηθείς: cf. Ai. 322 ταύρος ώς βρυχώμενος, Trach. 805, 9°4> 10723); Men. fr. 835 Koerte, Epitr. 573 (βρυχηθμός); Heliod. Aethiop. VI 9 (βρύχιον άναστένουσα). 1266. κρεμαστήν άρτάνην: for άρτάνη cf. Ant. 54 πλεκταΐσιν άρτάναισι. κρεμαστήν with άρτάνην as in κρεμαστοϊς έν βρόχοις Eur. Hipp. βρόχον κρεμαστόν αγχόνης ib. 802. 1267. έκειτο τλήμων; according to Turyn the (indubitably cor*) Cf. Koster, Traili* p. 35 n. 1. 2) L. Deubner, Attische Feste, p. n8sqq. 3) Cp. J. Taillardat, Les Images d’Aristophane, these Paris 1962, p. 208 n. 5.

EXODOS, VSS.

1264-1274

237

rect) reading of Moschopulos and Triclinius; εκ.ειθ’ δ MSS is impossible (or nearly so): Iocasta must be the subject. δεινά δ’: δέ in apodosi after temporal protasis is common in Homer, rare in Tragedy, cf. DennistonG.P.2 p. 179. 1268, 9. άποσπάσας . . . άπ’ αύτης: εΐμάτων goes with περδνας (cf. Hdt. V 87.2 τησι περόνησι τών ΐματίων, the passage aptly illus­ trates a murderous use to be made of these pins), άπ’ αύτης with άποσπάσας. έξεστέλλετο: subject either Iocasta or τά είματα. 1270. άρας: not οφθαλμούς, but περόνας or χεϊρας, similarly 1276 έπαίρων. (cf. W. Mulder, Remarques sur la mutilation d’Oedipe, Mus. Helv. 1954, pp. 122-125). άρθρα . . . κύκλων: ‘the sockets of his eye-balls’ = 'the eye-balls in their sockets’. Not: ‘the eyelids’ though Mulder is right in assuming that his eyes must be closed (cp. H. Friis Johansen in Lustrum 1962.7, p. 245). Similarly 1276 βλέφαρα ‘the eyes’, not the eyelids in particular. 1271. δψοιντό viv: A’s reading; the reading of LGR δψοιτο, possible in itself, improbable because of όψοίαθ’, γνωσοίατο 1274, is accepted by Dain-Mazon (apparently on the ground that such a change in the verbal number is not without parallels), viv is the proleptic subject of έπασχεν and έδρα and refers to Oedipus, not to Iocasta 2). 1271, 2. ούκ δψοιντο . . . οδθ’ . . . οΰθ’: οδθ . . . οΰθ’ intensify the negation ούκ; the words mean: οι κύκλοι ούκ δψοιντο οΐα κακά αύτδς δπασχε καί έδρα, κακά goes with both verbs. The imperfect in indirect discourse represents the imperfect in direct discourse: ‘such evils as he had suffered and done’; by the objects both with έπασχεν and with δδρα the whole of Oedipus’ terrible experience is meant. The repetition and variation in ol’ . . . όποΐ’ serve the same intensifying purpose as οδθ’ . . . οΰθ’. 1273, 4. άλλ’ έν σκότω . . . ού γνωσοίατο: A. Parry (see n. 1) rightly quotes Dobree’s excellent interpretation [Adversaria II 33): 'oculos suos non amplius eos visuros quos videre non debuisset neque praetervisuros quos agnoscere voluisset’. That is to say: εν σκότω states the condition for both the μεν and the δέ clauses. Oedipus’ eyes had previously seen those whom they ought not to see and failed to recognize those whom he wished to recognize. ') As W. Calder III, A. J. Ph. LXXX, 1959, pp. 301 sqq. will have it; cp. A. Parry's excellent discussion of the passage Cl. Qu. N.S. X. 2, i960, pp. 268- 270.

238

COMMENTARY

Now they will do so in darkness, i.e. they will no longer do so at all1). (Thus in substance Parry). Both έδει and εχρηζεν represent the past tense in direct discourse (otherwise δει and χρήζει or δέοι and χρήζοι would have been used); όραν has to be supplied with έδει, γιγνώσκειν with χρήζοι. If we want to differentiate between the categories οδς μέν . . . οδς S’, the first refers to the children, the second to his parents. But again Parry is right in stating that 'about the identity of the groups οδς μέν and οδς δέ the most impor­ tant thing to be said is that they are indefinite’ (l.c. p. 270). όψοίαθ’ and γνωσοίατο: Ionic forms. 1275. έφυμνών: imprecans (thus among others Groeneboom), cf. Ant. 1304, 5 λοίσθιον δέ σοί κακάς / πράξεις έφυμνήσασα τω παιδοκτόνω. The imprecation aims at his eyes, entirely personified in his words, and at himself. I do not believe that έπι- = 'in accom­ paniment to the act’ (Campbell and others). πολλάκις . . . άπαξ: one of Sophocles’ numerous instances of ‘polar expression’. 1276. ήρασσ’ έπαίρων βλέφαρα: see supra ad 1270. Housman’s ήρασσε περόναις, adopted by Pearson, is a needless conjecture. For ήρασσε βλέφαρα cf. Ant. 52 δψεις άράξας. The imperfect insists on the duration of the action. 1276-79. όμοϋ: I think it improbable that όμοϋ should here mean 'at each blow’ and at 1. 1278 'all at once’ as is stated by W.-B. and Jebb; at both places it must mean the latter, contrasting the bloody flow which takes place with the dripping which does not. The first and the last part of the sentence are symmetrical by means of όμοϋ and the two forms of τέγγω, placed at their beginnings and their ends and μέλας όμβρος χαλάζης αίματοϋς is a δείνωσις of φοίνιαι γλήναι. γένει’: 'chin' or ‘beard’, or both. άνίεσαν: ‘send forth’ (as a well or fountain). φόνου: concrete: ‘blood’ (as often). μυδώσας: ‘dripping’, cf. Ant. 1008 μυδώσα κηκίς. όμβρος χαλάζης αίματοϋς: thus Heath’s correction of όμβρος χαλάζης αίματος, accepted by W.-B., Campbell, Jebb. In όμβρος χαλάζης αίματός τ’ (some recc., reading accepted by Dain-Mazon) the hendiadys χαλάζης αίματός τ’ does not sound convincing, όμβρος χάλαζά θ’ αίματοΰσσ’ (Porson, followed by Bruhn, Groene‘) Reinhardt’s interpretation (Sophokles1, pp. 140, 1) seems impossible.

EXODOS, VSS. I275-I289

239

boom, Pearson) is farther from the transmitted text than Heath’s simple correction without being better. Jebb’s translation is ade­ quate : ‘a dark shower of blood came down like hail’. έτέγγετο: ‘flowed’, just as in αίμ’ εδευσα Ai. 376 δεύειν means 'make to flow’, likewise τέγγειν Track. 848. Cf. Bruhn Anhang § 246 II. Comparable metaphors Aesch. Ag. 1390 έρεμνή φακάδι φοινίας δρόσου, 1533 δέδοικα δ’ όμβρου κτύπου δομοσφαλή τον αιμα­ τηρόν ψακάς δέ λήγει, but the context and the function of the metaphors are quite different. 1280, 1. τάδ’ . . . κακά: τάδ’ έκ δυοϊν ερρωγεν ού μόνου κακά, reading of the MSS, is hardly tolerable on account of κακά at the end of 1281; it is, however, accepted by Campbell and Dain. ού μόνου κάτα, Otto (W.-B., Wecklein) and Jebb, gives good sense by means of a very small correction: 'From the deeds of twain such ills have broken forth, not on one alone’ (J.), μονούμενα (v. Wilamowitz, Bruhn) introduces a strange pregnant use of μονοϋσ6αι (‘es ist nicht fiir jeden von beiden vereinzelt geblieben’ Bruhn). Pearson’s τάδ’ ες δυοϊν ερρωγεν ού μόνου κάρα is all but unintelligible. Roussel’s ού μόνας κάτα (κατά μάνας = ‘isolated’, ού κατά μόνας = συμμιγή; the rare phrase κατά μόνας—cf. Thue. I 32.5, I 37.4, Pl. Leg. IX 873 d—may have given rise to a corruption because a scriba was led astray by the anastrophe) deserves serious conside­ ration. For ερρωγεν cp. 1075, 6, Eur. Hipp. 1338 μάλιστα μέν νυν σοί τάδ’ ερρωγεν κακά. 1282. ό πριν παλαιός δ’ όλβος: for the postponement of δέ, cf. Denniston G.P.2 p. 188. παλαιός όλβος refers to the old happiness of Cadmus’ house (a happiness existing only in the phantasy of the Messenger). 1283. δικαίως: ‘in the true sense’, ‘rightly so called’, τήδε θήμέρα: cf. 351, 2, 438, 615, 831. 1284. 5. κακών . . . άπόν: όσα όνόματα πάντων κακών έστι, ούδέν άπεστιν. όνομα is identified with the thing desig­ nated by it. In a translation ‘forms’ will do. 1286. εν τινι σχολή κακοϋ: Campbell, Jebb, Pearson, Dain are certainly right in accentuating thus, against the MSS’ έν τίνι. σχολή: ‘respite’, just as άνάπαυλαPhil. 878. 1287. κλήθρα: rather the ‘doors’ than the ‘bars’ (cf. Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 808-10). 1289. τον μητρός: μιάστορα (schol.) or something like that is the word the Messenger refrains from reporting, thus bringing about

I

240

COMMENTARY

a striking rhetorical effect: ή συντομία δε πη μεν μεγαλοπρεπής, και μάλιστα ή άποσιώπησις ' ένια γάρ μή ρηθέντα μείζονα φαίνεται καί ύπονοηθέντα μάλλον' (Demetrius, de elocut. § 103, cf. § 264 ή . . . άποσιώπησις . . . δεινότερον ποιήσει τόν λόγον). 1289. άνόσι’: rather 'impure’, ‘sacrilegious’ (even: ‘obscene’) than ‘unholy’. 1290. ώς: ‘since, so he says, . . .’ 1291. μενών . . . ήράσατο: δόμοις is locative, going with μενών; it can not be joined with άραϊος, since he cursed himself (cf. 249-251) not his house: ώς ήράσατο would become meaningless should we join άραϊος with δόμοις (this has been felt by Bruhn who while construing δόμοις with άραϊος declares ώς ήράσατο to be corrupt). W.-B., Campbell, and Roussel have the correct interpretation: ‘under such a curse as he invoked’. 1292. προηγητοϋ: as Teiresias Ant. 990. 1294. δείξει: better taken as impersonal than with Oedipus as subject1). Cf. Ar. Ran. 1261 and the phrase αύτό δείξει. 1296. τοιοϋτον οΐον . . . έποικτίσαι: for the construction cf. Track. 672, 3. I prefer ‘such as even one who hates him might pity’ to 'such as even while hating the sight, one cannot choose but pity’ (defended by Jebb and Campbell). The words are a locus communis: cf. Ai. 924 ώς καί παρ’ έχθροΐς άξιος θρήνων τυχεϊν. 1297-1366. Anapaestic introduction followed by a κομμός; cf. Ant. 1257 sqq. and (more complicated) Trach. 971 sqq. In Oedipus’ first lines the anapaests are continued, then the κομμός proper has mainly dochmiacs on the part of Oedipus, iambics on the the part of the Chorus: the strongest rhythmical expression of pathos is reserved for the protagonist. 1298. δσ’: the accus. with προσέκυρσ’ is remarkable; Jebb and others point to the neutr. plur. accus. of pronouns and adjectives after τυγχάνειν and κύρειν; according to Ellendt the accus. depends on προσ- (unlikely). Perhaps it is best to say that we have to do with a pregnant construction, προσέκυρσ’ amounting to προσιδών δτυχον. 1299, 1300. σ’ . . . προσέβη: the accus. as with έπιβή Ai. 137, 8; the dative Eur. I.T. 195. τλήμον: L has τλήμων and as often the choice is difficult; no need *) Or at any rate as intransitive with τό νόσημα as subject: τί> νόσημα δείξει μεΐζον δν ή φέρειν.

EXODOS, VSS. I289-I306

24I

to read τλαμον: these are no lyric anapaests and it is unmethodical to introduce more ‘Doric’ a’s into the text than the tradition offers. Cf. G. Bjorck, Das Alpha Impurum, p. 238 and p. 234 (ad Aesch. Cho. 384). 1300, 1. τίς ό —ηδήσας . . . μακίστων: for the leaping deity or fate cf. supra 263, infra 1311, Ant. 1345, 6; Aesch. Pers. 515 ώ δυσπόνητε δαϊμον, ώς άγαν βαρύς / ποδοΐν ενήλου παντί Περσικω γένει, Eum. 372, Ag. 1175, 1660. μείζονα . . . των μακίστων: cf. Pl. Gorg. 509 b τούτου μεΐζον μεγ­ ίστου οντος. Cf. Η. Thesleff, Studies on Intensification, p. 128 n. i, who notes that O.T. 1301 is the one single case in poetry of com­ paratives expressing a higher degree than a superlative. μακίστων: thus A, indubitably right against LacAGR κακίστων. 1302. πρύς ση δυσδαίμονι μοίρα: not 'upon thy hapless life’ (Jebb and, with certain variations, others) but ‘in addition to’, ‘on top of your hapless fate’, cf. O.C. 595 πέπονθα, Θησεϋ, δεινά προς κακοΐς κακά. Cp. ν. Wilamowitz’ translation: ‘Auch das noch zu all deinem Schicksal’. The Chorus refers to the blinding. Cf. R. P. WinningtonIngram, Tragedy and Greek Archaic Thought, Classical Drama and its Influence, essays presented to H. D. F. Kitto, London 1965, p. 34. 1303. φεϋ φεϋ δύστανος: thus the reading of the MSS; T has δύσταν’ which is preferred by the majority of editors; it is sometimes altered into δύστην’. If we follow the MSS, the division of the cola has to be as follows: φεϋ φεϋ δύστανος· (hypercatalectic monometer; pause) άλλ’ ούδ’ έσιδεΐν δύναμαι σ’, έθέλων πόλλ’ άνερέσθαι, πολλά πυθέσθαι, πολλά δ’ άθρήσαΐ’ τοίαν φρίκην παρέχεις μοι.

It is perhaps unwarranted to remove the expressive pause after δύστανος l) for the sake of a more normal anapaestic sequence. We can evitate the unusual hypercatalectic monometer by deleting one of the φεϋ’β 2). As to the ‘Doric’ form δύστανος (normal in lyrical passages, always with η in dialogue) no certainty can be reached in anapaests. The sequence Ai. 167-171 is not unlike this one if there my division is accepted. 1303-1306. In the reaction of the Chorus the clash of sentiments *) But δύστανος may have been caused by δύστανος 1308. 2) As is done by Campbell. Kamerbeek,

IV

16

242

COMMENTARY

is evident and natural. Shrinking from the sight of the horror they feel at the same time the desire to know and to see. The Chorus is the interpreter of the spectators’ experience. 1306. φρίκην: ‘shivering fear’ and ‘awe’ (in Soph, only here and fr. 875 P.). Cf. φρΐξαιΚ/. 1408, Track. 1044. 1307, 8. The text of Pearson (αίαί αϊαϊ I —with Pap. and GR — φεϋ φεϋ, / δύστανος έγώ /) is more impressive than for instance: αϊαϊ, φεϋ φεϋ, δύστανος έγώ / but certainty in these matters is of course illusory. 1309. ποϊ γας φέρομαι: the words refer to his blindness hie et nunc but resound with the wider implications of his irretrievable state. 1310. διαπωταται: διαπέταται LA is impossible and so is διαπέπταται GR, wrongly adopted by Dain: the form ruins the metre if from διαπετάννυμι and is probably a ghost-form if from πέτομαι. (πέπτηκα is known only by Choeroboscos, πέπτημαι does not occur .ω. anywhere). Pap. Ox. 1369 has [δι]απ[([ε])]τατ]αι; διαπωταται had been conj ectured by Musgrave, φοράδην: 'borne along with the winds’. 1311. ίώ δαΐμον, ΐν’ έξήλου: a paroemiac of the rare form

έξήλου: a form of the thematic aorist, cf. Aesch. Pers 516 (with Groeneboom’s note and Lautensach, Die Aoriste bei den attischen Tragikern und Komikern, p. 88) and 372. Some prefer to read έξήλω or έξήλλου (but an imperfect is improbable). For ϊνα cf. 947 with note. He refers to his blindness, cf. 1299-1302 and 1328. 1312. ούδ’ ακουστόν: GR have the reading οΰκ ακουστόν, which deserves some consideration; Campbell adopted it, putting a colon after δεινόν. έπόψιμον: For this class of adjectives (-σιμός having the same function as -τος) cf. Debrunner, Gr. Wortbildungslehre, §§ 307, 8). 1313. 4. ΐώ σκότου . . . έμόν: cf. Ai. 394 ΐώ, σκότος, έμόν φάος . . .; νυκτός έμής Α.Ρ. VII 7θθ·Ι· άπότροπον: abominandum, ότιςάνάποτρέποιτο Σ, Hesych. Cf.Ai.608, Aesch. Cho. 155. έπιπλόμενον: 'that has come over me’. Cf. Od. XV 407 ούδέ τις άλλη / νοΰσος έπί στυγερή πέλεται δειλοϊσι βροτοϊσι. άφατον: predicative adjunct, not adverbial, cf. O.C. 1464. 1315. άδάματον: άδάμαστον MSS. The same error had to be corrected in 1. 205. δυσούριστον: either: difficult to guide prosperously, i.e. imtne-

EXODOS,

vss. 1306-1323

243

dicabitis (Brunck)—or: 'inescapable’—(cf. supra 695 κατ’ ορθόν ούρίσας and Eustath. 1452.46 ούρίσαΐ' τδ άποκαταστησαι εις οίίριον), or: ‘wafted to me by an evil fate’ (Campbell) ‘sped by a wind too fair’ (Jebb). The former combines better with άδάματον and is more in harmony with the literal meaning of the word, but the latter gives perhaps a stronger sense. δυσούριστον w: the transmitted text is one syllable short (1323 τυφλόν κηδεύων). G. Hermann’s is a simple remedy, accepted by many edd., though even so the responsion is not complete. Roussel’s (accepted by the Bude edd.) deserves to be taken into con­ sideration, especially if we accept the first mentioned interpretation of δυσούριστον. 1317. οϊμοι μάλ’ αδθις: cf. El. 1416. 1318. κέντρων τε τώνδ’ οϊστρημα: In Bruhn’s commentary we find ad 1296: ‘er halt die περόναι noch in der Hand’, with a reference to this line. But this would create an awkward problem for the stage-manager: for at what moment should Oedipus throw them away? It is probably better to consider κέντρων as referring to the wounds inflicted by the περόναι or / and the piercing pangs caused by them (cf. κέντρα Track. 840). οϊστρημα: a pain, or piercing pang, driving to madness, as if caused by an οίστρος, cf. Track. 1254. The verb οίστρέω in Track. 653. Bodily and mental sufferings alike have taken possession of him. 1319. 20. δίπλα . . . κακά: the fairly banal and cold words are difficult because of the dubious reference of δίπλα and the problem of φέρειν (A, φορεϊν LGR, φρονεϊν Ambros. G 56; φέρειν is apparently a Thoman reading, cf. A. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 60, but this need not mean ‘unauthentic’). Perhaps Jebb’s interpretation has to be followed: ‘that you should mourn (aloud) and (inwardly) suffer a double pain—i.e., the physical pain of the wounds, and the mental pain of retrospect’. One may object that thus the meaning of πενθεϊν is somewhat strained; the words would be easier if instead of φέρειν an infinitive meaning ‘to utter’ could be read: I have thougnt of φέρειν, cf. Trach. 741, Nauck of θροεϊν (>θορεϊν >φορεϊν >φέρειν), retained in Bruhn’s text. 1321. ίώ φίλος: on the nominative instead of the vocative cf. K.-G. I 47 sq. 1322, 3. σύ μέν . . . κηδεύων: similar, in respect of sentiment and rhythm, is the passage Λι'. 348-350.

244

COMMENTARY

μέν: solitarium; σύ is implicitly contrasted with other persons (Denniston G.P.2 381). έπίπολος: άπαξ in Soph, and elsewhere, = πρόσπολος. The reading έμοϊς έπΐ πόνοις (Σγρ) is metrically impossible (έμοϊς πόνοις έπιμόνιμος or έμοϊς πόνοις έπι μόνιμος would be good Greek and good metre), μόνιμος is άπαξ in Soph. με: άπό κοινού with ύπομένεις and κηδεύων, which goes closely with ύπομένεις. κηδεύων: θεραπεύων, cf. O.C. 750. If we read δυσούριστον in 1315, Linwood’s κηδεμών is a way of restoring exact responsion (unnecessary, in my opinion). 1326. καίπερ . . . γε. . . όμως: in this way a close correlation between the apposition of the subject and the object is achieved. σκοτεινός: ‘in darkness’, implying ‘blind’, and echoing σκότου 1313· 1327. τοιαΰτα: adverbial. 1328. όψεις: concrete, just as at Ant. 52. μαράναι: ‘quench’, ‘extinguish’, ‘wither’ cf. Ai. 714. έπηρε: Σ quotes Eur. Or. 286 όστις μ’ έπάρας έ'ργον άνοσιώτατον. 1329. 30. For the view we have to take of Oedipus’ conscious­ ness of his fate and its causes these words are very important; he recognizes the truth of Teiresias’ statement 376,7 (cf. Aiax’ recognition Ai. 401 sqq.), he recognizes the divine agency (i.e. the forces by which the cosmic order is maintained) by which his existence has been governed and his fate sealed. This by no means implies confession of guilt on the part of Oedipus or acknowledge­ ment of the workings of divine justice and still less humble resig­ nation; it does imply recognition of divine power and of the sub­ ordination of the human state. It is doubtful whether or not we have to hear an echo of Cassandra’s etymologizing use of Apollo’s name (Ag. 1080 sqq.) in Oedipus’ outcry. ‘There is evidence in Pl. Cratylus 404 d and 405 e that the etymology ’Απόλλων = ‘destroyer’ was widespread’ (Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 1081). (Note that the first word of the antistrophe is όλο 16’). The text of 1329 is not quite certain: GRAhave ώ φίλοι and the transmitted words of 1349 run όλοιθ’ όστις ήν, δς άπ’ άγριας πέδας, which if retained scan as follows «— >■'bacch. iamb. iamb. This scansion is also possible in 1329 (with ώ) ------v(cf. A. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 124 n. 142). But even if we follow L in 1329 and do not change anything in 1349, responsion

EXODOS, VSS. I326-I339

245

of two dochmiacs is effectuated if we accept a synizesis in άγριας: v—uMv-w- (cf. καρδίας Aesch. Sept. 289, Koster, Traite2 III ii p. 49). And the text of 1349 is not quite certain on account of the difficulties in the next line. In 1330 Lao had ό κακά τελών τάδ’ έμά πάθεα, which, whatever our reading of 1350, is impossible; so the reading of GRA ό κακά κακά τελών έμά (G has έμέ) τάδ’ έμά πάθεα is probable: a dochmiac dimeter with many resolutions is what one would expect. Syntactically the hyperbaton of τάδ’ is very striking (cf. 819); of course it anticipates τάδ’ 1330, but the words ’Απόλλων τάδ’ ήν are suggestive of the idea that in the first instance we are meant to understand: ‘all this was Apollo’ (cp. κούδέν τούτων δ τι μή Ζεύς Track. 1278). Since Oedipus’ physical sufferings are at one with his mental agony it would be a misapprehension of the text if one would observe that Oedipus’ words do not exactly answer the Chorus’ question: the selfblinding directly derives from his fate caused by Apollo. 1331. αύτόχειρ: Since the word can denote 'the very doer’ and ‘the suicide’ (or in general: ‘one who strikes himself’) the proleptic character of the word at this place is less pronounced than would seem at first sight. viv: the reference is to όψεις. 1331, 2. ουτις, άλλ’ έγώ: no other than I myself. 1334, 5. τί: adverbial. δτω γ’: δτω θ’ L would mean: 'and, in general, everyone for whom’; but this would entail ή or εϊη; the reading is impossible. 1336. ήν ταδ’: τάδ’ LA, ταϋθ’ GRA. The latter reading is often accepted, but Nauck’s ταδ’ (retained by Bruhn) seems the subtler solution of the problem. For the form cf. Track. 1024, for the meaning cf. Ai. 950, El. 1302, Phil. 1336, O.C. 1444. καί σύ: i.e. we, too, assent to what you say. 1337-39. τί δήτ’ . . . φίλοι: v. Wilamowitz’ βλ.επτδν ή has the considerable merit of softening the harsh inconcinnity of the trans­ mitted text, and to create a clear contrast between seeing and hearing (with a difference in tense of the main verb, which is all to the good); in this way βλεπτόν, στερκτόν, προσήγορον are no longer on a par. The construction is then as follows: τί βλεπτόν έμοί (άπό κοινού) ήν στερκτόν (predicative) ή προσήγορον (= ‘greeting’ or 'word addressed to me’) ετ’ εστιν (= έξεστιν) άκούειν άδονα (modal dative = ήδέως). These words in a way anticipate 1384-1390.

246

COMMENTARY

1340. έκτόπων: cf. supra 166 with the note. 1341. τδν όλεθρον μέγαν: thus Turnebus’ correction of τον ολέθρων

μέγαν; we have mentally to supply όντα, a not unsurmountable difficulty, pace Jebb; nor would it seem to me that the vigorous, not ‘poetical’ metonymy (cf. Hdt. Ill 142.5) would be out of place, όλεθρος amounts to κάθαρμα, as has been noted long ago by Meineke (cp. Ellendt s.v.) and that is exactly what we want here. Erfurdt’s τον μέγ’ ολέθρων, preferred by W.-B., Jebb, Pearson is rendered by ‘the utterly lost' (J.); it would be better to take ολέθρων in an active or causative sense. 1346. έχθρότατον: elsewhere always έχθιστός in Soph. The use of the rare ‘regular’ form apparently has been caused by the preceding καταρατότατον. 1347. δείλαιε . . . ίσον: the genitivus causae as with τάλας and the like, νοϋ refers to the consciousness, the apprehension of his state, cf. 1318. ίσον is adverbial and comparable to adverbial άμφότερον in Homer and elsewhere (not in Soph.). 1348. ώς σ’ ήθέλησα μήδ’ άναγνώναί ποτ’ άν: thus LGR. A has ποτέ (without αν), a Moschopulean reading according to Turyn {Manu­ script Tradition p. 23). Against άναγνώναί ‘recognize’ it is alleged that the verb does not occur in Tragedy with that meaning save at Eur. Hel. 290 άνεγνώσθημεν άν and that ‘the sense required here, after μηδέ, is to know, not to recognize’ (Jebb). But (1) the meaning is common in Homer, is found in Hdt. II 91.6 and we have no instances of Sophocles’ use of the verb; in Soph, it is άπαξ. (2) As to μήδ’, Campbell aptly remarks that δέ in μηδέ ‘opposes the discovery to what has followed it’. Moreover it would be possible to join μήδ’ with ποτέ (although Soph, normally uses μήποτε = ‘never’) in the sense of omnino non. ‘recognize’ has to be taken in the sense of ‘discover the identity’. Now the words admit of two constructions: σ’ can be taken as the object and as the subject of άναγνώναί (Campbell does not choose between the two interpretations, Mazon, although accepting Dobree’s conjecture μηδαμά γνώναι, opts for the latter: not so the majority of commentators). In the latter case the use of άναγνώναί would come near to that of άνεγνώρισε in Arist. Poet. 1455 b 9 (cp. 1454 b 32 and 1455 b 21), viz. ‘to bring about the άναγνώρισις’. Cp. further note ad 1217 b and cf. Sheppard’s comment. As to the expression of the unattainable wish by ώς ήθέλησα άν cf. Track. 734 ώ μήτερ, ώς άν έκ τριών σ’ έν ε'ιλόμην.

EXODOS, VSS. I34O-I355

247

For the position of άν cf. e.g. Ai. 411 S. πρόσθεν ούτος ούκ έτλη ποτ’ άν. 1349. δλοιθ’ δστις ήν δς άπ’ άγριας πέδας: thus MSS; see for the alternatives of metrical interpretation 1329; I should shrink from altering anything in this line, άγριος as in Phil. 173 νόσον άγρίαν, 267 άγρίω χαράγματι, Track. 1030 and elsewhere. 1350. I νομάδος έπιποδίας έλαβέ μ’ άπό τε φόνου L, έλυσεν GRA (without μ’). L’s reading was apparently also S’s: δστις άπό της άγριας πέδης της διανεμόμενης τούς πόδας μου ελαβεν καί διέσωσε με. The fetters 'feed on’ the feet just as Philoctetes’ νόσος is called διαβόρος νόσος Phil. 7 (cf. Trach. 1084), νομάδος does not differ from νεμομένης; but the first dochmiac has one short syllable too many, unless we are prepared to accept again a synizesis (έπιποδίας). The second dochmiac can be healed by reading μ’ έλαβ’ άπό τε φόνου, a simple transposition of μ’; then nothing would be amiss with the metre if we conjectured έπι πόδας (depending on νομάδος: έπινέμομαι is used of fire and νόσοι), thus: νομάδος έπί πόδας μ’ ελαβ’ άπό τε φόνου. (The second syllable of φόνου cannot be shortened because there is no synaphea, as appears from the strophe). But we have to admit that the cumulation of difficulties in metre and wording (νομάς said of the ‘devouring’ fetters and the unusual construction of λαμβάνω—perhaps we have to understand άπ’ . . . έλαβε = λύσας άπό πέδης μ’ έλαβε—) may lead us to suspect deeper corruption. But neither νομάδ’ (referring to the exposed Oedipus), nor μονάδ’ (Jebb) (and still less νομάδος έπί πόας Muller, Dain) recommend themselves, έλυσεν strikes me as originally a gloss on έλαβε and so I cannot accept Campbell’s text: δλοιθ’ δστις ήν δς άγριας πέδας / νομάδος έπιποδίας έλυσ’ άπό τε φόνου (a iambic tri­ meter), which is his starting-point to read 1330 thus: ό κακά κακώς τελών έμο’ι τάδ’ έμά παθέα (the last word should be πάθη). 1351. έρρυτο: athematic aorist of ρύομαι (Dindorf, followed by others, preferred the unaugmented epic form έρυτο, cf. II. V 23 άλλ’ "Ηφαιστος έρυτο, σάωσε δέ νυκτί καλύψας). The construction with άπό is unusual: genitivus separativus (without preposition) or ύπό, ύπέκ, έκ are noimal. κάνέσωσεν: cf. El. 1133 κάνασώσασθαι φόνου. 1352. ούδέν: adverbial. ές χάριν πράσσων: χαριζόμενος. 1355. άχος: thus A and probably Pap. Ox. 1369. άχθος LGR is metrically impossible. We cannot tell for certain whether in A άχος is a (certain) correction or the authentic reading derived from

248

COMMENTARY

an ancient source. If ήν (MSS) is retained, θανών may be pendent nominative. 1356. θέλοντι . . . ήν: cf. K.-G. I 425 g. In prose: βουλομένφ. 1357. οΰκουν . . . γ’: cf. 565. Clear example of οΰκουν . . . γε negative form of γοϋν. 1357, 8. φονεύς /ήλθον: It is generally agreed among the inter­ preters that this amounts to ές τοσοϋτον ήλθον ώστε φονεύς είναι. I for one have my misgivings about it. The parallels quoted by Jebb and others are far from convincing: Ant. 752 ή κάπαπειλών ώδ’ έπεξέρχη θρασύς (the relation between verb and adjunct is very different from that supposed here), II. XVIII 180 αϊ κέν τι νέκυς ήσχυμμένος έλθη (indubitably έλθη means: ‘returns’, ‘reaches you’ or the like), Xen. An. Ill 2.3 (the correct reading (no conjecture) is τελέθειν), Track. 1157, 8 έξήκεις δ’ ΐνα φανείς is no parallel at all. Injra 1519 άλλα θεοϊς γ’ έχθιστος ήκω indeed is perhaps comparable but the meaning of those words is bound up with the particular idiomatic uses of ήκω, which do not prove much about έρχομαι. Probably the words simply mean: ‘I should never have come , as a murderer of my father’, cf. 1402. 1359. βροτοϊς: daiivus auctoris. ών έφυν άπο: i.e. ταύτης άφ’ ής έφυν. 1360. άθεος: άθλιος MSS. The conjecture (by Erfurdt and others) is widely accepted. The a of άθλιος is long (< αε) and the words would only scan as a dochmiac on the assumption of a very im­ probable synizesis. There is moreover a stylistic advantage in άθεος because its α privans is answered by the α privans of άνοσίων. 'Abandoned of the gods’ cf. 661. άνοσίων: this refers to Iocasta, defiled by Oedipus. 1361. ομογενής· with the same meaning as όμόσπορος 460. The usual meanings of ομογενής are (1) of one and the same family; ομογενή μιάσματα Eur. Med. 1268 denotes ‘bloodshed in a family’. (2) ‘of the same sort’, ‘kind’. The scholion’s explication (έξ ών έτέχθην έξ αυτών και τέτοκα) and Mazon’s (‘qui a la meme descen­ dance quelui-meme'i.e. 'qui a des enfants qui sont sur le meme plan que lui’) are less convincing than Jebb’s: ‘having a common brood (one bom of the same wife) with those (Laius) from whom he sprang’, because (1) thus άνοσίων and άφ’ ών are differentiated (referring to Iocasta and Laius respectively); (2) the meaning attributed to ομογενής is less strained.

EXODOS, VSS. I356-I373

249

1365. πρεσβύτερον: (of things) ‘more important’, ‘more serious’ (cp. antiquius). ετι: thus G. Hermann (the same word in the corresponding place in the strophe) instead of έφυ, metrically impossible and caused by έ'φυν in the preceding line. 1366. τοϋτ’ ελαχ’ Οίδίπους: The third person with the proper name as subject used by the speaker with reference to himself always creates a pathetic effect, as in general the proper name used by its bearer. Cf. Ai. 864 τοϋδ’ ύμ'ιν Αίας τοΰπος ύστατον θροεΐ and the other instances listed by Bruhn Anhang § 261. Similarly Dem. XVIII 303 (after a protasis with εί, just as here) τί Δημοσθένης άδικεΐ; The device is well-known from Virgil (cp. e.g. Aen. X 826) and is extensively used by Racine and other poets of the classical tradition. 1367. ούκ . . . καλώς: the idea expressed is not inconsistent with 1. 1336. From the fact that they agreed to the truth of 1334, 5, it does not follow that to their mind (and not to theirs alone) the self-blinding was the natural response to Oedipus’ situation. 1368. κρείσσων . . . τυφλός: for the personal construction cf. Ant. 547 άρκέσω Θνήσκουσ’ έγώ, supra 1061 άλις νοσοϋσ’ έγώ, Ai. 635 κρείσσων γάρ 'Άιδα κεύθων ό νοσών μάταν. Cp. K.-G. II 59< 6o.g., Goodwin G.M.T. § 899· 1369-1415. In Oedipus’ rhesis addressed to the Chorus the themes of the κομμός are expanded: the defence of his self-blinding (augmented by the wish to be deaf as well), the furious spite at having been saved from destruction, the laments about the murder and the marriage, the wish to be removed or to be done away with, and, underlying the whole, the consciousness of his being cursed. 1369. άριστ’ : adverbial. 1370. έκδίδασκε, συμβούλευ’: the conative force of the present imperat, is clear. 1371-74. This argument in defence of the self-blinding as pre­ ferable to suicide is founded on the archaic idea or belief that the dead retain the use of their organs when in Hades and also the mutilations they have incurred in life. Cf. G. Germain, Gen'ese de I’Odyssee, p. 375 n. 1 and Aesch. Eum. 101 sqq. (with Groeneboom’s note). 1371. βλέπων: probably = εί έβλεπον ‘if I had sight’ (thus Campbell, Jebb, alii). 1373. olv . . . δυοΐν: the dativus incommodi less usual and more

250

COMMENTARY

emphatic than the accusative, common with έργάζομαι, ποιώ etc. 1374. κρεϊσσον’ άγχόνης: graviora quam quae suspendio luantur (Ellendt) ‘too bad for punishment by halter’ but not: ‘such that suicide by hanging would not adequately punish their author’ (Jebb): heroes do not hang themselves, though heroines do. Cf. Eur. Bacch. 246 ταϋτ’ ούχι δεινής άγχόνης έστ’ άξια and on the other hand Eur. Hipp. 1217 κρεϊσσον θέαμα δεργμάτων. Another way of interpretation would be to consider άγχόνη as a strong expression for λύπη,cf. At.Ach. Ι25ταϋτα δήτ’ ούκ άγχόνη; which J. Taillardat *) renders thus: 'n’y a-t-il pas de quoi s’etrangler de colere?’ See further on the popular character of the phrase G. Zuntz’ comment on Eur. Heracl. 246 τόδ’ άγχόνης πέλας 2). 1375, 6. άλλ’ . . . έμοί; : hypophora, a suggestion proffered in order to be rejected, cf. El. 537, Ai. 466; cp. Denniston G.P.2 pp. 10, ii (IV). δήτ’: ‘surely’. τέκνων . . . δψις . . . βλαστοϋσ’: τέκνων όψις is no mere periphrasis of τέκνα but = τέκνα όρώμενα; βλαστοϋσ’, instead of βλαστόντων, is by hypallage attracted to the regimen of τέκνων. Further we might say that δψις forestalls προσλεύσσειν and that this ‘prolepsis’ has caused the assimilation of τέκνα to τέκνων όψις. But the wording remains remarkable and Hartung’s conjecture βλαστόνθ’, although unnecessary, has the merit of drawing attention to its strangeness. Note that by these words a tertium besides death and life in blind­ ness is posited, viz. life with unblinded eyes. τέκνων . . . όψις ήν έφίμερος: = ίμερος ήν έπί τη όψει των τέκνων. 1378. ούδ’ άστυ γ’ κτλ.: SC. έφίμερα ήν προσλεύσσειν έμοί. 1379. των: there is nothing against this form used as relative pronoun by Sophocles. 1380. τραφείς: this has to be taken in the large sense of: ‘who has lived’. κάλλιστ’ άνήρ εις: εϊς intensifies the superlative; cp. Bruhn, Anhang § 181. Correctly paraphrased by Campbell: ‘more than any other single man’; cf. Zlt. 1340 with note, Hdt. VI 127.1 Σμινδυρίδης . . ., δς έπί πλεϊστον δη χλιδής εις άνήρ άπίκετο. έν γε ταϊς Θήβαις: ‘at least in Thebes’ (there may have been others elsewhere). 1382. ώθεϊν άπαντας: cf. 241 ώθεϊν δ’ άπ’ οίκων πάντας. Χ) Les Images d'Aristophane, these Paris 1962, p. 212. *) G. Zuntz, The Political Plays of Euripides, 1955, p. 38 n. 3.

EXODOS, VSS.

1374-1387

251

τον άσεβή: refers to the murderer of Laius still unknown at the time of Oedipus’ ordinance; object of ώθεΐν. 1382. 3. τον έκ θεών / φανέντ’ άναγνον: on a par with τόν άσεβή. Not, in my opinion, ‘that man who has [since] been shown by the gods to be unholy’ (Jebb) but ‘that man who had (through the oracle given to Creon) been shown etc.’ Cp. the wording of 241-243 ώς μιάσματος / τοϋδ’ ήμ'ιν δντος, ώς τδ Πυθικόν θεού / μαντεϊον έξέφηνεν άρτίως έμοί (cf. 96, 7)· But °f course the words are spoken by Oedipus in the full consciousness of the identity between himself and τον άσεβή, τόν . . . άναγνον and so an appositional relation of these words to έμαυτόν can also be heard in the sentence taken as a whole; this ambiguity leads to the correct understanding of καί . . . Λαίου. 1383. κα'ι. . . Λάιου: Logically these words do not belong to what is dependent on έννέπων, though grammatically they do. They are an additional description of the at first anonymous unholy one, not alluded to in the oracle to Creon but conforming to the oracle given to Laius (711 sqq.—τα πάντ’ αν έξήκοι σαφή). They have to be supplied thus: καί γένους τοϋ Λαίου; here expresses the time relation assumed for the preceding member by Jebb. έκ θεών may or may not be supplemented from the foregoing words, και adds this last member to the rest as a climax; its function is comparable to Latin ac quidem, cf. K.-G. II 246.2. 1384. τοιάνδ’ . . . έμήν: ίοΓκηλΐδαοί. 833; μηνύσας ‘having brought to light’: the Latin equivalents are indicare and deferre, έμήν is predicative adjunct. 1385. όρθοϊς ομμασιν: The phrase is used to denote a ‘frank and steady look’, cf. Gow adTheocr. 5. 36; a clear instance is Eur. I.A. 851 ού γάρ όρθοϊς ομμασίν σ’ έτ’ εΐσορώ, / ψευδής γενομένη. But here the contrast ‘seeing’ opp. ‘blind’ is still more important: cf. 419 βλέποντα νϋν μεν ορθ’, έπειτα δέ σκότον (cf. also 328). This recurring contrast is one of the main constitutive patterns of the play, expressive of its inner meaning (cf. note ad 1183). τούτους: probably refers to άπαντας (or to the Chorus and so again in general to the Thebans). 1386. 7. τής άκουούσης / πηγής: the ‘fount of hearing’, a poetic way of denoting ‘the organ of hearing’, or ‘the stream of hearing’, (the use of άκουούσης would come near to that of τό ποθούν Trach. 196) ? Jebb rejects the latter possibility but the idea of ‘flowing’ expressed in a genitivus objectivus dependent on φραγμός ‘fencing

252

COMMENTARY

in’ (a hapax) is attractive. The idea that what is heard is a stream is implied in the χοάνη (‘funnel’, ‘hopper’) of Ar. Thesm. 18. With either interpretation it seems better to join St’ ώτων with φραγμός (thus Ellendt) than with της άκουούσης πηγής. 1387. ούκ αν έσχόμην: indubitably the correct reading against άνεσχόμην LRA: Sv is indispensable. ‘I should not have refrained’. 1388. τό μη άποκλήσαι: for τό μή, where regularly τό μη ού would be used, cf. Goodwin G.M.T. § 812. The connexion is somewhat less close than with the construction τοϋ μή άποκλήσαι. άποκλήσαι: ‘shut uf>, as if in a prison’. (L.-Sc. s.v. II 2; similarly Jebb). We may well ask whether the idea is not rather that of ‘shutting out, excluding from’ sc. human intercourse, άποκλήσαι δέμας is more suggestive of self-willed isolation than of emprisonment. 1389. ϊν’ ή: the imperfect indicative in a final clause dependent on an irrealis is normal (cf. note ad 1392). τυφλός τε και κλύων μηδέν: the second member is the most im­ portant and so the deafness is expressed by means of an emphatic periphrasis; logically the paratactic wording is meant to convey: ‘that so besides being blind (as I am) I should also be deaf’. 1389, 90. τό γάρ / ... . γλυκύ: for this death-in-life the same will hold good (so he supposes for a moment) as for death itself: τούς γάρ θανόντας ούχ όρώ λυπουμένους (ΕΙ. 1170). The thought expressed in Ai. 554 b μή φρονεϊν γάρ κάρτ’ άνώδυνον κακόν is related but not the same. In our passage it is vainly supposed that not hearing, not seeing will lead man’s thought (or consciousness) out of reach of evil. The words suffer from an inner contradiction (φροντίς itself is a word of ambiguous meaning) and are as such expressive of Oedipus’ desperate state of mind, την φροντίδ’ is surely not the object of οΐκεϊν (as suggested by Campbell as an alternative interpretation). 1391. ΐώ Κιθαιρών: here happens what Teiresias had predicted 421 sqq. Cf. 1452. The name Κιθαιρών recurs seven times in O.T.; the outcry ΐώ Κιθαιρών is sufficient for Epictetus I 24.16 and Marcus Aurelius XI 6 to make the reader understand that the Oedipus of Sophocles is spoken of (note of Bruhn). The apostrophe of a τόπος (which in rhetorical theory is considered as a means to arouse έλεος) is a device much used by Sophocles: Ai. 412, 859, Ant. 843, Phil. xo8i, 1452, 936. In his hands it is a mighty means of showing man is his pathetic relation to his ‘Umwelt’, past or present.

EXODOS, VSS. I387-I397

233

τί μ’ έδέχου: very well paraphrased by Campbell: 'Why did you not refuse to receive me ?’ 1392. ώς: with the indicative because the final clause is dependent on a main clause which implies a condition that can not be fulfilled, Goodwin G.M.T § 333 (the case is intrinsically the same as with ίνα 1389). Cf. Gow ad Theocr. 4. 49. έδειξα: note that stress is laid on the horror of the disclosure, i.e. of the πράγματα of the play itself. 1394, 5. πάτρια/λόγω: λόγω qualifies πάτρια. 1396. κάλλος κακών δπουλον: ούλή = scar; so the proper meaning of ύπουλος is 'being found under a scar’, cf. Hippocr. περί ίητροϋ ii τά συριγγώδη καί όσα ύπουλά έστι καϊ έντοσθε κεκοιλασμένα. Then it is used of the wound scarred over but with an ulcer festering under­ neath the smooth surface. Then in general and figuratively of fair surfaces with evils lurking underneath, of what is seemingly sound, but in reality unsound, afflicted with hidden diseases. Since this easily merges into ‘filled with hidden diseases’ (or the like) Soph, can construe it with a genitive. Instances of the ‘concrete’ use of κάλλος are listed in L.-Sc. s.v. 2. The Trojan horse was called ύπουλος by Soph. (fr. 1105 P.) and well-known instances of the metaphorical use of the word occur in Dem. XVIII 307 ησυχίαν δπουλον, Pl. Gorg. 480 b δπουλον την ψυχήν, and cp. 318 ε, Thue. VIII 64. 5 δπουλον αύτονομίαν. It is not impossible that by the Greek linguistic consciousness οδλος ‘baneful’ was also felt to be present in ύπουλος; another explication of the genitive κακών may also be taken into consideration: 'a fair surface under which the scar of evils