The Antigone 9004057374, 9789004057371

Citation preview

THE PLAYS OF SOPHOCLES BY

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

COMMENTARIES PART ΙΠ

THE ANTIGONE

LEIDEN

E. J. BRILL 1978

ISBN 90 04 05737 4 Copyright 1978 by E. J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands

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

In memoriam Fratris

PRAEFATIO Ad hunc commentarium praeparandum multum mihi profuit quod consulere potui notas uberrimas quas C. W. Vollgraff v.cl., magister meus aestumatissimus, in usum praelectionum illarum, quas identidem de hac tragoedia habuit in Universitate Rhenotraiectina sc. annis 1917, T8; 1922, ’23; 1928-1930; 1935, ’36; 1942, ’43; 1945, ’46, collegerat. Quae notae re vera commentarium perpetuum efficiunt ad versus 1-625 pertinentem; additus autem est textus integer Antigonae accuratissime sermone Batavo con­ versus. Magno gaudio mihi fuit quod rursus statuere potui, quoties ille vir, qui ut aliorum ita meum animum ad amorem et studium Sophoclis excitavit, verum viderit ubi alii erraverant, quoties affinitate animi, quae vocatur, animo poetae se conjunctum esse ostenderit. Aliud subsidium mihi obtulit L. van Paassen-van Oosten, disci­ pula mea, quae curavit ut copiae laboris critici his octoginta annis in textu Sophoclis impensi mihi commode praesto essent. Restat ut gratias agam amico David Reid, qui nunc quartum operam dedit ut commentarius anglice scriptus quam minime vitiis laboraret.

Santpoort, mense Aprili MCMLXXVII

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI QUEM CONSTITUIT A. C. PEARSON DIFFERT

4 14 42 45

50,

57 71 82

94

102 108

113 126

130

134

I οδτ’ άτης άτερ f:—ούδ' "Ατης άτερ—Ρ. Maas: οδτ’ άτης γέμον G. Hermann, Campbell Par. Soph. pp. 2, 3. θανόντων codd., edd. plurimi: θανόντοιν Blaydes, Pearson. ποΐ LAR, W.-B.,1), Bruhn, Dain: ποϋ A, Campbell 2), Jebb, Pearson. τόν γοΰν έμόν, καί τον σόν ήν σύ μή θέλης, Vahlen: τον γοϋν έμόν καί τόν σόν, ήν σύ μή θέλης, edd. plurimi, Pearson. 51 άπώλετο / . . . άμπλακημάτων,: άπώλετο, / . . . άμπλακη­ μάτων Pearson, alii. έπαλλήλοιν Jebb, alii: έπ’ άλλήλοιν codd., Pearson, alii. όποια σοι: όποϊά σοι Pearson, alii: οποία σοι Ven. Marc. 47ζ» edd. complures. οϊμοι ταλαίνης, W.-B., Jebb, alii: οϊμοι, ταλαίνης Pearson, G. Μ tiller: non interpunxit Bruhn. έχθρά δέ τω θανόντι, προσκείση Δίκη. Lehrs, Vollgraff: έχθρά δέ τω θανόντι προσκείση δίκη, fere edd., Pearson: κάτω (pro δίκη) L. Dindorf, G. Muller. προτέρων LR, Campbell, Jebb, W.-B., Bruhn: πρότερον A, Pearson, Dain. όξυτόρω LAA, Vollgraff, Lloyd-Jones, G. Mtiller: όξυτέρω RMlemLE, edd., Pearson. ές γάν Δς codd., edd. multi (inveniuntur είς, γήν, ώς): Δς omiserunt G. Hermann, Pearson: Δς γαν είς G. Mtiller. "Αρεος άντιπάλω, / δυσχείρωμα δράκοντος tentavi: άντιπάλω . . . δράκοντι LRAL, Campbell, Bruhn: άντιπάλου . . . δράκοντος A8lL“, W.-B., Pearson, Dain: "Αρεος, άντι­ πάλω δυσχείρωμα δράκοντος Jebb. χρυσού καναχής ύπεροπλίαις, Vauvilliers, edd. multi: ύπεροπτίας fere codd., ύπερόπτας LrA8: χρυσού καναχής, ύπερόπτας, Pearson: χρυσού καναχής ύπερόπτης, Campbell (sed cf. Par. Soph. p. 7). τανταλωθείς, comma addidi.

*) Wolff-Bellermann**, 1885. *) Sophocles I*, 1879. Sed praefert ποΐ Par. Soph., p. 4. Par. Soph. = Paralipomena Sophoclea, 1907.

X

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

196 έφαγνίσαι LA, Campbell, Jebb: άφαγνίσαι A, Pearson, Dain, alii. 203 έκκεκηρύχθαι τάφω codd., W.-B., i.e. έκκεκηρϋχθαι: έκκεκήρυκται τάφω Musgrave, edd. plurimi, Pearson. 208 τιμήν codd., W.-B.: τιμή Linwood, Pallis, Jebb, Bruhn, Pearson. 210 έκ γ’ έμοϋ LARA: έξ έμοϋ LJ'1’P, edd. plerique, Pearson. 211 παϊ Μενοικέως Κρέον (vel Κρέων) fere codd., edd. multi: ποιεϊν Lbmar8, Martin, Pearson: τδ δράν W.-B. 213 παντί που τοι ’νεστί σοι vel παντί που τοΰνεστί σοι tentavi: παντί πού τ’ ένεσή σοι codd.: παντί πού γ’ ένεσή σοι edd. plurimi: παντί, τοΰτ’ ενεστί σοι Pearson: που μέτεστί σοι Dindorf (1836), W.-B. 215 είρημένων.: είρημένων .... W.-B., Pearson, alii. 218 άλλω LRA, Campbell: άλλ]ο LBl edd. plurimi, Pearson. 223 τάχους ύπο codd., edd. plerique: σπουδής ύπο Arist. Rhet. Ill 14. 1415 b 20, Pearson. 231 σχολή, βραδύς, post σχολή interpunxit Vollgraff. 241 στοχάζη codd., edd. plurimi: στιχίζη Pearson. 241, 242 κύκλω· / τδ πράγμα δηλοϊς δ’ ως τι σημαίνων νέον. tentavi. 242 σημαίνων Pap. Oxy. 875, LRA, W.-B., Dain: σημανών 7 codd. ‘Thomani’ (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 61) T Ta, edd. plurimi, Pearson. 269 δς codd.: δ Nauck, Bruhn, Pearson. 280 καί με Seidler, W.-B., Jebb, Campbell, Par. Soph. p. ix: κάμδ codd., edd. plurimi. 298, 299 —καί . . . / χρηστάς—. . . βροτούς: βροτούς L—καί . . . χρηστάς—Vollgraff: και ... / χρηστάς . . . βροτών Α, edd., Pearson. 318 τί δαί LAA, Wex, Campbell, W.-B., Kuiper: ή δέ R Plut. mor. 509 c v.l. (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 124), edd. plurimi. 320 άλημα Boeckh (e Σ), alii: λάλημα ARA, edd. plerique, Pearson: άλάλημα Lac. 323 ω δοκεϊ L, Jebb, W.-B., Dain: ήν δοκή LelA: ήν δοκεϊ R: δοκεϊ Λ: ώ δοκή Campbell, Bruhn, Pearson. 343 £γει fere codd. (έχει άγει Lac), edd. plurimi: άγρεϊ Nauck, Pearson. 351 ύπάξεται Brunck, Tournier, Vollgraff, Dain, alii: άξεται AR, έξεται LA, ύπαξέμεν Pearson, | Campbell: δχμάζεται

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

XI

Schone, Jebb, Bruhn: ύφέλκεται Campbell Par. Soph., pp. 12, 13. 367 έρπει-: έρπει, Pearson. 368 f παρείρων f codd.: περαίνων Pflugk, Pearson: γεραίρων Reiske, edd. complures. 369 δίκαν vel δίκαν,: δίκαν · Pearson. 376»377 άμφινοώ / τόδε · codd., edd. plerique: άμφινοώ, / τό δέ Platt, Pearson. 378 τήνδ’ οΰκ codd., edd. plerique: μή ού τηνδ’ G. Hermann, Pearson. 403 ξυνιεϊς: ξυνίης Pearson, alii. 413 έγερτί, κινών: έγερτί κινών Pearson, edd.. 414 άφειδήσοι codd., Campbell1), Bruhn, Dain, G. Miiller: άκηδήσοι Bonitz, W.-B., Jebb, Pearson. 439 πάντα ταϋΘ’ codd., edd.: τάλλα πάνθ’ Blaydes, Housman, Pearson. 451,452 Δίκη· I ού τούσδ’ Rauchenstein, Vollgraff, Dain:, / o£ τούσδ’ codd. Boeckh, Campbell, W.-B.: Δίκη /τοιούσδ’ Valckenaer, edd. multi, Pearson: ώρισαν codd.: ώρισεν Valckenaer, edd. multi, Pearson. 471 τδ γέννημ’ LR, edd. plurimi: τό γοϋν λήμ’ Blaydes, Pearson. 500 ποτέ·: ποτέ, Campbell, Pearson. 519 τούτους fere codd., Campbell, Jebb, Dain: ίσους ΣΎΡ, W.-B., Bruhn, Pearson. 520 ίσος LRA, Campbell, W.-B., Dain: ίσον 8 ‘Thomani’ (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 62) TTa, Pearson: ίσα Bergk, Bruhn: ίσους Nauck, Jebb, G. Muller. 557 μέν σοί L2 (μέν σοι), Tournier, Vollgraff: μέν τοΐς AU, edd. plerique, Pearson: μέν τ’ ού LacR, μέντοι L°. 563 άλλ’ ού γάρ Plut. Phoc. I, Mor. 460 d, Boeckh, Vollgraff, G. Muller: ού γάρ ποτ' codd., edd. plerique, Pearson. 578 έκ δέ τοϋδε RAL“, Campbell, W.-B., Jebb, Kuiper: έκ δέ τασδε LacA unde έκδέτας δέ Engelmann, Dain, έκδέτους δέ Bruhn, Pearson, G. Mulier, εδ δετάς δέ Seyffert. 586 πόντιας άλδς codd.: ποντίαις Elmsley, edd. complures: πόντιας Wilamowitz, Dain: πόντιον Schneidewin, Bruhn, Pear­ son, G. Miiller. 598 λύσιν ■ Blaydes (ed. 1905), ego: λύσιν. codd., edd.. ') Cf. Par. Soph., p. 14.

XII

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

602 χόνις codd., edd. complures: κοπίς Jortin, Reiske, edd. com­ plures, Pearson, Lloyd-Jones, G. Mulier. 614 f πάμπολις f codd.: πάμπολύ γ’ Heath, edd. multi, Pearson. 663-667 non transponuntur post 671: transposuerunt Seidler, Pearson, G. Muller. Cf. Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 883, p. 397 η. I. 664 τοϊς κρατοϋσιν έννοεϊ AALr, Dain: τοΐς κρατύνουσιν νοεί LR, edd. plerique, Pearson: παντελές Hartung, W.-B. 673 αΰτη πόλεις όλλυσιν, ήδ’ 7 ‘Thomani’ (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 63) TTa, edd. plerique: πόλεις τ’ RA, Campbell, Pearson: πόλις Θ’ LA, πόλις τ’ LslABl. 674 σύν μάχη δορός A, Bergk, Campbell: συμμάχη δορός LAR: συμμάχου δορός Reiske, Bothe, Tournier, W.-B., Jebb, Kuiper, Bruhn, Masqueray, Dain: συμμάχους δορός G. Muller: τ’ έν μάχη δορός Pearson. 687 χάτέροι Musgrave, ego dubitanter: χατέρω codd., edd. pleri­ que: χάτέρως LEMlem, Erfurdt, Pearson. 688 σοϋ δ’ οΰν πέφυκα L, edd. plerique: σοΐ RAL81, W.-B.: σΰ δ’ ού πέφυκας LTP, Pearson. 690 Lacunam unius versus quam post hunc versum indicaverunt Dindorf, Pearson reicio. 700 έπέρχεται codd.: ΰπέρχεται van Herwerden, Pearson. 710 Textus continuatur sine recessu. 715 εγκρατής A, Erfurdt, Bruhn, Dain: έγκρατεϊ L R: εγκρατή (LBl), edd. plurimi, Pearson. 721 τόν άνδρα codd., edd.: τιν’ άνδρα Blaydes, Pearson. 725 διπλά codd., Campbell, Jebb, Kuiper: διπλή G. Hermann, ed. multi, Pearson. 751 ήδ’ ούν codd., edd. plerique: ή(ή) δ’ οΰν Hartung, Pearson. 755 εΐπον άν σ’ Platt: εΐπον άν σ’ codd., edd., Pearson. 773 στίβου tentavi: στίβος codd., edd., Pearson. 782 κτήμασι codd., Korais, edd. plurimi varie interpretantes: κτηνεσι Brunck, Pearson. 817, 818 ούκοϋν νεκύων · sic interpunxi:, edd., Pearson. 828 δμβρφ codd., Campbell, Dain: όμβροι Musgrave, edd. plurimi, Campbell Par. Soph. p. 31, Pearson. 831 Θ’ codd., Campbell, Dain: δ’ Bothe, edd. plurimi, Pearson. 840 ούλομεναν Jacobs, Campbell, Bruhn, Dain: όλομέναν LRA: οίχομέναν Martin, edd. multi, Campbell Par. Soph. p. 31, Pearson: όλλομέναν 5 ‘Thomani’ (Turyn, Manu­ script Tradition p. 63): όλλυμέναν TTa.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

XIII

Ιω δύστανος, | οΰτ’ έν βροτοΐσ(ιν) fere codd., οΰτ’ . . . νεκροΐσιν οΰτ’ έν νεκροΐσιν f crucibus inclusi, βροτοϊς / οΰτε νεκροΐσιν Pearson (βροτοϊς Boeckh, Gleditsch: alii alia). 855 προσέπεσες, ώ τέκνον, πολύ· A, Tournier, Campbell, W.-B., Jebb, Dain: πολύν L 4 ‘Thomani’: πολεά R: προσέπαισας 5 ‘Thomani’ TTa (cf. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 63), unde πολύ προσέπαισας, ώ τέκνον Pearson. 858 οίκτον LRA, edd. multi: οϊτον V (Ven. 468) v.l., Bruhn, Pearson. 865, 866 ματρός· / οίων: ματρός, I οίων Pearson, ahi. 884 εί χρείη λέγε tv fere codd., edd. plerique: λέγων Vauvilliers, Kuiper (in apparatu), Pearson, G. Muller. 885 τάχιστα; edd. complures: τάχιστα, alii, Pearson. 899 κάρα·: κάρα. Pearson. 933. 934 Άν. codd. Σ, Campbell, W.-B., Jebb, Kuiper, Dain: Xo. Lehrs, Nauck, Tournier, Bruhn, Pearson, G. Muller. 948 Wieseler: G. Hermann, edd., Pearson. 966-970 παρά δέ Κυανεαν πελάγει διδύμας όλος / άκτάν Βοσπορίαν ίν’ ό Θρηκών / Σαλμυδησσός, Άρης άγχίπολις / Κυανεαν . . . άλδς Jebb, Βοσπορίαν ίν’ . . . . . . άγχίπολις Άρης J. Jackson: παρά δε κυανέων πελαγέων πετρών διδύμας άλδς / άκταί Βοσπόριαι ήδ’ ό Θρηκών / Σαλμυδησσός, ίν’ άγχίπολις Άρης / fere codd., πελαγέων om. Τ, ϊδ’ Τ, δν L881: παρά δέ κυανέαιν σπιλάδοιν (Blaydes) διδύμας άλδς / άκταί Βοσπόριαι ίδ’ ό Θρηκών (Meineke) / Σαλμυδησσός, ίν’ άγχίπολις Άρης Pearson: alii alia. 1032 λέγοι LAR, edd. multi: λέγει A: φέρει 6 ‘Thomani’ (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 64) TTa, Pearson. 1036 κάμπεφόρτισμαι LB, edd. complures: κάκπεφόρτισμαι ARA edd. complures, Pearson. 1037 τ°'ν πΡ°ζ Σάρδεων RA, Tournier, Dain: τα προ L τδν πρδ LslA: τάπδ Blaydes, Nauck, edd. multi, Pearson. 1040 ούδ’ εί θέλουσ’ ARA, edd. plerique: ού δή L, unde ούδ’ ήν θέλωσ’ Blaydes (θέλωσ’ iam Bergk, sed non in textu), Pearson. 1056 τδ δ’ έκ codd., edd. plerique: τδ δέ γε Bischopp, Pearson. 1080 έχθραί codd., edd. plurimi: έχθρα Reiske, Pearson, Dain. 1089 ήσυχώτερον codd., edd. plurimi: ήσυχαίτερον Schaefer, Pearson.

850, 851

XIV

1090 1134 1135 1151 1182 1219 1247 1279,

1291 1293 1301

1303

1314 1319

1336

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

ή νϋν codd., edd. plerique: ών νϋν Brunck, Pearson. έπέων codd., edd. plerique: έπεταν Pallis, Bruhn, Pearson. Θηβαίας codd.: Θηβαίας G. Hermann, Pearson. Θυιάσιν codd.: Θυίαισιν Boeckh, edd.. πάρα codd., edd. plurimi: πέρα Brunck, Bruhn, Pearson, G. Miiller. χελεύσμασιν codd., edd. plurimi: κελευσμάτων Burton, Schneidewin, Bruhn, Pearson. γόους codd., edd.: γόου Pearson. 1280 φόρων ήκειν codd., Campbell, W.-B., Jebb, Dain: φέρειν .../.../ ήκων Blaydes, Pearson: ήκων Brunck: φέρειν Hartung, G. Muller: alii aliter. Fortasse v. 1279 post 1280 legendus est. επ' όλέθρω: έπ’ όλέθρω, Pearson. ’Εξ codd., edd. complures: Xo. Erfurdt, alii, Pearson. ϊδ’, όξύπληκτος ήδε βωμία πέριξ (ϊδ’ Seyffert, όξύπληκτος Hartung): ήδ’ όξύθηκτος ήδε βωμία πέριξ codd.: ή δ’ όξύπληκτος ήμένη δέ βωμία Pearson: alii alia. κλεινόν λέχος codd., Campbell, Tournier: κλεινόν λάχος Bothe, W.-B., Jebb, Kuiper, Dain: κενόν λέχος Seyffert, Pearson. κάπελύσατ’ codd., edd.: κάπελύετ’ Pearson. έγώ γάρ σ’ έγώ έκανον, ώ μέλεος G. Hermann, W.-B., Kuiper, Dain: εγώ γάρ σ’ έγώ έκανον, ώ (ώ) μέλεος codd., Campbell, Tournier, Jebb: έγώ γάρ σ’ έγώ ’κανον, ίώ μέλεος Bruhn, Pearson. έρώ μέν A et plerique, Jebb, W.-B., Kuiper, Dain: μέν omisit L: έρώμεν V (Ven. 468), G. Hermann, Bruhn, Pearson, G. Mulier: έρώμαι Campbell (sed cf. Par. Soph. p. 46).

\

INTRODUCTION Sources With one possible exception which, if it is accepted, is a very important one, the sources we can trace of the materials which Sophocles may have used in composing his Antigone are extremely scanty. For though the story of Laius, Oedipus cum suis and the expedition of the Seven against Thebes were, to be sure, known from epic poetry, we do not know (i) whether according to it Polynices' burial was forbidden (z) nor whether Antigone played any part. In the ‘Cyclic’ Thebaid. the death of the brothers indubita­ bly occurred, but Pind. 01. VI 12 sqq. renders it uncertain, to say the least, whether Polynices’ corpse did not belong to the corpses of Adrastus’ fallen warriors to be burned near Thebes **). There is not a single trace of evidence in the remnants of ancient epic tradi­ tion concerning Antigone’s burying her brother in spite of anybody’s ban. It is hardly a remnant of this nature which we find in [Apollod.] Ill 7.1.1: ’Αντιγόνη δέ, μία των Οίδίποδος θυγατέρων, κρύφα τό Πολυνείκους σώμα κλέψασα έθαψε, καί φωραθεϊσα ύπό Κρέοντος αύτοΰ (αύτ'"' R, αύτην Α) τω τάφω ζώσα ένεκρύφθη. Even if we read, with Lloyd-Jones 2), αύτή έν τω τάφω, understanding, as v. Wilamowitz did ’), that she was buried in the very grave she had delved for her brother, this does not prove that this detail reflects epic tradition (as Lloyd-Jones supposes v. Wilamowitz thought it to do, but cf. v. Wilamowitz o.l. p. 92 n, 1). Besides, the reading is uncertain (we might, e.g., conjecture αύτή τάφω τω) and we may easily suppose that the mythographer, while following on the whole Sophocles’ version, did not exactly remember the details of Antigone’s fate according to the latter. In Salustios’ hypothesis (II) we read: στασιάζεται δέ τά περί την ήρωίδα ιστορούμενα καί την άδελφήν αύτης Ίσμήνην. ό μέν γάρ 'Ιων έν τοϊς διθυράμβοις (von Blumenthal, Ion von Chios, 1939, nr. 36, P.M.G. 740) καταπρησθήναί φησιν άμφοτέρας έν τω ίερω της "Ηρας I.

*) Cf. Bruhn, Einleitung Antigone, p. 3. (It may be a case of Pindar’s glossing over a tradition disreputable to Thebes). Cf. also Nem. IX 23, 4, Schmid, G.L.G. I 3 (1940), p. 453, n. 5. *) The end of the Seven against Thebes, Cl. Qu. N.S. IX 1 (1959). p. 96. ·) Aischylos, Interpretationen (1914), p. 92.

INTRODUCTION

2

ύπό Λαοδάμαντος του Έτεοκλέους. If Ion drew this datum from epic tradition, one might think of the Epigoni and surmise that Laodamas, Eteocles’ son, punished the sisters for having been partial to Polynices, for instance by having tried to bury him. But this is no more than guesswork. The text of hypothesis II continues thus: Μίμνερμος δέ φησι την μέν Ίσμήνην προσομιλοϋσαν Θεοκλυμένω ύπό Τυδέως κατά Άθηνάς έγκέλευσιν τελευτησαι (//. 21 Bergk, West); probably a clause relating to Antigone has dropped out1). Ismene’s death by Tydeus’ hand is also mentioned by Pherecydes (3 F 95. i6sqq. Jac. = schol. Eur. Phoen. 53), the same fragment which mentions Antigone, Ismene, Eteocles and Polynices as being Euryganeia’s children 2). The occurrence of Antigone in one of the epic poems dealing with Thebes and its heroic saga as the sister who vindicated her brother’s right to burial is no more than a possibility; at most, on general grounds, a probability. But Paus. IX 25.2, after mentioning των πυλών έγγύτατα των Νηϊστών Menoikeus’ μνήμα and the fact that the spot at which Oedipus’ sons killed each other was not far away, has the following curious information: καλείται δέ ό σόμπας τόπος οΰτος Σϋρμα ’Αντιγόνης· ώς γάρ τόν τού Πολυνείκους άρασθαί οί προθυμουμένη νεκρόν ούδεμία έφαίνετο ραστώνη δεύτερα έπενόησεν έλκειν αύτόν, ές δ είλκυσέ τε καί έπέβαλεν έπΐ τοϋ Έτεοκλέους έξημμένην την πυράν. This may point to a Theban tradition, which may or may not have found its way into epic poetry (more likely not, since otherwise Pausanias who was well-read might be expected to have mentioned it), but which knew of Antigone’s heroic act, in a version perceptibly different from Sophocles’. The fact that in Euripides’ Antigone the heroine did not die but was allowed to live on as Haemon’s wife and bear him a son (Hypothesis I, schol. Soph. Ant. 1351) proves that her heroic death was not an unalterable, as it were canonized datum of epic tradition (the story in Hyginus 72 may derive from Astydamas’ Antigone) 3) as were the death of her brothers or, say, the return of Philoctetes to Troy. It remains possible that Sophocles did borrow some features of his story from epic tradition (Antigone, Ismene, Hae­ mon ‘) were mentioned in it); on the whole it seems more probable *) s) 3) *)

See M. Pohlenz, Die Griechische Tragodie1, Erlduterungen. p. 79. See my Introduction to O.T., pp. 2 sq.. Cf. T. B. L. Webster, The Tragedies of Euripides (1967), p. 182. See my Introduction to O.T., p. 2.

INTRODUCTION

3

he drew, in this case, from local Theban legend, which may easily be imagined as not fixed, certainly not authoritative, and so allowing him a large margin of liberty. The exception alluded to in the first lines of this § is, of course, the end of the transmitted text of Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes. The very full and shrewd discussion by Mr. Lloyd-Jones of the chances of its being authentic * *), although not meeting with general assent2), is as impressive a vindication of its authenticity as can be thought of in re dubia and I for one, though not entirely convinced, am inclined to accept his opinion or part of it. If it is accepted, the relation between Sophocles’ Antigone and Aeschylus' Septem is to be regarded as similar, up to a point, to that between the former’s Electra and the latter’s Choephoroi. The idea of composing a tragedy centred on a subordinate figure in the play of his predeces­ sor, a subordinate figure whose tragic potentialities had only been indicated, is just what we may expect of Sophocles, whose tragic art is concerned with the individual’s act and fate. In the last twohundred lines of Aeschylus’ Septem as transmitted, when the corpses of Eteocles and Polynices have been carried on to the stage (848 sqq.), the arrival of Antigone and Ismene as wallers is announced by the Coryphaeus (861-874). This is followed by a dirge of four antistrophic pairs; it is not certain whether or not the sisters partake in this song. But undoubtedly most of the ensuing lyric stichomythia (961-1004) is sung by the sisters; its last lines run: Άντ. ίώ, ποϋ σφε θήσομεν χθονός; / Ίσμ. ίώ, δπου τιμιώτατον. ’Αντ. ίώ ίώ πημα πατρί πάρευνον. Immediately thereupon enters a Herald, who proclaims a decree of the δήμου πρόβουλοι: Eteocles, saviour of the πόλις, who was killed ιερών πατρώων όσιος ών will be buried γης φίλαις κατασκαφαϊς; Polynices, betrayer and destroyer of his country, will be thrown to the dogs and the birds of prey: thus, even dead, άγος . . . κεκτήσεται θεών πατρώων. No single burial rite is allowed to be performed in his behalf (1005-1025). Against this decree Antigone declares that she, alone if needs be, ■) Cl. Qu. 1959, pp. 80-115, with full bibliography of the problem. *) Cf. A. Lesky, G.G.L’, p. 288; G. Muller, Sophokles Antigone (1967), p. 21; Page in his Oxford text of Aeschylus (1973) ad Sept. 861; R. D. Dawe, The End of Seven against Thebes, Cl. Qu. N.S. XVII 1 (1967), pp. 16-28; P. Nicolaus, Die Frage nach der Echtheit der Schlusseene von Aischylos' Sieben gegen Theben, Tubingen, 1967; A. L. Brown, The End of the Seven against Thebes, Cl. Qu. 1976, pp. 206-219. But see also H. Erbse, Zur Exodos der Sieben, Serta Turyniana (1974), pp. 169 sqq..

4

INTRODUCTION

will bury her brother. In the ensuing altercation with the Herald she perseveres in her decision. The play is concluded by a remark­ able device: one hemichorion follows Eteocles, the other Polynices to their burial, the former, we may surmise, accompanied by Ismene, the latter by Antigone. It goes without saying that, if Aeschylus is the poet of these scenes, his relation to epic tradition, in this respect, remains in details as obscure for us as Sophocles’, if the latter is really the first in introducing Antigone and the ban on Polynices burial into tragedy. But it is perhaps easier to imagine the story of the Antigone as having originated in Sophocles’ mind as the result of his having pondered the dramatic possibilities suggested to him by such final scenes as those of the Septem than to suppose either that he invented freely or that he combined certain data of epic (or popular) tradi­ tion without having had the incentive with which the sketchy treatment of a promising theme in his predecessor’s play might be expected to have provided him. It is simply not true to aver that the final scenes of the Septem undeniably presuppose Sophocles’ Antigone. If they are an inter­ polator’s work, one would have supposed him to have followed Sophocles much more closely. In the decree as proclaimed by the Herald death as the sanction for disobedience is not even mentioned. If Lloyd-Jones (o.l. pp. 97 sq.) is right in his interpretation of 1035-1037 (Antigone 'may have thought of laying his (Polynices’) head upon her shoulder, putting her arms round him, and thus dragging him along the ground’ (see also Groeneboom a.l.; but the interpretation is far from certain), the burial here envisaged is widely different from the facts we hear of in the Antigone. I am inclined to the view that the facts about the burial of Polynices as represented in these final scenes are more likely to derive from a shifting epic tradition than would those we find in Sophocles, had they come about without a scenic intermediary such as occurs at the end of the Septem. This is no more than a rather subjective impres­ sion. But Lloyd-Jones is certainly right in stating that θρήνος and burial, (—at any rate of Eteocles; the restriction is mine—) are what we would expect as the finale of the Septem. If, however, the burial of Eteocles was obligatory, the problem of Polynices’ burial could not be left out of account. The possibility can not be ruled out that Sophocles found the main theme of his tragedy in another Aeschylean play, sc. the

INTRODUCTION

5

Epigoni, but of that tragedy we do not know anything. In Euripides’ Supplices (and probably also in Aeschylus’ Eleusinii), Polynices’ corpse had fallen under the same ban as those of the other warriors of Adrastus’ army and is burned and buried with the others at Eleusis after Theseus’ victory over the Thebans 4). The upshot of all this is far from satisfactory. One would fain assume 2) that the μ,ϋθος of the Antigone is Sophocles’ own free inven­ tion but for the singularity of such a case, not only in Sophocles. Although in a lesser degree than with epic poetry, ‘tradition’ and ‘design’ are the tragedians’ warp and woof. But even if the core of the fable was to be found in epic tradition (or elsewhere) and even if the authenticity of the final scenes of the Septem deserves more belief than they are nowadays generally credited with 3), we may safely state that in the Antigone the handling of the story and the building up of the conflict and its outcome are as original as anything in Greek Tragedy. This is in keeping with the fact that 'tragic irony’ in its strict sense (such as we encounter to so marked a degree in the Oedipus) does not play an outstanding part in the Antigone·, the audience is not supposed to be aware beforehand of the presuppositions of the dramatic action and its outcome or, at least, to a much lesser extent than, for instance, in the case of the Oedipus Tyrannus or the Electra or even the Trachiniae. 2. Prior assumptions of the play

The old evils associated with Labdacus’ lineage are presupposed (594 sqq. Chor.) and Creon’s decree, promulgated before the beginning of the drama, is regarded by Antigone as belonging to the ‘ills derived from Oedipus’ (2): i.e. Oedipus’ imprecation upon his sons is implied in this phrase, but nowhere mentioned expressis verbis, no more than is the Άρά or the Έρινύς of the house (but cp. άραΐος 867 Ant.), but the doom is implied in the enumeration 49-57 (Ism.): Oedipus’ self-blinding, Iocasta’s suicide4), the mutual *) Eur. Suppl. 928, 9. *) Cf. G. Muller, o.l., p. 21. ·) Let us not forget that even long after the hypothesis of the Septem was found, by which it appeared that the play was the third of the trilogy (1848), such outstanding scholars as Campbell and Jebb did not doubt the authenticity of the scenes. ·) The order of Ismene’s enumeration does not prove that in contrast to what we read in the O.T. Iocasta is supposed to have hung herself after Oedipus' death, as Bruhn will have it {Einleitung, p. 10).

6

INTRODUCTION

killing of Eteocles and Polynices and again in 856 (Chor.), 857-866 (Ant.), where Antigone’s fate is related to her incestuous descent (cf. 53 Ism.). Oedipus is dead: this does not clearly appear from 50, but it does from 867, 892, 898. The death of the brothers has occurred on the day previous to that of the action of the play (13, 14, 143-146, 170 sqq.), and the Argive army, which had assailed Thebes at the instigation of Polynices (nosq.), Adrastus’ son-in-law (870, although Adrastus is nowhere mentioned, no more than the other names of the Argive heroes (140), though Capaneus is evidently meant 133 sqq.), has fled, defeated (106 sqq.), in the night (15, 16). On the conflict between the brothers, on the motive of Polynices’ exile we hear virtually nothing. Polynices άρθείς νεικέων έξ άμφιλόγων (in Chor.), and from Creon’s words (168, 9) we might infer that after Oedipus’ downfall there was a period during which both brothers were regarded as the lawful rulers of Thebes. It would be quite perverse to assume that here, as in the Oedipus Coloneus (1294), Polynices is supposed to be the elder brother, wronged by Eteocles and the πόλις, when vindicating his rights to the throne. On the wrongs and the rights of either we are left in the dark; such is indubitably the poet’s set purpose. Immediately after the death of Oedipus’ sons Creon has acceded to power (έγώ κράτη δή πάντα και θρόνους έχω /γένους κατ’ άγχιστεϊα των όλωλότων 173, 4)· Nothing is said about a previous regency of Creon during the minority of Oedipus’ sons; no mention is made of any offspring of Eteocles or Polynices. Creon is called βασιλεύς χώρας (155 Chor.), cf. 1163 λαβών τε χώρας παντελή μοναρχίαν (Messenger). Creon, in his altercation with Teiresias, refers to him­ self by the word ταγούς (1057, answering Teiresias’ τυράννων); the word is άπαξ in Sophocles but occurs four times in Aeschylus (‘chief’, ‘commander’). He is regularly addressed as άναξ (once by Ismene, 563, but never by Antigone). In her opening lines Antigone refers to him by τον στρατηγόν (καί νϋν τί τοϋτ’ αύ φασι πανδήμω πόλει/ κήρυγμα θεϊναι τον στρατηγόν άρτίως 8, 9)· I do not believe that the term is used in order to remind the audience of Pericles' position, nor even that it is to be understood in its specifically Attic meaning and connotations 1). Immediately after Eteocles’ death nobody else can be supposed to function as military commander-in-chief 1) Contra V. Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles (1954), pp. 105 sqq., and pp. 173 sqq..

INTRODUCTION

7

and the use of the word may even imply that Creon functioned as such in Eteocles’ lifetime; not Eteocles but Creon seems to be regarded as the saviour of the πόλις (1162 Messenger). The word strikes me as very natural in Antigone’s mouth (it is ‘neutral’, con­ veying neither contempt nor irony) referring to the situation after the rout of the Argives 1). It appears from 531 sqq. that Antigone and Ismene lived under one and the same roof with Creon. Does this imply his guardianship of the sisters during Eteocles’ rule 2) ? At any rate we get the im­ pression that the royal palace of Thebes is supposed to be the abode of Creon and his family as well as of the sisters and of Eteocles 3). But further speculation on these matters is of course vain. No more can we tell, whether, according to Sophocles, it was Creon or Eteocles who betrothed Antigone to Haemon 4). We hear of this betrothal for the first time at 1. 568 (Ism.); at 1. 572 we hear the name of Haemon, Creon’s youngest son (628). Eurydice, Creon’s wife, makes her appearance towards the end of the drama (1180,1), and in the report of her last words mention is made of Creon’s (elder) son, Megareus (1303), apparently sacrificed by the will of his father at the behest of Teiresias (993, 4) 5).

3. Course of the Action of the Play Prologue (1-99). Antigone and Ismene enter the stage from the αΰλειοι πύλαι (i8). The supposed time is the end of the night (16, cf. 100 sqq. and note ad 253). (We cannot tell whether this fact is in favour of the assumption that the Antigone is the first play of the trilogy, the less so since the normal span of dramatic time of a Sophoclean tragedy amounts to one day). Antigone’s opening words set the tone of intensity maintained throughout the Prologue. If not by the end of vs. 2, the audience knows for certain after vs. 11 that Antigone, Oedipus’ daughter, is addressing her sister. In these first ten lines the whole misery of Oedipus’ offspring and also Creon’s κήρυγμα, in keeping with that misery and starting-point *) Cf. G. Ronnet, Sophocle Polte Tragique (1969), pp. 86 sq.. ’) Cf. Ehrenberg, o.l., p. 175. ·) In the Oedipus Tyrannus Creon is supposed to have his own house (637) but that is in the lifetime of Oedipus and Iocasta. ·) In Eur. Phoen. 756-760 it is Eteocles who, as Antigone’s κύριος, ratifies the betrothal to Haemon, and entrusts the performance of the marriage to Creon. s) On the difficulty of 1. 1164, in this connection, see the Commentary.

8

INTRODUCTION

of the tragedy’s fateful action, are touched upon. Antigone asks whether Ismene has heard of the decree, and on the latter's negative reply, by which the audience is also made aware of the situation at Thebes—the brothers killed, the enemy defeated—, she proceeds to relate that Creon has buried Eteocles but has issued a decree by which it is forbidden to render the last honours to Polynices *) on pain of death by stoning. Creon is due to arrive presently ταϋτα τοϊσι μή είδόσιν / σαφή προκήρυξοντα (33, 4)· At the end Antigone's appeal to Ismene for support is introduced by the suggestive words . . . δείξεις τάχα / εϊτ’ εΰγενής πέφυκας είτ’ έσθλών κακή (37, 8) but she does not as yet reveal her intention. Were Ismene’s character of the same stuff as her sister’s, her reply would have run: 'we, his sisters, shall not and can not heed such a command’. As it is, even before Antigone's appeal for action, she states her conviction that any action on her part would be useless, and she is aghast, when Antigone’s words become explicit (44, 47). In her rhesis (49-67) she inserts a moving plea for yielding to superior force, now that they are the sole survivors of a wretched race: her plea is in the last resort a plea for survival (cf. Antigone’s words 555). She asks the dead (t.e. Polynices) to forgive her for obeying those in power, vi coacta (65-67). But she meets with her sister’s unflexibility and scorn. Ismene must follow her own mind, she, Antigone, will not exhort her any more, nor will it be agreeable to her should, after all, Ismene be inclined to help her; she will bury Polynices. She has to please the dead for a longer time than the living. Ismene may forsake the honour due to the gods, if that is what she wants (69-77). In the ensuing wrangle the contrast between the sisters becomes still more pronounced. When Ismene declares herself incapable of acting βία πολιτών, she is, says Antigone, merely putting forward a pretext (80, x). When she utters her fear for Antigone, she is told to set right her own πότμος and when she urges caution and secrecy, she is asked to blaze the matter abroad (82-87). Ismene's standpoint: αρχήν δέ θηραν ού πρέπει τάμήχανα meets with Antigone’s hostile contempt: Ismene will reap her hatred and the hatred of the fallen brother, but she, if die she must by her ill *) We do not hear that the same holds good for the other fallen warriors, his allies. This is to be derived from 1080-1083 (deleted by Wunder and G. Muller); I do not believe (Jebb, B. Knox, The Heroic Temper, 1964, p. 112 with n. 44) that vs. 10 alludes to it.

INTRODUCTION

9

counsel, will earn a death with honour (92-97, cf. 72). And so they part, Ismene uttering a last word of resignation, amazement and awe (98, 9). Creon’s decree, origin (one is tempted to say vitium originis) of the play’s action, mentioned at the outset (7, 8) is explicitly stated (in Antigone’s indignant rhesis (21-36) ). So is Antigone’s firm and desperate decision to disregard it and to bury her brother (45, 46 and passim), defying punishment and death. The audience, at the end of the Prologue, can not be in doubt that Antigone goes off in order to carry out her resolve. If the spectator has been attentive, he will expect Creon’s arrival (33, 4); the lines 69, 70, moreover, will prepare him for a second confrontation between the two sisters. He has received a very strong impression of Antigone’s character, the more so because it is revealed in a dialogue, not with for in­ stance a nurse or another servant, but with her sister, a personality in her own right and as vividly brought to life by her διάνοια and λέξις as Antigone herself. It is always said of Ismene that she is used by the poet as a foil to Antigone and this is quite right provided the term is not allowed to convey a lack of distinct characterization. The spectator will look forward to the inevitable conflict between the heroine and Creon and will be aware that its stake is death (36) and that a clash between personal piety and religious duty on the one hand and authority and political power on the other is at issue. He will have perceived the contrast between the all too human choice of survival as worded by Ismene and the absolute claim of duty towards the dead, merging into a longing for death (72 sqq.) on the part of Antigone. Between the end of the Prologue and the Parodos there may be a pause, suggestive of the time necessary for Antigone to bring about the first burial.

Parodos (100-161). Two antistrophic pairs, each strophe and antistrophe followed by anapaestic systems of about equal length; the last system, announcing Creon’s arrival, leads up to the first epeisodion. The Chorus invokes the light of this day, which put to flight the Argive army, led by Polynices (or at his instigation) against Thebes. Before this army could satiate itself with the Thebans’ blood, it had to depart: such was the power of the Theban forces. Zeus, indeed,

ΙΟ

INTRODUCTION

hates boasting and wanton violence and smote down the one who, on the ramparts of the city, was in the act of shouting victory. The seven warriors at the gates were vanquished, all of them, but at the gate where the brothers met each other, both were killed. However, since Victory has come, we may forget the evils of war and honour the gods with dances and Bacchus may lead them. Follows the announcement of Creon’s arrival; the council of γέροντες, represented by the Chorus, ask themselves why Creon has convened this conference. L. 160 teaches us that the Chorus consists of Theban elders and they are supposed not to have heard of Creon’s decree reported by Antigone. The audience knows from the Prologue (15) that the Argive army has fled but there no comment is made on the perils and the salvation of the πόλις. The first strophe of the Parodos is more or less a paean of victory and the first anapaestic system is an evocation of Polynices leading the army against his country. The danger incurred by Thebes is forcibly suggested by the images of the first antistrophe (117-119, 120-124) and its warding off by means of Theban martiality briefly but pungently stated by έβα and the sentence τοϊος . . . δράκοντος (i2O, 125-127). It is perhaps noteworthy that nothing is said about the commander of the resistance. The second system emphasizes the hybristic character of the assault, hated by Zeus and evidently pictures Capaneus’ downfall. In the second strophe Capaneus’ fate is taken up again and Ares’ further assistance is mentioned. This is elaborated in the third system, about the death of the Seven; the last four lines contain the mutual killing of the brothers. The second antistrophe, turning away from the perils and miseries of the war, is a summons to thanksgiving and celebration of victory; thus the song returns to its starting-point. The tone of the Parodos, on the whole joyous and breathing a feeling of relief and thankfulness, is in marked contrast with the tense dramatic gloom of the Prologue *); so the mood of the liberated citizens is set off against the personal tragedy of the sisters (note that even Ismene did not utter any expression of satisfaction, let alone of joy, at the victory). It is against this double background that the audience is going to hear the declaration of Creon, chief of the state and head of the royal family. *) Cf. G. Ronnet, Sophocle Poete Tragique (1969), p. 151.

INTRODUCTION

II

First Epeisodion (162-222, 223-331; bipartition as in the first epeisodion of O.T. and El.}. Enter Creon, with attendants (though here they are not mentioned). Jebb’s assumption ‘from the central doors of the palace’ is unwarranted in my opinion (others are silent on the matter): (1) The announcement 88ε .. . χωρεϊ, followed by τίνα . . . πέμψας, strikes me as unnatural on that assumption; (2) Antigone’s words 33 καί δεϋρο νεΐσθαι κτλ. are most easily understood if at that moment Creon is supposed not to be in the palace x); (3) τον στρατηγόν 8 is fully understandable if Creon is supposed to have issued his decree for the first time immediately after the rout of the Argive army, on the battlefield; (4) this was the natural point of time for taking first measures about the burying of the dead; (5) the fact that Creon issues his decree twice makes sense if he did so the first time as it were provisionally, outside Thebes, the second time officially and definitively before the palace to the council of elders. So I assume that Creon is seen by the Chorus and the audience to approach the palace, supposedly arriving from the outskirts of the city 2). Possibly the fact that he is arriving as 'military com­ mander’ is indicated by his costume; but perhaps a distinction between ‘military commander’ and ‘King’ is not to be expected in tragic royal costume and attire. Creon addresses the Chorus in a long speech (162-210); introduc­ tion (162-174: the city is safe, I have sent for you since you are known to me as the loyal subjects of Laius, Oedipus and the latter’s sons; since their death it is I who possess the royal dignity by right of kinship); statement of principles (175-191: each man is only to be really known when he shows his worth in government and law-giving. Whosoever, as a ruler, does not stick to the best counsels and does not dare to avow his object frankly, is the worst of men. Worthless is he for whom a friend’s interests take priority to the country’s. Never shall I make the country’s enemy my friend: for the country’s welfare is the condition of making friends.); decree on the burial of Eteocles and Polynices (192-206: Eteocles, brave champion of the city, has to be buried with all the honours due to the best, Polynices who came with the intention of destroying his *) And it would be hard to believe, that in the meantime Creon entered the palace in some way or other. *) I.e. from the left of the audience, if later conventions hold good for the Vth century.

12

INTRODUCTION

fatherland, has to be left a prey to dogs and birdsx)); conclusion (207-210). The Coryphaeus answers in a rather non-committal way, men­ tioning, perhaps not without a critical intention, Creon’s absolute power to enact laws for the living and the dead (211-214). In the ensuing brief stichomythia the Chorus is told to be guardians of the decree, not to give way to tresspassers. We hear that Polynices’ corpse is guarded and that the punition for disobedience will be death. Enter the Phylax (223), one of the guards of the corpse, as will become apparent. The reluctance with which he approaches the ruler and his fear at delivering his message are manifest from his words (and indubitably from his gestures). It needs three endeav­ ours on Creon’s part to make him speak the terrible truth: some­ body has sprinkled the corpse with dust (245-247). On Creon's question τις άνδρών ήν ό τολμήσας τάδε; (248) (dramat­ ic irony is possible, but not certain) the Guard confesses his igno­ rance: there were no tracks of any sort in the soil. The corpse covered with a light layer of dust was left untouched by beasts of prey or dogs. Nobody knew anything and he had drawn the unenviable lot to bring the message to Creon (249-277). The report of the Guard is such that the audience receives a very lively im­ pression of the whole matter. Here as in 407-440 we have instances of a Messenger’s story delivered by one who is closely connected with the contents of his account and who, moreover, has strong individual characteristics. The Coryphaeus’ remark: άναξ, έμοί τοι μή τι και θεήλατον / τοίργον τδδ’ ή ξύννοια βουλεύει πάλαι (278, g), very important for the inter­ pretation of the play as a whole 2), has the effect of flinging Creon into a rage. Should the gods be deemed to show any care for the corpse of a criminal? No, the deed is to be ascribed to malcontents hostile to Creon’s reign; surely the watchers must have been bribed by such rebels. For money corrupts everybody. So they will pay with their lives and worse, if they do not find the perpetrator of the burial. This rhesis (280-314), a fine example of Creon’s putting into practice his statement of principles (175-191), is followed by a The sanction is not mentioned in this speech, but this omission is made up by U. 220, 1. ’) See e.g. H. D. F. Kitto, Form and Meaning in Drama (1956), pp. 153 sqq..

INTRODUCTION

13

short stichomythia between Creon and the Guard (315-323), concluded by Creon in three lines, in which he briefly repeats his intention to carry out his threat, should the watchers fail to trace the author of the crime. After that he enters the palace. The Guard, glad to have got off with his life for the moment, announces that Creon will not see him again and leaves the stage. After having heard and seen these two scenes, the spectator has been made thoroughly acquainted with Antigone’s antagonist. He knows that she has done the deed; he is aware of her irreconcilable inflexibility and of Creon’s tyrannical wilfulness. He will look forward with tense anxiety to the inevitable confrontation between the ruler and the girl. First Stasimon (332-375). Two antistrophic pairs. We have to bear in mind that the Chorus is not supposed to know anything about Antigone’s resolution. The Chorus has heard Creon’s decree; its attitude to it was one of wary circumspection. Their conviction that nobody would dare to disobey it at the risk of his life (220) has been refuted immediately by the report of the Guard and the latter’s story had induced the Coryphaeus to voice the opinion that the deed may be θεήλατον. They had had to listen to Creon's terrible outburst at such a suggestion, to his rash and quick-tempered inferences from the fact of the burial (revolutionary forces in the background, bribery, disjointing of the state etc.) and his grim threats addressed to the Watchman. They had not intervened any more. I think the poet means us to understand that the Chorus of elders is in a state of perplexity; and in this state of mind he makes them reflect on the achievements and the limitations of man. Taking their cue from the Guard’s introductory remark when starting on his story: τά δεινά γάρ τοι προστίθησ’ δκνον πολύν (243) Τ) and with a reminiscence of Aesch. Cho. 585 sqq. they embark upon πολλά τά δεινά (in which δεινά combines the notions of wonder, awe-inspiring, fearful, powerful, skilful). Man sails the sea, cultivates the earth, catches birds and beasts and fishes, domesticates animals; he taught himself speech, thought, political organization, how to make a shelter for himself. There is nothing against which he is without resources, nothing save death— *) Cf. also ή δεινόν (323, again spoken by the Watchman) and, if after all we should prefer δεινά, 326 (Creon).

14

INTRODUCTION

although he has contrived remedies for baffling diseases. His technical skills are ingenious above expectation and with these he comes now to good, now to evil. If a man reveres T) the laws and divine justice he is held in high repute in his city, but outcast from the city is the committer of crime. May such a one not be my friend or dwell at my hearth. The Chorus may be supposed implicitly to demur at the rash action of the unknown perpetrator of the deed as well as at Creon’s line of conduct. The disobedience may appear as a wanton act of rebellion, on the other hand Creon’s decree, endorsed by the Chorus in a non-committal and more or less ambivalent way (211-214), and Creon’s outburst at the Chorus’ suggestion 278, 9 may have roused the Chorus’ doubts as to his reverence towards the θεών ένορκος δίκα (369). Up to a certain point the Chorus, in Sophocles, is in the first place dramatis ■persona; even there where we may suspect it to reflect the poet’s own opinion or where an ambiguous wording, ambiguous not meant as such by the Chorus but by the poet, is to be perceived, the words on a certain level of interpretation, are always in keeping with the Chorus’ general characteristics and with what the Chorus can be supposed to know of the action of the play. On the other hand, all that is said and done in a play, is in the last instance the expression of the poet’s intention. The paradoxical miracle of a certain number of Sophocles’ choral songs consists in this that they represent at the same time the topical comments of ordinary human beings on the present situation, beings far below the heroic protagonists to whose actions and situations these comments pertain, and the deep reflections of the poet on the human condition exemplified by the tragedy he is composing. This first stasimon is a case in point. At the level of the poet’s intention with this choral song we may surmise that he wanted to express a sentiment of wonder at a fundamental antinomy in the condition of man: man’s technical skills and his resourcefulness are unbounded save by the bounds of death. But this technical superiority may lead him to evil as well as to good (κακόν and έσθλόν 367 may refer to conditions of un­ happiness and happiness as well as to moral excellence and its opposite; both pairs are bound up with man’s condition in the *) It is of course a pity that the true reading at 368 still remains to be found.

INTRODUCTION

15

πόλις): the evil and the good are entirely dependent on his political and religious virtue. The glory of man’s technical and civilizing achievements, limited by the boundary of death, counts in itself for nothing with regard to his good or evil fortune: lawfulness and piety are the determining factors. The wise, moderate and loyal elders are entrusted with this farreaching song, which in its second part relates to the fundamental problems of this tragedy (and of Tragedy in general as understood by Sophocles), without overstepping the limits of acceptability, set by the situation and their own ‘character’. They are supposed to be overwhelmed by the feeling that a matter of life and death is at stake, a matter in which unlawfulness and impiety may easily lead to fearful events. Second Epeisodion ( (376-383), 384-440, (442-445), 446-525, (526-530), 531-581). Tripartition as in the second epeisodion of O.T., but there two longer scenes enclose a shorter one which serves as transition, here the central one, the confrontation between Antigone and Creon, in line with its outstanding importance, is the longest, the two outer scenes being of about equal length: a symmetrical structure with the main piece at the centre. The anapaestic system 376-383, although, of course, serving as transition between stasimon and epeisodion (cf. 155-162), belongs to the latter rather than to the former. It comments on the unexpected and startling sight of the Guard approaching with Antigone as his captive. Nevertheless the connection with the last lines of the song (μήτ’ εμοΐ παρέστιος / γένοιτο μήτ’ ίσον φρονών / δς τάδ’ ερδοι) is very close. The first and the second scene are dovetailed by the subtle device of Creon’s asking Antigone for corroboration immediately after the Guard’s speech; then, after her short reply (443), he sends the Guard away and the confrontation between the ruler and Antigone begins (446). The third scene is introduced by the anapaests 525-530, announcing Ismene’s entrance from the palace. (It is clear that the actor who had taken the part of the Guard is acting also as Ismene). The Guard, arriving in sight of the Chorus, comes straight to the point (384, 5). Enter Creon; the Guard, addressing him, comments on the unexpectedness of his return (cf. 329 sqq.); but now he is bringing him 'this girl’, caught in the act of paying burialrites to the corpse. So he claims to be set free of all troubles. Creon

ι6

INTRODUCTION

can not believe his eyes and ears and makes the Guard twice repeat his statement of the incredible fact (the passage closely resembles 237-244, but there the Guard does not dare to speak out, here Creon cannot believe what the other has said). Then the Guard is enjoined to tell the whole story. The guards had removed the dust from the corpse and were watching it when at noon, suddenly, a scourging whirlwind had swept up, hiding all things from sight and compelling them to close their eyes (μύσαντες S’ εϊχομεν θείαν νόσον 421). (These circumstances and this remarkable description of the natural phenomenon are in line with the words spoken by the Chorus 278, 9). Once the storm has abated, the girl is seen and she is heard uttering a shrill cry at the sight of the un­ covered body. Immediately she is seen carrying dust to the corpse and honouring it with the three ritual libations. Then she is taken prisoner by the guards. She does not deny anything. The Guard winds up on a personal note of regret and rejoicing. After the transitional lines mentioned above Creon again ad­ dresses Antigone, asking her whether she was aware of his decree. Upon her affirmative answer, which is terse and curt (one line, covering three sentences 448) he pursues his inquiry by: καί 8ήτ’ έτόλμας τούσδ’ ύπερβαίνειν νόμους, thus causing Antigone to make the most fundamental exposition of the stand she has taken (450470). Compliance with Creon’s decree, a decree proclaimed by a mortal man, would imply disobedience to the immortal ordinances of the gods. She was not going to suffer the p'emdty for Transgressing these from fear of any human being’s presumption. Under her circumstances a premature death is gain, not gnS. To, have left unh.uried Jjer_niO-th.er's _son would_haye beengrief, She concludes with highly provocative and bitter words levelled against Creon (469, 70). The Chorus is impressed and is reminded of her father’s unyielding stubbornness (471, 2). Creon, addressing the Chorus, argues, by means of two copulative similes, that such stubbornness is easily brought down. Her twofold hybris—she committed the deed and now is boasting about it— will not go unpunished. She and her sister, despite their kinship with Creon, wiU_not escape the most terrible fate; for Ismene too is guilty: he perceived her madness, just now in the palace (473-496). There follows no reply from the Chorus (just as after 280-314), but Antigone asks Creon whether he has anything worse in store for her than death. His answer is negative. In that case, Antigone

INTRODUCTION

17

argues, any delay is useless. No compromise is possible between them. Creon will not approve what she has done, and yet no deed more glorious than this is conceivable. The elders would assent to it but for the fear of the tyrant. Here a stichomythia between the two is started (508-523) in which the irreconcilability of their points of view is pushed to extremes; it is the duty towards the dead brother which determines Antigone’s thought and conduct, οΰτοι ποθ’ ούχθρός, ούδ’ όταν θάνη, φίλος (Creon 522)· The reply reveals the innermost springs of Antigone’s being: οΰτοι συνέχθειν, αλλά συμφιλεϊν εφυν (523). A word of scathing scorn is the answer and the end of the dialogue. A~ Enter Ismene, announced by the Chorus (the spectator has been \ prepared for her arrival by Creon’s words 488 sqq.; he had sum/ moned her 491). At once Creon asks her whether she was an accomi plice in the burial. This she affirms? ίί Antigone agrees to it. But / Antigone protests that Dike will not allow her this. A highly I pathetic, repeatedly harsh and painful dialogue ensues. Antigone ( has the last word: Ismene belongs to the living, her own ‘life hath \ long been given to death, that so I might serve the dead’ (tr. Jebb; 559. 560). Creon declares both of them 'out of their minds’ (άνους) and when Ismene explains her madness by her misery because she cannot live on without her sister, he gives her plainly to understand that the latter has to be considered as dead already. Upon this Ismene invokes the betrothal of his son and Antigone. Creon's reply is extremely coarse and his next statement viz. that he loathes the idea of an evil wife for his son draws from Antigone x) her last words in this scene: ώ φίλταθ’ Αίμον, ώς σ’ ατιμάζει πατήρ (572)· followed by a harsh reaction from Creon. Then, for the first time in this scene, the Coryphaeus intervenes: will Creon really bereave his son of his bride ? Death, indeed, will stop this wedlock; the attendants are ordered to take the sisters indoors. Both are to remain under custody. The spectator will now look forward to Creon’s next move: the execution of Antigone is to be expected and death is to be feared for Ismene as well. But the mentioning of Haemon leaves some hope, the more so since Ismene has alluded to his love for her sister (570). So the suspense is heightened and his arrival eagerly awaited. *) For the attribution to Antigone, cf. the Commentary; Kitto, Form and Meaning, pp. 162,3; 165.

ι8

INTRODUCTION

Second Stasimon (582-625). Two antistrophic pairs. In the first the Chorus sing of the άτα fastening upon a house once it has been disturbed by divine wrath, as irresistable as the unrelenting gales lashing the sea. Thus with the Labdacidae: ‘The final branch of Oedipus I Grew in his house, and a lightness hung above it: / To­ day they reap it with Death's red sickle, I The unwise mouth and the tempter who sits in the brain’1). The strophe of the second pair celebrates Zeus' unconquerable power and the eternal law that nothing mortal is exempt from άτα (? 2) ). Man’s delusion is such (thus the antistrophe) that whomsoever the god is leading to άτα takes the evil for the good. Two comments may be made 3): the Chorus looks at Antigone’s tragedy in the perspective of the evils that befell the royal house. In the conflict between the ruler and the heroine they do not take sides, λόγου τ’ άνοια καί φρένων Έρινύς (603) may be thought to refer to Antigone’s stubbornness but not necessarily so. And this remark equally applies (or even still more cogently) to the whole second antistrophe, the ambivalence of which is such that a discerning hearer cannot but be reminded of Creon rather than of Antigone.

Third Epeisodion ( (626-630), 631-765, 766-780). Introductory anapaests of the Coryphaeus, announcing Haemon’s arrival. Long scene between Creon and Haemon, short one between Creon and the Coryphaeus. The overall structure of the fifth epeisodion is similar. The external structure of the Haemon-scene proper shows a typically classical neatness in its division of lines: introduction Cr. 4 lines, Haemon 4 1.; rhesis of Cr. 42 1.; two lines of the Chorus; rhesis of Haemon 41 1. 4); two lines Chor., two lines Cr., two lines Haemon; stichomythia Creon-Haemon, 14 1. each; 4 1. Cr., 4 1. Haem.. Creon has remained on the stage during the stasimon; Haemon enters, not from the palace, but from the town (cf. 693). His demeanour bespeaks a state of excitement, as appears from the Coryphaeus' and Creon’s questions (628 sqq., 633). His first words *) Transi, by E. R. Dodds, TheGrcehs and the Irrational, (1951), pp. 49, 50. But ‘sickle’ is based on an uncertain conjecture. ·) Text and interpretation very uncertain; see the Commentary. ·) For a good discussion see J. M. Bremer, Hamarlia, thesis Amsterdam, pp. 141, 2· ·) It is probably needless to assume the lacuna after 690, indicated by Pearson, following Dindorf.

INTRODUCTION

I?

(635-638) ease Creon, who does not perceive the ambiguity of σοϋ καλώς ηγουμένου (638). Creon embarks on his rhesis, which has the mixed character of a warning parainesis and an apology, based on a restatement of his principles (cf. 176-191) and their application in the case of Antigone. To a son his father’s will ought to be supreme. His father’s enemies should be his own. So Haemon has to reject his bride and let her be the spouse to somebody in Hades. For she alone was disobedient and Creon will be as good as his word: he will kill her. It would be disastrous to both law and order, should he tolerate their disregard by people of his own family. A ruler appointed by the city has to be obeyed in matters small and righteous and the reverse. There is no worse evil than disobe­ dience and never should one yield to a woman (639-680). Following the flat intermediate lines spoken by the Coryphaeus (681, z) Haemon, after a seemingly deferential introduction begins his attack by cautiously asserting that another judgment of the matter in hand might be justified (683-686, 687 x) ). Creon is not in a position to know the real sentiments of the people, but his son is: the citizens bewail the undeserved fate of Antigone, they regard her act of piety as a most glorious one. To Haemon’s mind his father's good reputation is of the greatest importance. The latter should reconsider his line of action. Never does ‘learning’ cause shame. Stubbornness leads to disaster. The argument is illustrated by two similes (712-717), just as Creon’s with regard to Antigone’s σκληρόν φρόνημα (474-478). (The second reminds the hearer of the nautical metaphor used by Creon 189, 90). For a man whose wisdom is not complete it is right to learn from others who speak for his good (720-723). The Coryphaeus urges both to mutual understanding. But Creon does not want to be taught by so young a man. 'Nothing that is not right' 2)—thus Haemon’s riposte—but you should take heed, not of my age, but of the substance of my words 3). Then follows the bitter stichomythia. Its starting-point is this, that Creon taxes Haemon with honouring the unruly. But Haemon would not even exhort others to show reverence for evil-doers. Surely Antigone is such a one? This (thus Haemon) is denied by the unanimous x) Or: that also another’s judgment might be justified. The reading of 687 is not quite certain. a) Jebb’s translation. ’) Or 'the matters in hand’.

20

INTRODUCTION

opinion of the πόλις. Creon is not prepared to allow the πόλις to lay down the law to him. In this way Creon’s true tyrannical nature is revealed once more and more clearly than before. In a great number of lines a word or phrase serves as catchword taken up by the adversary in his reply. The dense texture does not lend itself to a satisfactory summary. In the course of the debate it it becomes clear to Creon that Haemon, irrevocably, has taken his stand with Antigone, to Haemon that Creon, just as irrevocably, remains enmeshed in his foolish presumption, his catastrophic and impious (745!) error of judgment and conduct. No common ground of understanding between the two is left. In the end Creon resorts to the extreme cruelty of wanting Antigone to be executed under Haemon’s eyes. At this point, passionately expressing his horror and contempt, the young man tears himself away (758-761, 762-765). At this juncture the Coryphaeus expresses his fear for Haemon’s state of mind, but Creon waves aside this implicit warning, stating that, whatever happens, Haemon shall not save the two girls from their doom (766-769). But when the Coryphaeus asks whether he really wants to kill them both, he exempts Ismene. In reply to the question of the Coryphaeus to that effect, he expounds the refined way in which Antigone is to learn that it is wasted trouble to revere the nether-world (770, 771; 772, 773-780). Third Stasimon (781-801). One antistrophic pair. The Chorus celebrates the power of Eros who sways the universe, beast and man and god. Eros 'wrests aside’ the minds of law-abiding men into lawlessness. He is responsible for this strife between father and son. Desire, residing in the eyes of a bride, promise of wedded happiness, is triumphant, partaking with the great laws in their rule 1). For unconquerable Aphrodite plays her sport there­ through. The Chorus comments on the conflict between father and son as if it were solely founded on Haemon’s passionate love of Antigone. The Chorus still does not understand the absolute wrong of Creon in contrast with Antigone’s absolute right, although in the previous scene Haemon does not at all—as a romantic hero would—overtly fight for the cause of his love but for the cause of justice and piety, as embodied in Antigone’s conduct. x) Cf. Kitto, Form and Meaning, p. 167.

INTRODUCTION

21

So far K. v. Fritz’J) discussion of these problems is entirely justified. But I for one refuse to believe that the poet does not mean us to understand that the young man is driven to his passion­ ate defence of Antigone by his love * 2). First there is the discreet hint spoken by Ismene (570). Further, Haemon’s ή 8’ ούν θανεϊταί καί θανοϋσ’ όλεϊ τινα (751) are the words of a young man spoken under the impulse of passionate frustrated love 3). If it is argued (as by v. Fritz) that Haemon loses in moral stature if acting out of love, it has to be noted (1) that the assumption in itself is dubious, (2) that Haemon should not be supposed to have a moral stature on a par with Antigone’s, (3) that if the poet had wanted to create a scene between Creon and a man acting solely from, so to speak, idealistic motives, he would not have chosen Haemon as Creon’s opponent, (4) that the fact that Haemon, standing on the side of the angels, acts in the last resort because he loves Antigone, against his father, whom he is accustomed to revere, does not in the least diminish the tragic implications of his situation, on the contrary, (5) that, what the Chorus sing, as is regularly the case in this tragedy, does indeed miss a most important point of the previous scene, but is, this notwithstanding, admirably relevant to the situation 4).

Fourth Epeisodion (801-943). Introductory anapaests 801-805; kommos, Antigone and Chorus 806-882: Ant. str. 806-816, Ch. anap. 817-822, Ant. antistr. 823-833, Ch. anap. 834-839, Ant. Ch. str. 839-852, 853-856, Ant. Ch. antistr. 857-871, 872-875, Ant. epode 876-882. Epeisodion proper, Creon, Antigone, Chorus: trimeters Cr. 883-890, Ant. 891-928, anapaests Ch. 929, 930, Creon 931, 2, Ant. 933, 4, Cr. 935, 6, Ant. 937-943. Antigone’s approach (prepared by Creon’s command to his attendants 760) is announced by the Coryphaeus in words full of pathos: she is on her way to the παγκοίτας θάλαμος (802-805). This is taken up by Antigone, addressing the citizens. She is going the last way, gazing upon the last light, alive she is led by παγκοίτας Hades to Acheon’s shore, bereft of bridal ritual she is to be Acheron’s bride. x) K. v. Fritz, Haimons Liebe zu Antigone, Philol. 89 (1934), PP· 121-135 = Antike und Moderne Tragodie (1962), pp. 227-240. 2) Cf. Kitto, Form and Meaning, p. 162. 3) And he will be as good as his word. 4) See also H. Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon 34.8 (1962), p. 740 (review of von Fritz).

22

INTRODUCTION

The Chorus (Coryphaeus) utters some ambiguous words of wellmeant but questionable consolation (817-822). Antigone compares her fate to Niobe’s (823-833). Again the consolation offered by the Chorus is of a dubious kind: Niobe is a god, we are mortals; indeed it is a great thing to share the fate of the equals of the gods, in life and in death (834-838). These words are mockery to Antigone’s mind (οίμοι γελώμαι). She calls on the sacred source and plain of Thebes to witness how she, unbewailed by friends, is on her way to her singular tomb (839-852). Text and interpretation of the Chorus’ epirrhema 853-856 are problematic (except the last line) but it would seem that the words amount to her folly having been 'caused by her inherited tendency to disaster’ 1). The last line (πατρώον 8’ εκτίνεις τιν’ άθλον) causes Antigone to lament her father, the doom of the Labdacidae in general, the fateful marriage of her parents, to whom she is now, άραϊος άγαμος, on her way, and the unhappy wedlock of her brother, whose death involves hers (857-872). Again the Chorus’ epirrhema is no consolation: granting that her act of piety is εύσέβειά τις the Chorus state that to the mind of whoever is in authority disobedi­ ence can not be suffered, adding: σέ 8’ αύτόγνωτος ώλεσ’ όργά (872-875)· And the kommos ends in Antigone’s moving lament of her miserable, unbewailed fate (876-882). Creon wants to make an end: she is to be led away to the tomb whether she wishes to die or to live on in the grave: his hands are clean, she will be deprived of the world of the living. (If anybody remains in doubt about Sophocles’ intentions as to Creon’s being and acting he should ponder these lines —883-890—). Follows Antigone’s last rhesis (891-923). Her march to the tomb has for her the meaning of reunion with her beloved parents and brothers, for whom she had carried out the burial rites. By perform­ ing these for Polynices she has met her present fate. And yet her honouring him was right ‘in the eyes of the wise’ (tr. Jebb). Then she engages in the impossible task of proving, by means of casuistic ratiocination, that such is really the case 2). Not for a child of hers, not for a husband would she have committed the deed βία πολιτών. But for a brother, not to be replaced after her parents' death, J) Thus J. M. Linforth, Antigone and Creon, Univ. of Calif. Publ. in Cl. Philol. 15.5 (1961), p. 223 with n. 32. ’) On the vexed question of the authenticity of the lines cf. the Com­ mentary. The reader will understand that I uphold their genuineness.

INTRODUCTION

23

she had to perform this duty. In Creon’s eyes this was a crime and therefore she is now being led away, alive to the vaults of the dead. What law of the gods did she transgress ? But the gods seem to have forsaken her. By her act of piety she has won the name of impiety. ‘If this (».«. her fate) is rightful in the eyes of the gods, I shall realize my guilt after my death; but if these (».«. Creon) are guilty, may they then not suffer more misery than they cause to me unjustly’ (925-928). r Fundamentally the heroine is not represented as wavering when she is standing eye in eye with the consequences of her deed. She is shown as being grievously aware of her bereavement, her apparently absolute isolation and loneliness, mourning for the normal ful­ filments of a woman’s life, but she is unbroken. It is greatly to the credit of Sophocles, that he did not represent her, in her last scene, as one untouched by the human misery of her condition 1). The Chorus’ statement that the same 'rushes of passion' still hold Antigone in their grip causes Creon to threaten the attendants for their slackness. In this she hears the definite order for her death, which is confirmed by Creon. Her leave-taking of Thebes, the an­ cestral gods and the Chorus, is proud and full of self-assurance: ola πρός οίων άνδρών—Creon is present—πάσχω, / τήν εϋσεβίαν σεβίσασα (by which the disharmony of την δυσσέβειαν εΰσεβοϋσ’ έκτησάμην 924 is as it were resolved); these are her last words (942, 3). Fourth Stasimon (944-987). Two antistrophic pairs, dealing with three mythological examples of imprisonment2) as parallels of Antigone’s fate: Danae (str. 1), Lycurgus (antistr. 1), Cleopatra, mother of Phineus’ sons (str. and antistr. 2). Danae and Cleopatra are both, in various ways, innocent victims of fate; Lycurgus is an instance of punished ΰβρις. Twice the ineluctable power of fate is emphasized (951-954, 986, 7). It is a fact that the song is per­ formed in the presence of Creon, though, of course, he is not addressed. They address Antigone, 948, 987, but surely in the way of a 'Nachruf': a stage-manager should make the Chorus start their song at the moment that Antigone is leaving the stage; Creon has remained silent during her being marched off and does not leave the stage (cf. 991). *) For that reason it is useless to give 933 sqq. with Lehrs, Bruhn, Pearson, G. Muller to the Chorus. See the Commentary. ’) On this ‘theme’, closely connected with the ‘theme’ of burial see G. M. Kirkwood, A Study of Sofhoclean Drama (1958), p. 221.

24

INTRODUCTION

Again the contents of the song are ambivalent. One gets the impression that the Chorus is supposed to choose the examples in such a way that the attention of the hearer is drawn to Creon’s hybristic conduct and its cruelty (especially by antistr. I and str. and antistr. 2) rather than to the superficial analogies (an analogy is hardly to be found between Lycurgus and Antigone) to Antigone’s fate. In this respect I am inclined, up to a point, to agree with G. Muller’s comments on the passage x). That is not to say that I am prepared to follow him in the assumption of all the double and triple meanings he believes to have detected in the text, nor do I believe that the Chorus is meant to utter its ambiguities as it were unconsciously throughout. The Chorus is speaking in veiled terms in the presence of the ruler; the elders are supposed as yet not to have made up their mind but to tend to a condemnation of Creon. In this way the stasimon prepares for the Teiresias scene 2).

Fifth Epeisodion (988-1090, 1091-1114). Teiresias, Creon (the Coryphaeus does not intervene); Creon, Coryphaeus. After three introductory trimeters, spoken by Teiresias, followed by a short stichomythia, by which suspense as to the cause of the seer’s arrival is aroused (991-7), Teiresias speaks his first long rhesis (998-1032). From his seat of augury he had perceived ill-omened screaming of the birds, which had caused him to consult the signs of burnt offering. These appeared to be sinister in all respects, signifying that the gods would not accept any more offerings on the altars because of their defilement by the carrion of Polynices’ corpse left on them by the birds of prey and the dogs. And Creon bears the blame for it. So he will have to amend. Every man is Hable to do wrong. Whosoever is prepared to make amends is no longer an unwise and unhappy man. He has to ‘aUow the claim of the dead’ (άλλ’ είχε τω θανόντι 1029, tr. Jebb). Just as at'28o>at 473, at 726 Creon flings into a rush of invective. The race of seers may enrich themselves by thwarting him: never shall the corpse be buried not even if Zeus’ eagles were to carry its flesh to Zeus’ throne (1033-1047). Follows a violent stichomythia (1048-1063). Creon’s foolish stubbornness causes Teiresias to reveal to Creon all the misery *) Sophokles. Antigone (1967), pp. 213-219. *) So I cannot agree with Jebb’s note ad 944-987 in fine. ‘But the Chorus do not mean to suggest Antigone's guilt or innocence; still less, to fore­ shadow the punishment of Creon’.

INTRODUCTION

25

that is in store for him to punish him for his crimes (second rhesis, 1064-1090). Here, finally, the complementary character of Creon’s crimes is explicitly stated (1068-71—only here does Teiresias speak of Antigone). The thrust goes home to the Chorus as well as to Creon. Never did the seer’s warnings prove a lie (thus the Chorus’ reminder 1091-94) and Creon is struck with dismay and prepared to act upon the advice the Chorus has to offer (τί δήτα χρή δραν; φράζε· πείσομαι δ’ εγώ. 1099) ’)· The Coryphaeus urges the release of the girl and the burial of the corpse. Creon gives in; his reluctance is easily prevailed upon: ανάγκη δ’ ούχΐ δυσμαχητέον (ιιοό). And so he orders his attendants immediately to accompany him to the Theban plain.

Fifth Stasimon (1115-1152). Two antistrophic pairsl2). Invoca­ tion of Dionysus, Theban god κατ’ εξοχήν, guardian of his native town, and prayer for his coming καθαρσίω ποδί, his epiphany, accompanied by his retinue, in order to deliver Thebes from the ‘disease of violence’ (βιαίας . . . νόσου 1140, i) by which πάνδημος πόλις is afflicted 3). Just as the comparable choral songs Ai. byyjTA, Track. 633-662, O.T. 1086-1109 this stasimon also breathes a spirit of almost ecstatic hope and faith that all will end well. Coming before the catastrophe it heightens the hearer’s awareness of human ignorance as to the human condition and, in retrospect, by its contrast with what is to follow, it emphasizes the downfall and ruin of human confidence and hope. But although the hearer knows that Teiresias’ prophesies will be fulfilled, he will for the moment be swept along by the joyous dance-song and be misled into illusory hope against his better knowledge. In this way the dramatic suspense is brought about in the mind of the spectator by a mingling of anxiety and hope.

l) In this the fundamental difference between Creon and the true Sophoclean hero is revealed. The latter never yields (for Philoctetes is a special case). Cf. Knox, The Heroic Temper (1964), pp. 74, 5, also p. 68. ·) I regret to say that I completely disagree with G. Muller’s almost allegorical interpretation of this song (o.l. pp. 244-249). ») Note relation with 152-154: the invocation of Dionysus there receives, in retrospect, an ironic character by this one. Cf. Kitto, Form and Meaning, p. 150.

26

INTRODUCTION

Exodos (1155-1353)· (1) Introductory scene between Messenger and Coryphaeus 1155-1179. (2) Entry of Eurydice, Messenger speech, short dialogue between Messenger and Coryphaeus 11801256. (3) Kommos: Chorus, Creon, Exangelos 1257-1353. The Messenger, one of Creon’s attendants (1196), solemnly addressing the Chorus, enlarges upon the instability of the human condition of which Creon offers a striking example (1155-1171). In the ensuing stichomythia with the Coryphaeus, the Messenger informs the Chorus of Haemon’s and, implicitly, Antigone’s death. The Coryphaeus announces the approach of Eurydice, Creon’s wife. She makes her entrance, leaning on the arms of her hand­ maids: as she was about to leave the palace intent on praying to Pallas 1), she heard something of the woeful tidings. She bids the Messenger to repeat them: κακών γάρ ούκ άπειρος ούσ’ άκούσομαι (1183-1191: the point of these last words will be made clear by 1.1303)· Then follows the Messenger's report, after four lines by way of introduction. First Creon and his men had taken care of Polynices’ burial (1196-1204), then they had turned to Antigone’s νυμφεϊον Άιδου (1205) 2)· From there shrill wails were heard by one of the servants and on approaching the grave Creon, to his great distress, recognized Haemon’s voice and ordered his attendants to make their way into the tomb and look. There they saw Antigone, hanged, and Haemon clasping her corpse. On Creon’s approach and urgent request that he come out, his son spat in his face, drew his sword and, missing his father, stabbed himself. Now he lies with his dead bride, δείξας έν άνθρώποισι τήν αβουλίαν / 8σω μεγιστον άνδρΐ πρόσκειται κακόν (1242, 3)· Towards the end of the Messenger's report Eurydice reenters the palace without a word Qust as Deianeira Track. 813, Iocasta O.T. 1073). After a brief exchange of words between Coryphaeus and Messenger referring to her alarming departure the latter enters the palace (1244-1256). The Kommos-finale is introduced by the Coryphaeus’ announce­ ment (in anapaests) of Creon’s arrival; he carries Haemon’s corpse *) Cf. O.T. 911 sqq., El. 634. The germ of the scene in O.T., developed in El., may be found in this detail of the Eurydice scene (cf. T. B. L. Webster, An Introduction to Sophocles1 (1936), p. 168. ·) The reverse order of action to that commended by the Coryphaeus IIOO sq..

INTRODUCTION

27

in his arms 1) (1257-60). The lyrical parts of the scene are exclusively Creon’s; the Coryphaeus and the Messenger speak in trimeters. The Chorus (or the Coryphaeus) winds up by an anapaestic system (as in all Sophocles’ transmitted tragedies with the exception of O.T.). The whole kommos proper consists of two or four antistrophic pairs (according to whether or not we consider a strophe or antistrophe as one or two, if interrupted by one or more trimeters spoken by another person). It is perhaps best to distinguish two long antistrophic pairs: 1261-1276 = 1284-1300 (one trimeter spoken by the Coryphaeus 1270, respectively (perhaps) by the Messenger 1393) and 1306-1325= 1328-1346 (five trimeters 1312-1316 and 1334-1338, respectively 2 + 2 by the Messenger, one by Creon and 2 + 2 by the Coryphaeus, one by Creon. The trimeters 1278-1283 and 1301-1305 fall outside the antistrophic structure and there is no need to assume the loss of a trimeter after 1301 (Brunck and G. Muller). Creon bewails the fateful consequences of his ill counsel and reacting to the Chorus’ οίμ’ ώς έοικας όψέ τήν δίκην ίδεϊν (1270) he states that then a god struck his head with a heavy weight. But more is to come. The Messenger comes out of the palace and announces his wife’s suicide. During Creon’s passionate outburst of grief at these tidings Eurydice’s corpse is made visible by means of the eccyclema (1293). The Messenger tells (very succinctly, economy forbade another Messenger’s story; would Euripides have withstood the seduction?) that she died at the altar; she had bewailed the former fate of her elder son and that of Haemon and lastly uttered an imprecation of woe against Creon, the murderer of her sons (1301-1305). Creon wishes for his own death and the Messenger affirms that he was held responsible by her for the death of both his sons. Creon fully assents to this verdict and asks to be taken away (1306-1325). Again he prays for a speedy death but the Coryphaeus points to the present duties to be performed. And so Creon is led away, a broken man, lamenting the utter ruin of his existence (1328-1346). The final anapaests sing of wisdom as the main part of happiness and of the heavy blows of punishment which teach the over-proud wisdom in their old age (1347-1353). *) I fail to see why Haemon’s body should be carried by attendants on a bier, as Jebb will have it. The visual pathos of the scene would be less (here X agree with G. Muller) and there is nothing in the text that warrants the assumption. Creon can easily be imagined laying down the corpse before breaking into his lament.

28

INTRODUCTION

4. Unity and Meaning It is customary to speak of diptych form in the case of At., Track, and Ant. and this is certainly not incorrect provided that in using the term one does not imply lack of unity. It is not to be gainsaid that, in a sense, there are to be distinguished two actions in the Antigone, the one resulting in Antigone’s fate, the other in Creon’s ruin, or it may be said that the action is partly centred on Antigone, partly on Creon. Antigone speaks her last words 410 lines (i.e. a third minus 40 lines of the whole) before the end; nor is Antigone’s corpse even brought on the stage in the course of the Exodos. Antigone is present in the Prologue, and in the second and fourth epeisodion (inch kommos); she speaks (or sings) about 218 lines. Creon is on the stage in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth epeisodion and during the kommos of the Exodos (moreover, very probably, he does not leave the stage during the second and fourth stasimon, i.e. he does not leave the stage from 387 to 780 and from 883 to 1114); ± 344 lines are spoken (or sung) by Creon 1). But we should not be misled by the consideration of these facts. For one thing, the bicentredness of the action is superficially appa­ rent rather than real. The whole tragedy derives from Creon’s decree and from Antigone’s reaction to it. The decree originates in Creon’s being and his mistaken ideas as to the desirable limits of a ruler’s power and to the laws of humanity; Antigone’s reaction stems from her innermost and so to speak instinctive convictions as to her duties towards her dead brother, the laws of religion and love, and from the unshakable courage and faithfulness of her character. Antigone’s resolve against Creon’s decree, and its destructive implications as well as its tragic grandeur are shown in the Prologue; Creon’s principles and their foreseeable consequences in the first epeisodion: the audience will interpret what is going on in the light of the knowledge provided by the Prologue. Antigone, during the first epeisodion, is not present on the stage, but she is, in the mind of the spectators. Just as Creon’s decree is brought home to the hearers on two occasions, by Antigone and by himself 2), so the poet has arranged matters in such a way that Antigone twice approaches the corpse. Thus the dramatic possibilities of her deed *) Cf. J. M. Bremer, Hamarlia, thesis Amsterdam (1969), p. 140. *) Creon is really supposed to deliver it twice.

INTRODUCTION

29

are exploited to the full and her heroic perseverance is emphasized. But there is still more in this so-called double burial than this. As is pointed out by the Guard, the first burial, in spite of being slight, has been effective in a miraculous way (257, 8). The Cory­ phaeus advances the possibility of divine agency. But Creon will have none of it. It would seem that this is suggestive of the idea that had Creon left matters at that, had he renounced the guarding of the corpse out of reverence for the gods, ‘tragedy’ would have been avoided. As it is, Creon’s stubbornness and αύθαδία make him persevere in his course of άτη. On the other hand the gods seem to be operative in Antigone’s action. This is confirmed by the circumstances under which she approaches the corpse for the second time. And, of course, it is made explicit in Antigone’s defence against Creon. But in this, as in the deed itself, Creon sees only ΰβρις. Again, had Creon been accessible to the gist of Antigone’s plea and, on another plane, to Ismene’s well-meant intervention, the worst would not have happened. But not even the love between his son and Antigone is of any avail. Quite the contrary, in fact. I note in passing that it is permissable to speculate on the course events would have taken had Creon yielded in time: for, in point of fact, he is made to yield, by Teiresias, when it is too late; con­ trariwise it would not make any sense at all to risk such specula­ tions concerning Antigone: for not-yielding is inherent in her being and yielding would, in her case, mean the ruin of her raison d’etre. It is for this reason that those who regard Creon as the principal character of the tragedy are wrong. In Sophocles the tragic hero never yields and never do his principles prove a sham— as they do in Creon’s case l). The place of the Haemon-scene, in which, after the confrontation with Antigone (and Ismene), Creon meets with the passionate opposition of his son, before Antigone’s last appearance on the stage, has been carefully chosen. Its functions are manifold, its connections with what precedes and follows close. To begin with, it serves as an enclosed link between the main body of the play and its last part, by its place belonging to the former rather than to the latter (the last scene with Antigone is to follow) and so forms an important element contributing to the dramatic and structural In this respect my evaluation of the two characters are in agreement with Professor Knox’s, The Heroic Temper (1964), pp. 73 sqq..

30

INTRODUCTION

unity of the play. It contains the second attempt at Creon's con­ version, between Ismene’s emotional endeavour and Teiresias’ decisive onslaught. Antigone is absent but it is Antigone’s stand which is taken up by Haemon. We hear that her deed is admired by the citizens. We witness the unmasking of Creon's pretensions to statesmanship in the fierce dispute with his son and how at last his son is driven to despair and Creon himself to an intention of the utmost cruelty which causes Haemon to depart, never to return again. All the same, after this terrible and ominous scene one question of the Coryphaeus is sufficient to make Creon exempt Ismene from the sentence of death. And he alters the way of Antigone’s punish­ ment: the φόνος δημόλευστος (36) is changed into being buried alive: κρύψω πετρώδει ζώσαν έν κατώρυχι / φορβής τοσοϋτον ώς άγος μόνον προθείς, / όπως μίασμα πάσ’ ύπεκφύγη πόλις (774~7^)· Such, we may surmise, is the effect of Haemon’s plea: fear of the citizens and fear of being polluted have crept into Creon’s mind. There is an ironical relation between τοσοϋτον ώς άγος. . . ύπεκφύγη and 256 λεπτή δ’άγος φεύγοντος ώς έπην κόνις and on the other hand with 1042-44. In retrospect the scene with Haemon renders Antigone's leave-taking’s scene the more grievous and pathetic because the audience knows that she is less forsaken than she is conscious of. And Haemon's noble-mindedness, illustrating Ismene’s words ούχ ώς γ’ έκείνω τηδέ τ’ ήν ήρμοσμένα (57°). heightens the sense of irretrievable loss that the audience will experience while attending to Antigone’s lament (813-816, 867, 876) and when it hears of their ultimate fate. Unmoved by Ismene, unmoved by his son’s plea (though not in all respects, as we have seen: out of fear he resorts to a cowardly change of method), unmoved by Antigone’s last rhesis, Creon is made to give in by Teiresias’ intervention, not out of reverence, but again, out of fear 1). Let us note that Creon, after Teiresias’ first rhesis, in which the disturbance of the universe and the wrath of the gods at the consequences of Creon's unholy decree is signified by the seer’s circumstantial report of the sinister omens, does not yield at all: on the contrary, he accuses Teiresias of having been bribed and utters blasphemous words under cover of pious sophistry (1039-1044). l) Cf. R. Bultmann, Polis and Hades in dev Antigone des Sophokles, Glauben und Verstehen II (1952), p. 22.


n this way because of the corresponding δαιμόνι’ άχη ib. 581). If we do not alter the transmitted words ούράνιον άχος has to be regarded as apposition to σκηπτόν, and πίμπλησι πεδίον simply means ‘fills the plain’. Vollgraff (Mnemosyne 1920, p. 416, following van Herwerden) preferred to read άχους: i.e. the ‘disturbing dust’ wherewith the plain was filled. Then ούράνιον goes with σκηπτόν. But the passage in Aesch. Pers. makes one demur at separating ούράνιον and άχος and the antithesis χθονός . . . ούράνιον remains *) Cf. e.g. σκηπτός ραγδαίος Men. Asp. 402,3.

92

COMMENTARY

equally clear with ούράνιον—'rising to the sky’—in the apposition. I prefer to read and to interpret in this way, not equating ουράνιον άχος with θείαν νόσον 421. πεδιάδος: feminine adjective form with the meanings 'flat’ and ‘on the plain’, 'of the plain’, here and Track. 1058. έν δ’ έμεστώθη: thus A, reading preferred by edd.; cf. El. 713 έν δέ πας έμεστώθη δρόμος and my note. But the reading of LR ενθ’ is not without sense: 'where the wide air had been filled ’, the aorist έμεστώθη marking anteriority with respect to the hist. pres, πίμπλησι. The passage El. 7Ί.3 might have led some­ body to read here έν δ’ too. μύσαντες: ‘as a preliminary to going through what is painful’ (L.-Sc. s.v. μύω I 2), cf. Pl. Gorg. 480 c. εϊχομεν: 'we endured’. θείαν νόσον: this phrase, coming at the end of the lines reporting the whirlwind, is more impressive if ούράνιον 418 is not taken to mean ‘heaven-sent’. 422, τοϋδ’ άπαλλαγέντος: ‘when this (either neuter or masculine) had passed over’. έν χρόνω μακρω: in the course of ... > after the course of . . . Cf. Schw.-Debr. II 458, where Eur. Phoen. 305 χρόνω . . . μυρίαις τ’ έν ήμέραις is cited as an instance of έν marking a length of time that has elapsed. 423, 4. ή παϊς όραται κάνακωκύει: logically = ή παϊς όραται κάνακωκύουσα άκούεται or ή παϊς όραται, άνακωκύουσα but the words as they stand are much more impressive. The historic present strongly evokes the pathetic scene. πίκρας: 'full of bitterness’ (Campbell: t.e. πίκρας, άτε πασχούσης πικρά), hut at the same time suggestive of the shrillness of the sound (J·)· 424, 5. ώς .../.. . λέχος: for the idea cp. Aesch. Ag. 48-54. The syntax is somewhat remarkable because of the following clause of comparison with ώς όταν (δρνις is its subject), in its turn followed by a main clause with οδτω δέ. κενής / ... / λέχος: construe: κενής εϋνής λέχος νεοσσών ορφανόν, in which εύνης λέχος emphatically denotes the nest and κενής, by its placing stressing the main notion of the clause, anticipates νεοσσών ορφανόν (there is at the same time a close interrelation between κενής and νεοσσών); the full wording heightens the pathos. *) Mazon’s translation ‘un vrai fl0au cileste’ is rather non-committal.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 422-428

93

426. ψιλόν ώς όρα νέκυν: ψιλόν has the same function in the description of Antigone’s sense of bereavement as κενής in that of the bird. 427,8. γόοισιν έξωμωξεν: indubitably ‘ingressive’ aorist, but since it takes up κάνακωκύει κτλ. 423 an exact and literal translation should run: ‘she had burst into wailing laments’. εκ ... I ήρατο: έκ picks up έξ- in έξωμωξεν and belongs, in tmesi, to ήρατο (good observations on the use of tmesis in Campbell, Essay on Language § 18, p. 27). Note the opposition between aorist and imperfect. In the course of the report he states the moment they heard her uttering her imprecations. τοΰργον: the act of removing the dust. There is a sort of built-in irony in the fact that exactly the same words are used to refer to this and to Antigone's deed (τοΰργον ή ’ξειργασμένη 384 ~ τοϊσι τοΰργον έξειργασμένοις). 429-31. On the 'double burial’ much has been written and many foolish speculations have been emitted (among others, that the first burial had been perpetrated by Ismene—Rouse, Cl. Rev. 1911, 40 sqq.—or that it had been literally performed by the gods themselves—Marsh Me. Call, Yale Cl. Stud. 22 (1972), 103-117—). Nobody has judged better than Kitto on this fictitious problem (Form and Meaning (1956) 138 sqq., esp. p. 152): ‘To the ordinary audience there is no difficulty at all; the point passes quite un­ noticed. That, of course, is what we should expect; Sophocles knew perfectly well what he was doing. For the critic, the difficulty arises when he asks the wrong question: Why did Antigone go back to the body, when she had already done all that was necessary? The correct question is: Why did Sophocles want her to go twice ? The answer, naturally, is to be found in the effect which it produces. By ordering things as he has done, he has created an interval of partial knowledge: the audience knows who has done it, but those on the stage do not. The reasons why he wanted this interval will become clear as we proceed’. Strikingly correct also is Kirkwood’s opinion (A Study of Sophoclean Drama, 1958, p. 70): ‘Sophocles wanted two effects from the act of burial, Antigone’s defiance of Creon and Antigone’s capture. To combine them in a single scene would mean attenuating the force of the first of the two effects, if not of both. On the first depends Creon’s initial interview with the guard, an incident of great value for our understanding of Creon; from the second comes the great scene between Antigone

94

COMMENTARY

and Creon and indeed all the rest of the play’. On the time sequence cf. Knox, Heroic Temper, p. 180, n. 43. (Even from a ‘realistic’ view-point Antigone’s second coming to the corpse, under cover of the whirlwind, is easily explained either by her desire to see whether the dust had remained in place or, if, the first time, she had left undone the libations, by her desire to complete the ritual. But, perhaps, even such simple speculations are vain). 429. διψίαν φέρει κόνιν: thus A, γρ. L in margine. This reading seems plausible but for the fact that it does not account for the corruption διψάν εκφέρει LR; διψάδ’ έκφέρει (Dindorf proposed διψάδ’ έμφέρει ’) ) is awkward because διψάς does not occur before Theophrastus and εκφέρει could only mean ‘produced’. 430. εύκροτήτου: ‘well-hammered’, only here and Eur. El. 819, also in a messenger’s report. άρδην: visualising the action, with the same effect as often produced by the aorist participle άρας (άείρας), cf. O.T. 1270 and epic instances. 431. στέφει: κοσμεί, κύκλω περιρραίνει Σ. Cf. El. 53· The second interpretation of Σ seems correct, cf. Eur. Phoen. 1632, 1664, Hec. 126; Aesch. Cho. 95. τρισπόνδοισι: refers to the three substances, wine, milk, honey. 432. 3. ίέμεσθα: the 1 is long, but we cannot ascertain whether the form is present or imperfect. Present forms of ίημι with ΐ occur in Tragedy, as in Homer, but with I sometimes in Homer, as regular­ ly in Attic. In Homer the middle forms are contaminated with the forms of ϊεμαι (. ‘) Gnomon 40 (1968), p. 758.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 502-519

IOS

508. τοϋτο . . . όρας: ‘you take that view’ (referring to τοϋτο 504; Σ correctly explains σοΐ μόνη τοϋτο δοκεϊ δίκαιον εϊναι, ταφήναι τδν Πολυνείκη). μούνη τώνδε Καδμείων: analytically there is a contamination of genit, partit, and separat.. In substance the phrase has the same meaning as τώνδε χωρίς 5io. It is only natural that Creon refers to the Chorus by οίδε (my men), Antigone by ούτοι (your men); Antigone’s οδτοι does not, I think, express contempt, as G. Muller will have it. 509. ύπίλλουσι: metaphor from ‘drawing in' the tail, said of animals. ‘They shut up their mouth for you’, ‘they curb their tongues under your will’; συστέλλουσι Σ. ' 510. τώνδε . . . φρονείς: cf. 508. χωρίς = ‘otherwise than’. 511. γάρ: ‘no, for . . .’. όμοσπλάγχνους: a rare word = ομογάστριος in Homer. Aesch. has it once Sept. 890. 512. χώ καταντίον θανών: Eteocles, καταντίον A, καταναντίον L, a simple dittography. The origin of κατά χθονός R is obscure 1). 514. έκείνω: with δυσσεβή, ‘in his (Eteocles’) eyes’. The correct­ ness of this interpretation is borne out by Antigone’s answer. τιμάς χάριν: ‘discharge (with zeal) an act of love’ (to Polynices). Jebb compares Eur. Or. 828 πατρωαν / τιμών χάριν ‘duly rendering grace to thy sire’). 515. ό κατθανών νέκυς: derives from the epic phrase νεκύων κατατεθνηώτων. 516. τοι: contradictory sense, implying 'but surely he—Eteocles— will’ (μαρτυρεϊν ταϋτα). Cf. Denniston G.P.2 546 (2). εξ ίσου: 'on a par with’. 517. γάρ: cf. 511. ώλετο: Polynices. 518. πορθών δέ: δέ is strongly adversative (G.P.2, p. 167); is the main verb of both sentences. Not only the subjects but also the participles, in lexical meaning as well in aspect, are diametrically contrasted. (The 'caesura media’ heightens the con­ trast). άντιστάς ΰπερ: i.e. ύπέρ της γης άντιστάς. Cf. At. 1231. 519. τούτους: the υ.Ι. ίσους (διορθωτής of L: γράφε τούς νόμους ίσους) makes sense, but so does τούτους and the latter is really ‘) Perhaps inspired by κατθανών 515 or by κάτωθεν 521.

Ιθ6

COMMENTARY

better (cp. V. Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles (1954), p. 29 η. I. ‘What matters to her is the duty to a brother, not an equal duty to both brothers'.), Campbell, Jebb, Dain-Mazon retain τούτους, ίσους may have been a v.l. of ίσος in the next line, where it has been conjectured by Nauck. 520. ίσος: LRA, explained by G. Hermann, Ellendt, Campbell and others as follows: ό χρηστός ούκ ίσος έστί τω κακώ λαχεΐν sc. τούτους τούς νόμους. It has, then, the same construction as δίκαιος or άξιος, lit.: ‘the good man is not on a par with the bad one to take his share ’. Instead of τούτους τούς νόμους , may be mentally supplied. If ίσους (or ίσον, in many mss, Thoman according to Turyn, and in T and Ta, cf. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 62) is read, ποθεί has to be supplied from the preceding line. But, in my opinion, especially ίσους yields a text much more obscure than the reading of LRA. In itself ίσον would be better than ίσους. 521. εύαγη: on εύαγης ‘en bon rapport avec le sacr0’, ‘pieux’ cf. the exemplary treatment in Chantraine, Diet. £.t. s.v. άγος (more detailed in P. Chantraine and 0. Masson, Festschrift Debrunner 85-107). τις οΐδεν εί: suggests an affirmative answer. τάδε: refers to the notion that ό χρηστός τω κακω λαχεΐν ίσος, and by implication to the burial of Polynices. 'Qui sait, si sous la terre, la vraie ρίέίέ est Ιύ’. κάτωθεν: v.l. in L, κάτω ’στιν mss. Both readings are unimpeacha­ ble, κάτωθεν is somewhat more expressive, very idiomatic and perhaps more satisfactory in respect of the versification (as noted by Jebb). 522. ούτοι. . . φίλος: In the form of a general statement Creon expresses his conviction that even in death Polynices will be regarded by Eteocles as his enemy (we are reminded of Ajax versus Odysseus in the Odyssey); hence Eteocles will not recognize his brother’s right to burial. It is to be noted that φίλος, as used by Creon, is exclusively opposite to εχθρός in a political sense, whereas their kinship is not taken account of. To Antigone’s mind Polynices is φίλος because άδελφός, and she supposes that in death the φιλία of kinship will prevail over the εχθρα *) even to the extent that the antithesis χρηστός-κακός is of no importance. Hence 523. x) Cf. Eur. Phoen. 1446 φίλος γάρ έχθρός έγένετ’, άλλ’ όμως φίλος.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 520-527

ΙΟ7

523. οΰτοι. . . έφυν: she rejects the political standards of Creon’s world. A world of lasting φιλία is contrasted with a world of lasting hate. The repetition of Creon’s οΰτοι emphasizes the unbridgeable gulf between the two. If we ask for an expanded rendering of her words, I know of no better one than Reinhardt’s {Sophokles1 p. 90): ‘ich bin nicht in den Kreis hineingeboren, in dem ‘Feind dem Feinde’ gilt, sondern in den, wo blutsverbundene Liebe sich im Einklang mit dem Gleichen weiss’. The words, it is true, refer in the first place to the concrete situation, to her feeling of duty to her kin, to the act of φιλία due to her brother, but are formulated in such a way that we have to attribute to them a much wider meaning, and that they reveal the innermost centre of her being 1). There is much to be pondered and appreciated in Σ: τάς φιλίας, φησί, κοινάς ποιούμαι άλλ’ ού τάς εχθρας· έν δέ τώ ύπομνήματι ούτως, εί καί έχθαίρουσιν άλλήλους οΐ αδελφοί εγώ ού τοιαύτη είμί τήν φύσιν ώστε σύν έτέρω αύτών έχθαίρειν τον έτερον άλλα συμφιλεϊν τοϊς φιλοϋσιν. It will not do to regard συμ- in συμφιλεϊν as a mechanical and meaningless repetition of the first συν-. This is in no way comparable to the case of συνήδεσθαι discussed by Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 1286, 7. —As has been noted long ago Eur. I.A. 407 is a reminiscence of Antigone's verse. 524, 5. These lines, expressive of masculine and tyrannical coarse­ ness, culminate in the recurrent motif of 484, 5, 678-80, 740, 746, 756. Jebb is right in calling Nauck’s νεκρούς instead of κείνους a ‘deplorable change’.

Second Epeisodion

Third scene 526-581 Ismene, summoned by Creon (491), makes her entry, announced by an anapaestic prelude of the Coryphaeus (cf. Creon’s, Antigone’s, Haemon’s entries). 527. δάκρυ’ είβομένη: on είβειν / λείβειν cf. R. Stromberg, Cl. et Med. 21 (i960) 15-17, Chantraine Diet. £t. s.v. εΐβω. δάκρυ’ είβομενη is Triclinius’ reading for δάκρυα λειβομένη, possibly arisen from scrip­ tio plena δάκρυα είβομενη 2). Wex preferred to read δάκρυ λειβομένη (Σ 527 explains φιλάδελφα by φιλαδέλφως but Σ 528 has φιλάδελφα δάκρυα λειβομένη). *) Cf. A. Lesky, Hermes 80 (1952), p. 95 and G.G.L.’ (1971). p. 32. See also Knox, Heroic Temper, p. 82. *) Occurs in Ambros. E 77 sup.

106

COMMENTARY

better (cp. V. Ehrenberg, Sophocles and Pericles (1954), p. 29 η. I. ‘What matters to her is the duty to a brother, not an equal duty to both brothers'.), Campbell, Jebb, Dain-Mazon retain τούτους, ίσους may have been a v.l. of ίσος in the next line, where it has been conjectured by Nauck. 520. ίσος: LRA, explained by G. Hermann, Ellendt, Campbell and others as follows: ό χρηστός ούκ ίσος έστί τω κακω λαχεΐν sc. τούτους τούς νόμους. It has, then, the same construction as δίκαιος or άξιος, lit.: 'the good man is not on a par with the bad one to take his share ’. Instead of τούτους τούς νόμους < τούτων των νόμων>, may be mentally supplied. If ίσους (or ίσον, in many mss, Thoman according to Turyn, and in T and Ta, cf. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 62) is read, ποθεί has to be supplied from the preceding line. But, in my opinion, especially ίσους yields a text much more obscure than the reading of LRA. In itself ίσον would be better than ίσους. 521. εύαγη: on ευαγής ‘en bon rapport avec le sacr0’, ‘pieux’ cf. the exemplary treatment in Chantraine, Did. Ft. s.v. άγος (more detailed in P. Chantraine and 0. Masson, Festschrift Debrunner 85-107). τίς οΐδεν εΐ: suggests an affirmative answer. τάδε: refers to the notion that ό χρηστός τω κακω λαχεΐν ίσος, and by implication to the burial of Polynices. ‘Qui sait, si sous la terre, la vraie pirite est la’. κάτωθεν: v.l. in L, κάτω ’στιν mss. Both readings are unimpeacha­ ble, κάτωθεν is somewhat more expressive, very idiomatic and perhaps more satisfactory in respect of the versification (as noted by Jebb). 522. οδτοι. . . φίλος: In the form of a general statement Creon expresses his conviction that even in death Polynices will be regarded by Eteocles as his enemy (we are reminded of Ajax versus Odysseus in the Odyssey); hence Eteocles will not recognize his brother's right to burial. It is to be noted that φίλος, as used by Creon, is exclusively opposite to εχθρός in a political sense, whereas their kinship is not taken account of. To Antigone’s mind Polynices is φίλος because άδελφός, and she supposes that in death the φιλία of kinship will prevail over the εχθρα *) even to the extent that the antithesis χρηστός-κακός is of no importance. Hence 523. 1) Cf. Eur. Phoen. 1446 φίλος γάρ έχθράς έγένετ’, άλλ’ όμως φίλος.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 52O-527

IO7

523. οΰτοι. . . έφυν: she rejects the political standards of Creon’s world. A world of lasting φιλία is contrasted with a world of lasting hate. The repetition of Creon’s οΰτοι emphasizes the unbridgeable gulf between the two. If we ask for an expanded rendering of her words, I know of no better one than Reinhardt's (Sophokles1 p. 90): ‘ich bin nicht in den Kreis hineingeboren, in dem ‘Feind dem Feinde’ gilt, sondern in den, wo blutsverbundene Liebe sich im Einklang mit dem Gleichen weiss”. The words, it is true, refer in the first place to the concrete situation, to her feeling of duty to her kin, to the act of φιλία due to her brother, but are formulated in such a way that we have to attribute to them a much wider meaning, and that they reveal the innermost centre of her being 1). There is much to be pondered and appreciated in Σ: τάς φιλίας, φησί, κοινάς ποιούμαι άλλ’ ού τάς εχθρας· έν δέ τω ύπομνηματι ούτως, εί καί έχθαίρουσιν άλλήλους οί αδελφοί εγώ ού τοιαύτη είμί τήν φύσιν ώστε σύν έτέρω αύτών έχθαίρειν τον έτερον αλλά συμφιλεΐν τοΐς φιλοϋσιν. It will not do to regard συμ- in συμφιλεΐν as a mechanical and meaningless repetition of the first συν-. This is in no way comparable to the case of συνήδεσθαι discussed by Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 1286, 7. —As has been noted long ago Eur. I. A. 407 is a reminiscence of Antigone's verse. 524, 5. These lines, expressive of masculine and tyrannical coarse­ ness, culminate in the recurrent motif of 484, 5, 678-80, 740, 746, 756. Jebb is right in calling Nauck’s νεκρούς instead of κείνους a 'deplorable change’. Second Epeisodion

Third scene 526-581 Ismene, summoned by Creon (491), makes her entry, announced by an anapaestic prelude of the Coryphaeus (cf. Creon’s, Antigone's, Haemon’s entries). 527. δάκρυ’ είβομένη: on εΐβειν / λείβειν cf. R. Stromberg, Cl. et Med. 21 (i960) 15-17, Chantraine Diet. Et. s.v. εΐβω. δάκρυ' είβομένη is Triclinius' reading for δάκρυα λειβομένη, possibly arisen from scrip­ tio plena δάκρυα είβομένη 2). Wex preferred to read δάκρυ λειβομένη (Σ 527 explains φιλάδελφα by φιλαδέλφως but Σ 528 has φιλάδελφα δάκρυα λειβομένη). Cf. A. Lesky, Hermes 80 (1952), p. 95 and G.G.L.’ (1971). P- 32· See also Knox, Heroic Temper, p. 82. ’) Occurs in Ambros. E 77 sup.

ιο8

COMMENTARY

528-30. νεφέλη 8’ όφρύων υπέρ: the cloud of grief or discontent is traditional {II. XVII 591 = XVIII 22) and occurs in Aesch. Sept. 228, 9 χαλεπαν δύας ΰπερθ’ όμμάτων / κριμναμεναν νεφελαν, Eur. Hipp. 172 (placed by v. Wilamowitz and Barrett after 180) στυγνόν 8’ όφρύων νέφος αυξάνεται. Tears can form an ομίχλη before the eyes: Aesch. Prom. 144-46 φοβερά 8’ / έμοϊσιν δσσοις ομίχλη / προσηιξε πλήρης δακρύων. In Sophocles the cloud resting upon the brows (like a real cloud upon the ‘brow’ of a crag—όφρύς is so used—) is the fount of the stream of tears (see Groeneboom ad Prom. 145). Jebb’s parallel from Shakespeare {Ant. 3.2.51 'Will Caesar weep?— He has a cloud in's face') is very striking, as is also Bruhn’s from Schiller {Jungfrau von 0. 1806 ‘Des Zomes Donnerwolke schmilzt von seiner Stirne tranentauend ab'.). αίματόεν: not, I think, ‘bloody’ because she has torn her cheeks, but ‘flushed’ because of her state of excitement. (Whether or not we should assume a change of mask for Ismene is a moot point; on change of masks cf. Webster Greek Theatre Production, 1956, p. 50, O. Hense, Die Modifizierung der Maske in dcr griechischen Tragodie2, 1905). ρέθος: ‘face’, an aeolism, cf. Sappho 22.3 L.-P., Theocr. 19.16; also Eur. Her. 1205. εύώπα: amounting to ‘fair’; semi-figurative use at O.T. 189. Cf. note on Track. 523 (εύώπις ‘fair-eyed’ or ‘fair-faced’). 531-35. σύ 8’: to be connected with φέρ’, είπε . .. 534, but in itself it has the same effect as αδτη(σύ) e.g. O.T. 532,1121: heus tu, te volo. κατ’ οίκους: goes with the whole sentence, not with ύφειμένη in particular. ώς δχιδν’ ύφειμένη: 'like a snake lurking’ (L.-Sc.) (ύφίημι O.T. 387 ‘suborn’); the perf. participle, to be construed both with ή and with έχιδνα, is well rendered by this translation and ώς έχιδν’ ύφειμένη is subordinate to λήθουσα μ’ έξέπινες, in which λήθουσα repeats or makes explicit the notion of stealth, furtiviness inherent in ύφ-, λήθουσα μ’ έξέπινες: one of the few instances where the normal construction of λανθάνω with acc. and participle is reversed (K.-G. II 66). έξέπινες: cf. El. 784 sqq., Herodas V 7. The description of Ismene as a sort of vampire has an oddly sinister effect. ούδ’ έμάνθανον / . . . θρόνων: most simply to be regarded as a parenthesis; or a freely coordinated main sentence following a relative clause without subordination to the relative pronoun, although it expands the contents of the relative clause.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 528-539

IOg

άτα. . . κάπαναστάσεις: neither the reading άτας nor the conjec­ ture κάπαναστάσει are recommendable. Both words are striking instances of abstractum pro concreto or, more precisely, abstract nouns 'applied to persons where persons are said to be a certain action or quality’ (see A. A. Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles (1968) p. IO sq., 121—επαναστάσεις ‘the bringers of έπανάστασις’, ‘they actually embody disaster and revolution’), θρόνων is ‘objective’ genitive. Antigone and Ismene are called δύο άτα in quite another context by Oedipus O.C. 532. 536, 7. εϊπερ ήδ’ όμορροθεϊ: Pace Ed. Fraenkel (ad Ag. 830 p. 384 with note 1), v. Wilamowitz (Fraenkel ib.), G. Muller, Nauck’s brilliant conjecture ’) (εϊπερ ήδ’, όμορροθώ), adopted by Bruhn has to be rejected. This reading makes Ismene’s statement too absolute and contrary to her portraiture. όμορροθεϊ: the semasiology of the word is not Tow together’ > ‘agree’ but ‘make a (rushing) noise together’ > 'row together’, or = όμοφωνέω, όμολογέω ‘agree’, ροθέω is intrinsically a verb of sound, εϊπερ ήδ’ όμορροθεϊ: not ‘if she acknowledges the deed’ but ‘if she consents to my statement’; εϊπερ, as normally in Attic, 'that is if’, 'at least if’, ‘if indeed’, not ‘seeing that’ nor 'even though’; περ adds a restrictive element. Cf. the correct remark by Kirkwood (A Study of Sophoclean Drama, p. 71 n. 36) against R. F. Goheen’s perverse interpretation of the clause: 'even though she rows by my side’ (The Imagery of Sophocles’ Antigone, pp. 45, 139-40). καί ξυμμετίσχω . . . της αιτίας: the genit, depends on -μετ- and ξυμ- is meant to belong also to φέρω. K.-G. I 538 and II 568. 538,9. άλλ’ ούκ έάσει τοϋτό γ’ ή δίκη: τοϋτο refers to Ismene’s claim to partnership. οδτ’ . . . ’κοινωσάμην: cf. supra 69, 70. 'I did not take you as my partner’. It is repeatedly claimed (in the wake of Σ 538) that Antigone’s harshness towards Ismene is meant to save her sister. This may be correct, the more so since 559-560, as rightly noted by Jebb, are neither bitter nor harsh. But above all we are once more made to feel the irrevocable dividing line between the two sisters. It is of course nonsense to regard Antigone’s attitude as part of her supposed αμαρτία manifesting itself also in the ‘second burial’ (as Μ. K. Flickinger, The 'kyapcia. of Sophocles' Antigone, Iowa Studies in Cl. Philol. 2, 1935, will have it). *) It is founded on Ar. Av. 851 όμορροθώ. συνθέλω, συμπαραινέσας έχω wherein όμορροθώ (and perhaps the whole line), according to Σ, is a quotation from Soph. Pel. (see Pearson ad fr. 489).

no

COMMENTARY

540, 1. ξύμπλουν: cf. Eur. Her. 1225 συμπλεΐν Sc τοΐς φίλοισι δυστυχοϋσιν (and see I.T. 599 sq.). The metaphor has nothing to do with the use of όμορροθεϊ 536. ούκ αίσχύνομαι: 'I am not ashamed at’, i.e. 'take a pride in’, 'make it a point of honour to’. 542, 3. ών: referring to herself alone. ξυνίστορες: ‘witnesses’, cf. Phil. 1293 (and ϊστωρ El. 850 with note). λόγοις: and not εργοις. Elegantly, rendered by Jebb: ‘A friend in words is not the friend that I love’. 544, 5. μήτοι... μ’ άτιμάσης τό μή ού / θανεΐν τε . . . θ’ άγνίσαι: the normal construction after a negated verbum impediendi (but οΰ could have been left out), τό μή amounts to ώστε μή. K.-G. II 217 m. Jebb’s rendering is unchallengeable. άγνίσαι: = ‘consecrate’. The idea is that by her death she will at least have given her brother his due; the dead will be αγνός by her deed, έναγίζειν is: 'consacrer un sacrifice chthonien aux morts’ (Chantraine Did. Et. s.v. άζομαι 2). (See also ad 1081). Antigone’s retort is perfectly in keeping with it. 546, 7. κοινά: adverbial, amounting to ξυν-, cf. At. 577. (Unless we are prepared to punctuate and construe as follows: μή μοι θάνης σύ, κοινά μηδ’ ά μή ’θιγες / ποιου σεαυτης: κοινός can take the genit, of the person who has a share in something, Aesch. Eum. 109). & μή ’θιγες: the exceptional accusative can hardly be explained by assuming a sort of attradio (ά = ών); rather would it seem that the neuter plural is at the root of the construction, as with the cases of τυγχάνω with acc. neut. adj. or pronoun (L.-Sc. s.v. B 2.b). Cf. Alcm. fr. 58.2 P. ά μή μοι θίγης x). Apparently Creon is supposed to remember these words, when speaking 771 ού τήν γε μή θιγοϋσαν (cf. S. Μ. Adams, Sophocles the Playwright, 1957, p. 52, Knox, Heroic Temper p. 176 (n. 6) ). 548. και: on καί preceding an interrogative conveying an emo­ tional effect (‘why’) see many instances in G.P.1 p. 310 (b). λελειμμένη: = έστερημενη. Curious reading in R τίς βίου . . . λελειμμένης πόθος. 549. κηδεμών: who cares for somebody2), cf. Phil. 195; κηδεύω O.T. 1323, O.C. 750. Since Ismene ‘cares for Creon’ it is up to Creon l) It could be argued also, that ’θιγες has the accusative because it is used figuratively and the notion διανοεϊσθαι, βουλεύεσθαι predominates. *) Not 'prot0g6' (C. Robert, Oedipus I, p. 336).

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 540-552

III

to answer her question τις βίος μοι φίλος (amounting to πώς ό βίος μοι φίλος). The malice of these words calls forth Ismene’s τί ταΰτ’ άνιας μ’. 550. ωφελούμενη: passive of course, not middle as Σ will have it. 551. άλγόϋσαμέν δήτ’: —on the contrary: άλγοϋσα . μέν δήτ’ here has evidently the same force as μέν ούν. εί: hardly different from ότι. γέλωτ’ έν σοΐ γελώ: emphatic instead of έγγελώ σοι. (Alterations such as εί γελώ γ’, Heath, Jebb, G. Muller, μέν δή, κεί Dindorf are unwarranted). For έν 'in relation to’ cf. Pearson ad Ichn. 350. 552. αλλά νϋν: G.P.2 p. 13. τί δήτ’ άν: When composing this scene, the poet must have had in mind the last and seemingly best, though unavailing, trump which Ismene will play at the end: Antigone’s engagement to Haemon, Creon’s son. It does not seem to me altogether a pointless question whether Ismene is supposed to have this argument in mind when uttering her hopeless words. Ismene's role, here as in the Prologue, can be described as the role of one who vainly tries to stave off tragedy by sympathy and argument, bent on saving the world of family-relations into which she is born, wavering between pusillanimity and generous impulse. If we are allowed to assume that Sophocles wants Ismene to speak and to act in accordance with the elements of the situation, we have to interpret her utter­ ances and their sequence as if coming from a real human being conscious of these elements. Of course she wants to save her sister. Now the only ways of attaining that end lie in trying to make Antigone less inflexible or attempting to soften Creon’s ire. The first she essays by declaring her complicity and solidarity with her sister, but the attempt fails at the start. There is, of course, an irrational element in this endeavour, and it is bound to fail because Ismene does not really understand Antigone's absolute point of view. If Ismene has hoped that her sister will recoil from the idea that they both must pay the penalty of death, and so for in­ stance declare that she does not want to take this consequence of her action and show some repentance, that is a miscalculation. Antigone does not even accept Ismene’s declaration of complicity and solidarity: Ismene has had no part in the deed; Ismene can live on while she, Antigone, will die, alone. The second way (the argument drawn from the engagement) does not prove of any avail either; if anything, it stiffens Creon in his resolution to put

112

COMMENTARY

Antigone to death by adding another reason for doing so (κακάς γυναίκας υίεσι). If Ismene has reckoned on Creon’s family-feelings, she has come to the wrong man (486 sqq.). It is of course Ismene (and it fits in with her portraiture) who speaks to Creon of Haemon. Now, since Haemon in his relation to Creon and to Antigone is to become a very important element in the structure of the tragedy, I am inclined to assume that the τί of 552 is meant to refer to the relation with Haemon. It is in keeping with the characters of Ismene and Antigone, that the latter does not speak of it to Creon and that her sister does not dare to mention it in addressing Antigone, but that she, in her hope that the family will survive (58 sqq.) clings to it as the only relieving feature in the situation. 553. σώσον σεαυτήν: this implies that she declines every attempt at mediation; indeed, she invites Ismene to dissociate her fate from her sister’s and to retract her avowal of complicity. οΰ φθονώ σ’ ύπεκφυγεϊν: the acc. c. inf. dependent on φθνονώ is rare. I do not feel bitterness in these words. 554. κάμπλάκω: ‘must I then fail to share your fate’. 555. 6. The simplest line of interpretation is to take them both as referring to what they have said in the Prologue, Ant. esp. to 72, Ism. to her apologetic arguments. The imperfect ’δόκουν 557 con­ firms this. οΰκ έπ’ άρρήτοις γε τοΐς έμοΐς λόγοις: 'not without my arguments having been said'. 557. μεν τοΐς or μέν σοί: μέν τ’ ού LacR, μέντοι L' do not yield sense, μέν τοϊς AU does, τοΐς referring to Creon and those who stand with him contrasted with τοΐς 8’ 'the dead’ esp. Polynices; but μέν σοί Σ (σεαυτη καλώς έδόκεις φρονεΐν) seems preferable, particularly because in this way the reference to 71 is more striking: ’δόκουν clearly refers to the Prologue. In both readings μέν belongs rather to the following word, cf. O.T. 435. The personal pronoun used instead of the reflexive is not uncommon. 558. και μην: adversative. Σ: ότι σύ μέν έπραξας, έγώ δέ συνήδειν. She means: 'in Creon's eyes’ but it is remarkable that she speaks of an έξαμαρτία. 559. 60. θάρσει: a real reassurance rather than a sneer (although there are no objective grounds on which the interpretation can base itself; a sneer, however, would jar with the unearthly and sublime words which follow).

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS. 553-565

II3

σύ μεν ζής: implying, on the one hand, ‘as you desire’, and on the other hand the conviction that she will belong to the world of the living, πάλαι: again a strong instance of the relative force of πάλαι (see the long list in Ellendt); she means: since her resolve to break the edict (thus correctly Jebb). ώστε: consecutive-final. Subject of the clause is Antigone, ώφελεΐν: with dative, as sometimes in Vth century Greek (e.g. Ar. Av. 421). (Some commentators want to make Ismene the subject of the clause, reading—with Wieseler—ώς σε or τοϊς θανοϋσί ώφελεΐν, τοϊς θανοϋσι referring to Antigone; this is subtle, but all things considered, to be rejected: as Antigone’s final words in this dialogue, the transmitted text offers a much more impressive meaning, summarizing as it does the essence of Antigone’s stand; cf. Σ οΐον προηκάμην το ζην βοηθήσαι βουλομένη τω άδελφω). 561, 2. One of those numerous passages in Sophocles where the interrelations of the dramatis personae are shown in the perspective of the past. 563, 4. άλλ’ ού γάρ: thus twice in Plut.: Phoc. I and Mor. 460 d, and although ού γάρ ποτ’ codd. makes good sense, I prefer here, with Boeckh, Vollgraff, G. Muller the indirect transmission as intrinsically better1). There is something outre in ού ... ποτ’ which we are eager to get rid of, and the strong objection expressed by άλλ’ is just what we want. τοϊς κακώς πράσσουσιν: ‘those who fare badly’. The v.l. πράξασιν Plut. Mor. 460 d is decidedly no better (Greg. Cor. has πράττουσιν); Eur./r. 165 N.2 (evidently referring to our passage; the fr. occurred in his Antigone) has: άκουσον ού γάρ οί κακώς πεπραγότες / σύν ταΐς τύχαισι τούς λόγους άπώλεσαν is more in favour of πράσσουσιν than of πράξασιν (πράξασιν may have its origin in the same sad misunderstanding of the passage which is shown by Σ ad 563, though not by Plutarch). έξίσταται: cedit, deficit, ‘is deranged’; (more usual is έξίσταμαι φρένων and the like). 565. σοΐ γοΰν: sc. νους έξέστη. δθ’: 'du moment ou’, temporal, with a circumstantial (or causal) element. σύν κακοϊς πράσσειν κακά: σύν κακοϊς plur. masc., general plural ‘) Greg. Cor. ed. G. H. Schaefer (1840) has ’Αλλά γάρ.

II4

COMMENTARY

referring to Antigone (κακ).ηι.Σ s.l. and κακώ A derive from mis­ judgment of this idiom), πράσσειν κακά: 'to perpetrate evil deeds’. The malicious word-play with κακώς πράσσουσιν and πράσσειν κακά, untranslatable in English or Dutch, has not been understood by Σ, who renders 563-5 thus: ού μένει γάρ ούδέ ό έξ άρχής κακός νους τοϊς κακώς φρονήσασι (perhaps reading πράξασιν) πρός ο φησι Κρέων, σόι γοϋν μένει κακός ό νους οπότε εΐλου τών κακών είναι κοινωνός. 566. Cf. supra 548 and the curious υ.Ι. there in R. τί is adverbial acc., amounting to πώς. 567. άλλ’ ήδε μέντοι μή λέγ’ · ού γάρ έστ’ ότι: since Brunck μέντοι is what as a rule edd. prefer to read; codd. have μέν σοι, Zf (Paris. 2884, E in Pearson and others) has μέντοι σοι. Then ήδε has to be regarded as ‘ήδε’ ('speak not of her ‘presence’ ’ Jebb); one would expect ‘τήσδε’ because of 566 x) (or τηνδε if the word is ‘construed’ with λέγ’) or τό ήδε (but this is perhaps only required in prose). The mss reading άλλ’ ήδε μέν σοι κτλ. can only be explained by assuming an aposiopesis, followed by μή λέγ’, whereas what should have followed σοι is replaced by ού γάρ έστ’ έτι. This is not con­ vincing and we had better accept the ‘vulgate’, as is done by the grammarians (K.-G. I 46, Schw.-Debr. II 66, Humbert Synt. gr. § 334)· 568. νυμφεϊα: here ‘bride’. Cp. the metonymy of λέχος and εύνή for ‘spouse’. The engagement of Haemon to Antigone seems to be postulated as being known to the audience. We are not in a position to decide whether such was really the case. If not, Ismene’s question comes as a still greater surprise than it otherwise does. 569. άρώσιμοι: the ω metri causa. The metaphor repeatedly in O.T., άροτήρ ‘begetter’ Eur. Troad. 135, άροτήρ εύτεκνίης I.G. 14.1615, παίδων έπ’ άρότφ γνησίων in ‘contracts of marriage’: it is the formula of betrothal, cf. Men. Dysc. 842, Perik. 435 sq. (άροτρα 'organs of generation’ Nonn. Dion. XII 46). The grossness of Creon’s retort does not lie in the imagery itself but in the tenor of the sentence as a whole. 570. ούχ ώς γ’ . . . ήρμοσμένα: ‘no, not in the same way as there was a close bond between him and her here’ (τήδε: Ismene ignores Creon’s injunction 567). (Another possibility would be: ούχ· ώς γ’: non ita: quippe . . .). The fact that άρμόζω is used = έγγυώ (in Ionic) is not irrelevant. ■) One might tentatively conjecture: ί τήσδε μέντοι μή λέγ’. For ά cf. Ο.Τ. 1147· Phil. 1300. The first word of the next line is άλλά.

SECOND EPEISODION, VSS.

566-576

US

572. The attribution of this line to Antigone goes back to Aldus. Brunck, following the transmission **), gave it to Ismene, which met with the opposition of Boeckh. Since then scholarly opinion remains divided (e.g. Dain-Mazon give it to Ismene 2), G. Muller to Antigone). I adhere to Boeckh’s opinion, with, among others, Campbell, Jebb, Pearson, Vollgraff, Kitto {Form and Meaning pp. 162 sqq.—against Letters p. 166, 7), for the following reasons: (1) It is a gain in connection with the latter part of the play if Antigone may once be allowed to give utterance to her love for Haemon. (2) This love cannot be denied because otherwise 570 becomes meaningless. (3) Ismene can hardly be supposed to be entitled to cry out S> φίλταθ’ Αίμον and that in the presence of Antigone. An expression of affection for Haemon coming from Ismene is irrelevant. (4) There is at least one other wrong attribution of the codd. in this passage, viz. 576, which is given to Ismene and which must be spoken by the Coryphaeus; the same holds good, probably, for 574. If 572 is spoken by Antigone, it has a formidably pathetic force ’). I do not think that E.-R. Schwinge {DieStellung derTrachinierinnen irn Werk des Sophokles, 1962, p. 74 n. 1) is right in arguing against the attribution of the verse to Antigone, on the grounds that it would be contrary to the evolution of the ‘Dreigesprach’ in Sopho­ cles; the reverse rather seems true.—But 573 τό σαν λέχος is no argument in favour of the attribution to Antigone, for the phrase can mean: ‘that marriage of which you are speaking’4) (cf. e.g. Ichn. 393, if the supplement is right, Ai. 792, El. mo). 574. Rightly given to the Coryphaeus by Boeckh. Since there can not be any doubt about the correct attribution of 576, it would by very unnatural if this line were spoken by Ismene. 575. έμοί: LA; έφυ RA, preferred by a number of editors, seems vastly inferior. 576. δεδογμεν’: the neut. plur. without any difference with the singul. (K.-G. I 67). *) Probably also Σ ad 573. ·) W. Schmid G.L.G. I 2.352.2 (1934) was of the same opinion, also M. Pohlenz, Die Griechische Tragodie\ (1954). p. 187. ·) As I once experienced in the theatre, the line being spoken by a great actress. *) Though, in that case one would expect the interlocutor to have used just the word λέχος or a synonym, and that is not the case. 8

ιι6

COMMENTARY

577. και σοί γε κάμοί: ‘Yes, by you as well as by me’; again Creon’s tyrannical nature is made manifest. μή τριβάς έτ’: sc. ποιεϊσθε (to his attendants). Similar ellipses are listed by van Leeuwen ad Ar. Nub. 84; see K.-G. I 329 (ib. II 571 the phrase is given as an instance of aposiopesis; this is to be rejected). 578. έκ δέ τοϋδε: RAL“; έκ δέ τασδε LacA does not mean anything but can be interpreted as έκδέτας δέ and this can be corrected into έκδέτους δέ (Bruhn, Pearson, G. Muller ') ) (The objection of Σ against δέ: περιττεύει—in itself not important—remains with έκδέτους δέ). If we read έκ δέ τοϋδε, γυναίκας είναι has the pregnant meaning of: ‘behave themselves as it behoves women', something this Creon may easily be supposed to say. On έκδέω see Stevens on Eur. Andr. 556. My conclusion is: non liquet', be δέ τοϋδε is defended by Campbell and Jebb. 579. άνειμένας: ‘left at large’, cf. El. 516. With έκδέτους the result is a polar expression; with γυναίκας as predicate in the first member of the clause there is some inconcinnity but this would not be alien to Sophocles’ style. 580. 1. For the tone of this general statement cf. 473 sqq., note the typical τοι (cf. G.P.2 p. 542 sq. (10) ). (It must be said that its applicability to the present case is somewhat easier to perceive if we read έκδέτους δέ). For the function of sentences at the end of rhesis, scene, epeisodion, when there is exit (here there is an exit of Antigone and Ismene, not of Creon: the words work as a scornful uttering shouted after them, while they are led away; they are also ominous with regard to Creon) see in general E. Wolf, Sentenz und Reflexion bei Sophokles (1910) passim and esp. pp. 159-161.

Second Stasimon 582-625

For a ‘summary’ and some remarks see the Introduction. After the preceding scene the vision of the doom of the royal house by which Antigone's fate is interpreted, and the hymn on Zeus’ almighty power contrasted with the wreck of mortals’ delusions, come as striking and many-sided comments on the tragic situation. 582. εύδαίμονες οίσι: for the phrase (with its religious overtones) cf. Hom. H. Dem. 480 sqq., Pind. fr. 137, Soph. fr. 837 P., Alcm. ’) έκδέτους is understood by Ehrenberg (Sophocles and Pericles, p. 144) as meaning 'tied ', a dubious interpretation.

SECOND EPEISODION, 577’58l----SECOND STASIMON, 582-586 II7

1.38 P. ό 8’ όλβιος, όστις εΰφρων / άμέραν διαπλεκει / άκλαυτος; Eur. Bacch. sq. μάκαρ όστις εύδαίμων κτλ. (and, in another vein, fr. 910 N.2). Cf. also Eur. Bacch. 910 sq. τό δέ κατ’ ήμαρ δτφ βίοτος / εύδαίμων, μακαρίζω. The meaning of εύδαίμονες has to be taken in its strict etymological sense (‘favourites of the gods’ would not be a bad translation). άγευστος: δς ού γέγευται. κακών: evils (in undifferentiated sense). 583, 4. σεισθή: possibly serves as a prelude to the simile of the storm-tossed sea. 584,5. άτας / ούδέν έλλείπει: ‘no form of άτη is wanting’; not only is άτη the key-word κατ’ έξοχήν of this stasimon, it denotes a central concept of this whole tragedy (and of many others). See on άτη the excellent discussion in Dodds, The Greeks and the Irra­ tional (1951) pp· 37-41· ερπον: belongs logically to άτας and is grammatically attribute of ούδέν, not predicative adjunct to be taken closely with έπ'ι πλήθος, γενεάς έπΐ πλήθος έρπον: either ‘approaching a great number of the race’ or ‘spreading over etc.’. 586. όμοϊον ώστε: όμοϊον ώστε = emphatic οΐον. For comparative ώστε followed by a finite verb cf. Trach. 112, 699,/r. 474.4 P. (see Ruijgh, τε epique § 808). The transmission has in 586 πόντιας άλός (only a recent hand in L and apparently LE—but not in the lemma—have ποντίαις); to restore the responsion with 597, 8 Elmsley deleted όλος, reading ποντίαις, and was followed by many editors. Schneidewin con­ jectured πόντιον, leaving out άλός, and was followed by Pearson and G. Muller; this is more arbitrary than Elmsley’s idea, for if άλός is to be regarded as an intrusive gloss it must be on ύφαλον or on πόντιας, and the reading πόντιον has small probability. But it will not do to read ποντίας—Dain-Mazon—in the wake of v. Wilamowitz Gr. Vsk. p. 179 n. I, for ποντία = ποντία άλς is in­ credible 1). So we have to follow Elmsley or seek the corruption in the anti­ strophe. If we regard 586, 7 as an iambic tetrameter (retaining άλός) we shall have: this tetrameter with its resolution in a conspicuous place comes as a convincing member *) I note that A. M. Dale, Metrical Analyses of Tragic Choruses 1 (Bull, of the class, inst. London 21.1 (1971)) follows Pearson’s text.

n8

COMMENTARY

between the preceding dactylo-epitrites and the following iambics; the resolution prepares us for the swift movement of 589, suggestive of the turbulent sea. In the antistrophe can easily have dropped out in scriptio continua (ATCIN NTN) (the idea already in Blaydes’ ed. 1905). For λύσιν τινά cf. O.T. 921 δπως λύσιν τιν’ ήμΐν εύαγη πόρη, Ο.Τ. 42 άλκήν τιν’. 586-89. ποντΐας άλός οϊδμα: πόντιας όλος, if right, is a variation of epic πόντος άλός [II. XXI 59) and comparable to πελαγίαν άλα (Aesch. Pers. 427). It amounts to aequor marinum, οϊδμα: lit. ‘swelling’ (of the sea), collective ‘the waves’, οίδμα πόντιας άλός = πόντος κυμαίνων; cf. also κϋμα θαλάσσης II. IV 422, πόντος άλός πολιής Theogn. 10. Now since when οίδμα (πόντιας άλός) is taken as subject of έπι­ δράμη nothing more is expressed by the όταν-clause than what occurs also when the sea is calm, we have to follow Wunder and Wecklein in taking οίδμα as the object and έρεβος ύφαλον as the sub­ ject of έπιδράμη, and Vollgraff in regarding έρεβος as the subject of κυλίνδει too. Έρεβος ύφαλον, then, refers to the dark water of the deep-sea, which stirred up by the storm, swiftly passes over (έπιδράμη) (or 'skims’, as it were, ‘over’) the normal surface of the sea. (Comparable is Verg. Georg. Ill 237-241—~Aen. VII 357— partly going back to II. IV 422 sqq.; we are also reminded of II. XIV 16 κύματι κωφώ, if Leaf is right in supposing that this refers to the ‘groundswell produced by a storm at a distance’). Against ποντίαις it may be objected that, though not at variance with Θρήσσησιν it disturbs the balance of the sentence; on the other hand II. XXIII 229 sq. can be quoted in its defence: οι δ’ άνεμοι πάλιν αδτις έβαν οίκόνδε νέεσθαι / Θρηίκιον κατά πόντον· ό δ’ έστενε οϊδματι θύων. ύφαλον: ύφαλος is said of Danae Aesch. Diet. 828. 590-92. βυσσόθεν: βυσσός = βυθός is known from Hom. and Hdt.. κελαινάν / θϊνα: the sand from the sea-bottom; so figuratively At. Vesp. 696 ώς μου τόν θϊνα ταράττεις (there the word is masculine as in Homer, where the meaning ‘sand’ does not occur; feminine also Phil. 1124). δυσάνεμοι: δυσάνεμον seems improbable (although defended by Campbell, who takes it with θΐνα); we have to choose between δυσάνεμοι (Hartung, Bergk, Jebb, alii) and δυσανέμω (Jacobs, G. Muller): the corruption δυσάνεμοι > δυσάνεμον is slightly more probable than δυσανέμω > δυσάνεμον before στόνω.

SECOND STASIMON, VSS. 586-603

II9

άντιπλήγες: άπαξ and formed as the opposite of the Homeric παραπλήγες 'stricken sideways’ Od. V 418. βρέμουσιν: evidently correct (only to be found in Zo = Vatic. Palat. 287) instead of βρέμουσι 8’ mss, if δυσάνεμον is discarded. 594, 5. άρχαϊα: predicate; the meaning amounts to' from long ago’, 'from the beginning’. Adequate rendering by Mazon: ‘Ils remontent loin, les maux que je vois . . .’. φθιμένων: to be construed with πήμασι, so that the sentence as a whole may be paraphrased as follows: 'as to the miseries of the Labdacidae I see that of old miseries are heaped upon the miseries of the dead’. Since πήμ’ έπΐ πήματι, πήματ’ έπΐ πήμασι is idiomatic for ‘one evil after another’ the idea ‘new’ or ‘other’ may be safely supplied with πήματα 1). φθιμένων: codd., corresponds with σεισθή 584. This presupposes the resolution of an inserted anceps, which is very uncommon in dactylo-epitrites. But since even in Pindar [Pyth. I 92) one case occurs (see B. Snell, Griechische Metrik, p. 35). I am far from sure alteration is needed. The usual conjecture is φθιτών (G. Hermann). 596-98. οΰδ’ απαλλάσσει γενεάν γένος: G. Muller is right in arguing (against Jebb) that γενεάν must refer to the whole race, just as γενεάς 585; so γένος = generation, and γενεάν is the object of έρείπει, and subject of έχει. On 598 see sii-pra ad 586. It will not do to argue, because of the syntactical break between 598 and 599, that it would be better to have period-end here and so refrain from supplying anything after λύσιν, for in the strophe, whether we retain άλός or athetize it, we have no syntactical break at all. 599-603. This vexed passage offers the following problems: (1) Have we to deal with asyndeton between two sentences or has the first to be altered into a relative clause ? (2) What about the missing short syllable after ρίζας ? (3) To what does viv refer? (4) Can κόνις be maintained with κατ’ . . . άμα as predicate and what does καταμα mean? (5) Is τ’ 'and' or must it be correlated with και? (6) Whose λόγου άνοια (and φρένων Έρινύς) is meant ? l) Cf. Aesch. Cho. 403, 4 παρά των πρότερον φθιμένων άτην / έτέραν έπάγουσαν έπ’ άτη.

120

COMMENTARY

(1) The asyndeton is eminently possible and even impressive; Campbell1), Pearson and Vollgraff all accept it as, too, does LloydJones (Notes on Sophocles’ Antigone, Cl. Qu. 1957, p. 17, who quotes Aesch. Ag. 12x5 and Prom. 878 as instances of new sentences be­ ginning with a preverb in tmesi, αύ and a pronoun). So G. Hermann’s δ before τέτατο (Jebb a.o.) or his alteration of ύπέρ into δπερ (ac­ cepted by Kuiper, Dain-Mazon, G. Miiller) can be discarded. (2) We should then read τέτατο with Brunck and Pearson (it is not the mss reading but the correction is easy: PIZACETETATO); thus the metrical and the grammatical objections are removed at the same time. Σ noted the asyndeton and did not know a reading δπερ, pace Muller. (3) We have then to consider whether viv refers to ρίζας or to φάος or to έσχάτας ύπέρ ρίζας φάος taken as one concept. It is hard to see how φάος can be otherwise understood than as the hope of salvation for Oedipus’ house embodied in Antigone (and perhaps Ismene). There seems to be a confusion of metaphors expressing: the last scion (s) of the house who was its hope. I think it more natural that viv refers to φάος. (4) If this is correct, the conjecture κοπίς (Jortin and many editors) becomes less convincing; and N. B. Booth’s remark (Cl. Qu. 1959, pp. 76 sq., against Lloyd-Jones’ eloquent vindication of κοπίς) viz. that κόνις clearly contrasts with φάος is to the point. As to καταμα, it does not necessarily mean: 'cuts off’, because there are two verbs άμάω (‘reap’ and ‘gather’) and the rare active of καταμάω could mean: ‘cover over', ‘sweep out of sight’ (cf. Σ and Campbell), κατ’ contrasts with ύπέρ. φοινία θεών των νερτέρων κόνις: refers to Antigone’s deed and its consequences. The genitive denotes: 'sacred to’, φοινία refers to the fatal results of the deed. (5) λόγου τ’ άνοια καί φρένων Έρινύς: apposition to κόνις, conveying the result of the act implied in θεών τών νερτέρων κόνις (cf. K.G. I 284.5). Cp. Mazon's translation: 'Il a suffi d’un peu de poussiere sanglante offerte aux dieux d’ en bas, provoquant des mots insensis et un dilire furieux’. (6) λόγου άνοια and φρενών Έρινύς: probably meant by the Chorus to refer to Antigone, by the poet to Creon. Mazon, Notice p. 67, thinks that λόγου άνοια refers to Antigone, and φρενών Έρινύς to Creon (“et voici une fille qui parle comme une dimente ‘) In Par. Soph., p. 21 he accepted .

SECOND STASIMON, VSS.

604-608

121

et un roi qui devient un fou meurtrier”). The ambiguity in the wording is clearly the intention of the poet. (If the old conjecture κοπίς is preferred, viv has to be taken as referring to ρίζας and the apposition does not convey the effect but is a comment on the means by which the θεών των νερτερων κοπίς (θεών is then subjective or possessive genitive) does its work). (S. M. Adams’ conjecture *3) καταύανε φονία θεών τών / νερτερων άμα κόνις is impossible: άμα does not occur in Tragedy). 604-5. The Chorus sing of Zeus’ eternal omnipotence in contrast with mortal delusion, blindness and ruin. At the root of this song is the same conviction as expressed Track. 1277, 8 πολλά δέ πήματα καί καινοπαθή, / κούδέν τούτων δ τι μή Ζεύς. But the Chorus are not aware that the φάος of 600 is, in a sense, a light emanating from Zeus. δύνασιν: in choral lyrics = δύναμιν. See 952. υπερβασία: perhaps better than ύπερβασία A. κατάσχοι: opt. pot. in a question, without άν: cf. K.-G. I 230, Goodwin G.M.T. § 242, Schw.-Debr. II 324, 5, Jebb Appendix ad O.C. 170. A striking instance is Aesch. Cho. 594, 5. 606. παντογηρως: possibly corrupt; if not, Z’s first explanation seems best: ό άσθενείας παραίτιος· τύ γάρ γήρας ασθενές έστιν etc. This is accepted by Campbell, who compares O.T. 870-72. A’s reading πανταγήρως is at any rate no better, for it would be very strange indeed if Sleep’s being not subject to old age was to be denoted by a still stronger epithet than that applied to Zeus. Among the many conjectures Jebb’s πάντ’ άγρεύων yields good sense; perhaps *πανταγρευτάς 2) would also do (άγρευτάν O.C. 1091, άγρευτής of sleep Meleager A.P. XII 125 (117 G.-P.) ). 607. 8. οδτ’ άκάματοι θεών: —w-w- ~ — 618; Pearson is right in accepting this responsion. See A. M. Dale, Lyric Metres of Greek Drama1, pp. 129 sqq.. For the μήνες as measure of time cf. Bruhn, Anhang § 266; θεών possibly refers to the heavenly bodies as the όργανα χρόνου (Pl. Tim. 41ε, 42 d 3); the remark is Campbell's). As to ακάματοι cf. II. XVIII 239 ήέλιον δ’ άκάμαντα. 608. άγήρως δέ χρόνφ: this reading seems preferable to άγήρω χρόνω because of the preceding words. Zeus is exempt from the influence of Time (to which all other things are liable, cf. Ai. 646, 7). >) Cl. Rev. N.S. V 2 (1955), pp. 133. 4· *) πάντ’ άγρευτάς Schneidewin. 3) But see also Pl. Leg. 886 a, quoted by Jebb.

122

COMMENTARY

611, 2. τό τ’έπειτα . . . / και τό πριν: there is probably asyndeton; τό έπειτα refers to the near future, the present instant included, τό μέλλον to the more distant future. Jebb and G. Muller compare Pl. Parm. 152 c, Muller also Lucr. I 460 transactum quid sit in aevo, tum quae res instet, quid porro deinde sequatur. Σ is aware of the problem: τινές δέ τό έπειτα ιδίως επί ένεστώτος λελέχθαι φασίν άντί τοϋ νΰν. έπαρκέσει: perhaps (with Bruhn) έπ’ άρκέσει: will hold out for, will prevail. (Cf. schol. rec. apud Dindorf. Schol. in Soph. II, 1852, p. 186). καί τό πριν: logically this should be ώς τό πριν but this is no reason for altering into ώς (Tournier). Such a brachylogy has to be accepted. 613, 4. νόμος δδ’: announcing the following words. It is hardly possible that νόμος δδ’ refers to the description of Zeus’ omnipo­ tence. ούδέν . . . άτας: If we leave out πάμπολις for a moment the words can mean: (1) nothing comes to the life of mortals without ruin. In itself an incredible statement without qualification of ούδέν. (2) nothing of mortal things wanders in life without ruin. In itself this is equally incredible. πάμπολις, in my opinion, cannot be adverb (‘in all cities’) and it does not improve either on (1) or on (2); its position would be strange. Heath’s conjecture πάμπολύ γ’ (ούδέν πάμπολύ γ’ 'nothing, at least which is excessive’, 'no excess’) gives with (1) a possible meaning but I can not regard it as convincing, and even less so if we attribute a temporal meaning to πάμπολύ (with G. Muller); nor do I think that Lloyd-Jones’ ') ούδέν έρπει / θνατών βίοτος πάμπολυς εκτός άτας 'to no mortal creature comes vast abundance without άτη’ (ούδέν adverbially) is much better. If we cling to the maintenance of πάμπολις 2) we have to make refer νόμος δδ’ to 604, 5 and to take νόμος as the subject of έρπει, with πάμπολις as predicate, and ούδέν as adverb (see Campbell’s commentary). It is hard to see how πάμπολις, a very rare word, could be regarded as an intrusive gloss referring to νόμος and old and deep corruption seems to have taken place. (Something is to *) Cl. Qu. 1957, P- zo· *) As Boeckh said we ought to, because of the political character of the play.

SECOND STASIMON, VSS.

61I-619

I23

be said for Lange’s παντελές **) or Hartung’s ούδέν’ έρπειν / θνατών βίοτον παντελές έκτός άτας, mentioned in Jebb’s Appendix, and adopted by W.-B.. What we expect is the thought expressed in Hdt. VII 203.2). One would like to have a form of έλπίς (or a com­ pound) in the sentence (ούδέν έρπει / θνατών βιότω*’ π’ έλπίσιν* έκτός άτας or βιότω* ’ν έλπίσιν*· or βιότου ’ν έλπίσιν*). 615 sqq. On έλπίς as source of disappointment and ruin cf. J. J. A. Schrijen, Elpis, thesis Amsterdam 1963, pp. 68-81. Thue. V 102 sqq. is the most striking comment on the baneful role of έλπίς. 615-17. πολύπλαγκτος: έλπίς personified is ‘roaming widely’ but this means that those who are in the grip of έλπίς 'roam widely’ i.e. 'go far astray’. In so far πολύπλαγκτος may be regarded as ‘causative’. See Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 12 (νυκτίπλαγκτον). μέν: the first member of the sentence is no more than a preamble in order to emphasize the contents of the member with δέ. άπάτα: 'a deceit caused by light-minded desires’; this is certainly better than ‘a disappointment of light-minded desires’. The genitive is subjective or causative, not objective. For the association of άπάτα and άτα cf. Aesch. Suppl. IIO (the text is problematic). Possibly in the contrast between Zeus’ omnipotence and man’s illu­ sions and delusions there is some reminiscence of Sem. fr. 1.1-6, 23. 618, 19. έρπει: subject: άπάτα. ούδέν: object of εϊδότι. Cf. Sem. 1.4, Eur. I.T. 477, Ant. I 29. From τις is easily understood with είδότι. The clause πρίν . . . προσαύση has to be connected with είδότι ούδέν the dative being a dativus incommodi. πυρί θερμω . . . προσαύση: The image is of one who is walking unaware over still smouldering ashes 2). προσαύση: αΰειν 'to get a light’ (or ‘fire’) is known from Od. V490. Perhaps the notion ‘light’, ‘fire’ is secondary and ‘fetch’ the proper meaning. In that case it is perhaps wise to derive προσαύση from αΰειν = ξηραίνειν (Herodianus Gr. 2.133), to compare άφαύειν Ar. Eq. 394 and to suppose that the meaning ‘scorch’ has nothing to do with αΰειν ‘to get a light’ (cf. Chantraine, Did. £t. s.v. αύος). The readings προσαίρει(η), προσάρη seem to stem from glosses ex­ plaining προσαύση as meaning ‘brings to’ and deriving from προς and αΰειν. *) Cf. Sem. 1.1, 5. ·) See on the passage H. Musurillo, T.A.Ph.A. 94 (1963), 167-175. wh° rightly argues against the idea that a fire-ordeal is alluded to.

124

COMMENTARY

620, 1. For the presentation of an old word of wisdom cf.

Trach. x. 622-24. For the contents cf. Theogn. 403-406 (also 161-164). τό κακόν ... / τωδ’ έμμεν: construe: τό κακόν έσθλόν είναι δοκεΐν τωδε. ποτέ: Jebb is probably right in stating that ποτέ here is not ‘sometimes’ but: ‘at one time or another’, but not in adding ‘at length’, comparing Phil. 1041 αλλά τω χρόνω ποτέ. έμμεν: the form occurs nowhere else in Tragedy; the words are probably partly borrowed from a poem (a choral lyric for instance) where the form was used. We do not know to whom του refers. The thought must have been expressed often. The lines quoted by Lycurgus c. Leocr. 92 are unmistakably from Tragedy (ad. 296 N.2), as are those quoted in Σ ad 620 (ad. 455 N.2). On Quem Iuppiter vult -perdere, dementat prius see Jebb, Appendix ad 622. 625. πράσσει: subject: ‘such a man’; πράσσει ‘absolute’ or ‘intr.’ ('to fare’) but with a certain ambiguity. όλιγοστόν: it is easy to accept Bergk's όλίγιστον, but not so easy to explain why and how this was altered in the transmission. Just as πολλοστός can mean 'one of many’, so όλιγοστός ‘one of few’, and just as πολλοστός, though properly meaning ‘forming a very small part of’ or denoting something far on in the ordinal series, is also used (in Hellenistic Greek) = πολύς, so όλιγοστός, which ought to mean 'forming a very big part of’, is in fact found with the meaning of όλίγιστος. Cf. Men. fr. 208, 209 Koerte ευτύχημα δ’ έστίν όλιγοστούς άναγκαίους έχειν (but perhaps we should read ολίγους τούς), Plut. Anton. 51, I, Caes. 49.5. We may then suppose either that όλίγιστον is right and was altered because όλιγοστόν had come to mean the same or that όλιγοστόν is right, meaning either the same as όλίγιστον (not probable), or ‘that is one of few’, i.e. 'one that comes rarely or seldom’. This last interpretation is Campbell’s (and also A. C. Moorhouse’s Cl. Quart. 41 (1947) 2), ‘And he avoids calamity during a season that comes but rarely’). έκτος άτας: coming at the end, just as in the strophe, and preceded by πρός άταν, has the effect of a mournful refrain. The ambiguity of the second strophic pair is still more unmistaka­ ble than that of the first. It is important to bear in mind that Creon is present on the stage during the whole stasimon (cf. 626). *) The meaning and use of ΜΙΚΡΟΣ and ΟΛΙΓΟΣ in the Greek Poetical Vocabulary, pp. 31-45, esp. p. 40. He remarks that όλίγος is extremely rare in Sophocles.

SECOND STASIMON,

62O-625 — THIRD

EPEISODION,

626-631 125

Third Epeisodion 626-780

First scene 626-765

Introductory anapaests 626-630; 631-765: Structure of the scene almost symmetrical: 4 lines by Creon followed by 4 lines spoken by Haemon; Creon's rhesis 639-680; two lines by the Coryphaeus; Haemon’s rhesis 683-723; two lines by the Coryphaeus, two by Creon, two by Haemon; stichomythia between Creon and Haemon 730-757; 4 lines by Creon followed by 4 lines spoken by Haemon. 626, 7. Haemon’s arrival is, in a sense, expected because of 568 sqq.; νέατον γέννημα specifies his status and has to be remem­ bered at 1303. νέατον: ‘last’; see Chantraine it. Diet. s.vv. νέος and νειός (νέατος ‘plus ou moins contamini avec νείατος cite sous νειός'). Jebb is probably right in stating that ‘νέατος could not be said of a sole survivor unless he was also the latest born’. 627, 8. Between άχνύμενος and τάλιδος most mss have τής μελλογάμου νύμφης; they are omitted in a number of Thoman mss and by Triclinius (TTa), νύμφης alone is omitted in Pollux III 45 (I p. 169 Bethe). Without νύμφης the anapaests would run τής μελλογάμου τάλιδος ήκει / μύρον ’Αντιγόνης / άπάτης λεχέων ύπεραλγών; this is metrically very satisfactory and is preferred by Jebb, Turyn {Manuscript Tradition p. 62 n. 55), G. Muller. But this metrical sequence, though common, is not obligatory and τής μελλογάμου νύμφης together may be an intrusive gloss on the rare τάλιδος (only here and Call. Ait. 3.1.3; Aeolic according to Σ; Hesych. has: ταλις· ή μελλόγαμος παρθένος καί κατωνομασμένη (‘betrothed’) τινί· οί δέ γυναίκα γαμέτην· οΐ δέ νύμφην). I do not feel that τής μελλογάμου is a welcome specification of τάλιδος. 630. άπάτης: it is a well-known fact that we cannot trust the transmission in the matter of δ impurum, neither in the choral songs, nor in the anapaests, άπάτας is the reading of the codd., but Pearson and others may be right in preferring άπάτης. The genit, is causal either with ύπεραλγών ‘grieving exceedingly’ or with ύπερ('feeling pain because of’). λεχέων: this genitive is comparable to a separative with άποστερέω and the like: he feels ‘defrauded’ of. 631. τάχ’ εΐσόμεσθα μάντεων ύπέρτερον: for τάχ’ εΐσόμεσθα Aesch. Ag. 489· Σ notes ό λόγος παροιμιακώς οπότε μη στοχασμω χρώμεθα άλλ’ αύτόπται τών πραγμάτων γινόμεθα. Jebb compares Eur. Her. 911 *). *) Cf. perhaps fr. 444.3 P..

120

COMMENTARY

632, 3. άρα μή: ‘can it be that’ (suggesting: 'I hope not’), G.P.2 p. 48. τελείαν ψήφον . . . / τής μελλονύμφου: Σ την ήδη τετελεσμένην. τοϋτο δέ φησιν ώς μη μεταβουλευσόμενος. τελείαν amounts to ‘irrev­ ocable’. τής μελλονύμφου depends on ψήφον as a sort of objective genitive, common with nouns as ψήφος, ψήφισμα, δόγμα, see instances listed in K.-G. I 335. λυσσαίνων: a strongly expressive άπαξ 1). Just like the Coryphaeus’, Creon’s words refer to visible signs of Haemon’s excitement. We may suppose that his mask showed the traits of it. 634. σοΐ μεν: the implied contrast is: Antigone (and Ismene), G.P.2 p. 381 (11). πανταχή δρώντες: 'quidquid fecerimus’, G. Hermann, Ellendt. Cf. Ai. 1369. 635, 6. σός είμι: ‘I am yours’, implying ‘count on me’. καί σύ .../.. . άπορθοϊς: opinions are divided on the construction of these words: Σ ad 635 παρέλκει τό έχων (then γνώμας is object of both εχων and άπορθοϊς), ad 636 άπορθοϊς· όρθώς καθηγή (then έμέ is to be supplied from μοι as the object of άπορθοϊς); Jebb follows the former, Campbell the latter course, and I am inclined to accept this. I do not see why μοι would be awkward if we take it with γνώμας έχων χρηστάς, and άπορθοΰν, a rare verb, can surely be construed with a personal object, just as άπευθύνειν (Eur. Bacch. 884 and cp. O.T. 104). γνώμας χρηστάς: implies ‘rules of good conduct’, 'good advice’, άπορθοϊς: the form can be indicative and optative [El. 1491 has χωροΐς άν and cf. K.-B. II 72 a); Musgrave interpreted it as optative. This was rejected by G. Hermann and Ellendt and implicitly by most commentators, but deemed probable by Dain-Mazon. I should say that the word conveys an ambiguity which Haemon is supposed to intend and which is lost upon Creon. (The words are at any rate ambiguous because of the double meaning of έχων (‘if you have’— ‘since you have’). The future in the relative clause is in favour of the optative. Note that the fut. ind. in relative clauses can have the same function as the subjunctive in final-relative clauses in Latin (K.-G. II 422.4 and 441.(3) b). ‘May you guide me with good rules of conduct for me, that I shall (may) follow them’. 637, 8. άξιώσεται: Musgrave’s correction; Campbell’s inter­ pretation of the mss text άξίως εσται is awkward (άξίως = ‘if I L) Just as τρυφαίνω = τρυφάω Men. Dysc. 830 (see Sandbach a.I.).

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS.

632-644

I27

think rightly’, merito G. Hermann). We had better accept the rare construction of άξιοϋμαι with a predicate; Jebb compares Pl. Theaet. 161 d ώστε καί άλλων διδάσκαλος άξιοϋσθαι δικαίως. (I do not know any instance of the active so used; άξιώ τινα άγαθόν seems to be doubtful Greek). μείζων: ‘more important’, 'potior' followed by the epexegetic inf. φέρεσθαι (to win). See 182. The use of μείζων comes near to that in O.T. 772 τώ γάρ δν καί μείζονι / λέξαιμ’ αν, wrongly called into question by R. D. Dawe, Studies on the Text of Sophocles I (1973) P· 243· σοϋ καλώς ηγουμένου: again an ambiguity (pace Jebb; Bruhn is certainly right). The train of thought may be rendered thus: σύ καλώς ηγούμενος έμοί μείζων ούτινοσοϋν γάμου. It is not true that Haemon’s ‘deference is unqualified’ (Jebb). 639, 40. γάρ: amounts to ‘yes’, ‘indeed’, expressing approval, διά στέρνων έχειν: έχειν (with οΰτω) is probably intr. and διά στέρνων suggests that his mind must be 'thoroughly imbued’ (Campbell) with this principle, οΰτω is then made explicit by the inf. έστάναι, with the same subject as έχειν. γνώμης πατρώας . . . δπισθεν έστάναι: ‘to take up your position behind your father’s judgment’, i.e. 'to obey your father’s judge­ ment'. Military metaphor and what it intends to convey are mixed up. πάντ’: ‘in all things’, ‘in every respect’. Thus Jebb, Campbell, Mazon. Bruhn and others regard πάντα as the subject of έστάναι; the acc. c. inf. is then dependent on the idea νομίζειν implied in διά στέρνων έχειν; this seems already S’s opinion (but the comment is not clear). But I cannot find parallels to this supposed figurative meaning of δπισθεν έστάναι (nor, for that matter, to όπισθεν Εστάναι, Musgrave’s idea, adopted by G. Muller). 641-44. τούτου οΰνεκ’: refers back, it is true, to the preceding sentence, but also (and this is more important) points forward to the final ώς-clause (its double function is the same as that of οΰτω 639)· κατηκόους: this has the emphasis. καί (643): in correlation with καί (644), unless τούτου οΰνεκ’ refers only backwards; in that case καί expresses emphasis on the intended result of the main clause (cf. G.P.2 298 (3) ). τόν εχθρόν άνταμύνωνται κακοϊς: Mazon’s translation 'pour qu’ils les vengent de leur ennemi’ is not correct (the middle άμύνομαι is

128

COMMENTARY

not used in this way); correct is Jebb: ‘that such may requite their father’s foe with evil’. έξ ίσου πατρί: ώσπερ ό πατήρ. The words belong to both members of the clause and make the correlation of the two xai’s all but certain. 645-47. άνωφέλητα: cf. El. 1144 τροφής / άνωφελήτου. φιτύει: necessary correction of φυτεύει, because the υ of φυτεύει is short. (The same mistake At. 1296—where Z r and T have the correct reading, cf. R. D. Dawe, Studies on the Text of Sophocles I p. 57—and Aesch. Suppl. 313). τί. . . πόνους / φϋσαι: probably: τί άλλο πλήν αύτω πόνους τόνδε φϋσαι άν εϊποις, but τί άλλο could also be taken with εϊποις. πολύν . . . γέλων: cf. Eur. fr. 460.4 N.2 γέλως γάρ έχθροϊς γίγνεται τά τοιάδε; O.C. gO2 γέλως δ’ έγώ / ξένω γένωμαι τωδε. 648-52. φρένας γ’ ύφ’ ηδονής: γ’ is a Thoman and Triclinian reading, possibly authentic (the emphasis on φρένας is not unnatural) but Meineke’s φρένας σύ γ’ ηδονή is rather attractive. έκβάληις: strictly ‘banish’, ‘cast out’. ψυχρόν παραγκάλισμα: cf. Eur. Ale. 353 ψυχράν μέν, οϊμαι, τέρψιν. With ελπίς I.A. 10x4. With the meaning ‘vain’ Hdt. VI 108.2, IX 49.1 (έπαρθείς ψυχρή νίκη), ‘insipid’ Ar. Thesm. 170. Εοτπαραγκάλισμα cf. ύπαγκάλισμα Trach. 540. In the light of 1236 sqq. the words contain a lurid tragic irony. φίλος κακός: that the wife-husband relation falls under the category φιλία is a well-known fact. The use of the masculine gender lends a general purport to the sentence. έλκος: for its metaphorical use cf. fr. 614 P. and Pearson’s note. 653, 4. άλλα: answers μη νύν ποτ’ 648. It eliminates as it were the non-obedience to the preceding prohibition. πτύσας ώσεί τε δυσμενή μέθες: ‘with loathing, and as if she were thine enemy, let this girl go’ (Jebb). C. J. Ruijgh, TE epique § 8lX, prefers this interpretation to regarding ώσείτε as a case of epic τε, because there are no other such cases of ώσείτε in Tragedy. Denniston G.PA p. 528 is of the same opinion (not so Campbell and G. Muller). The inconcinnity of the construction is no objection, cf. 381 sqq. and Denniston’s note 2 p. 497: ‘The units linked by τε (or by καί) are not necessarily eiusdem generis'. πτύσας: cf. 1232. Again this line and the next are to be regarded as instances of tragic irony in the light of 1232-1241. It will be Creon into whose face Haemon will spit and it will be Haemon to

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS. 645-665

I29

whom τινί, as it will turn out afterwards, applies. Further there are relations with 524 and also with 73 and 8r6. 655-58. εΐλον: cf. 383, 406. έμφανώς: cf. O.T. 534. άπιστήσασαν: cf. 219. γ’: on ‘apodotic’ γε seeG.P.2126 (9), cf. fr. 354, 3 P., Eur. Bacch. 445· άλλα κτενώ: cf. 497,8; 770. 658-60. πρύς ταϋτ’: ‘therefore’, 'in view of this’, as often with the imperative, and stressing the defiant tone of the sentence. έφυμνείτω Δία / ξύναιμον: έφυμνέω, 'invocare', ‘implorare' ‘im­ precari' (cf. infra 1305) has a scornful ring in Creon’s mouth. Δία ξύναιμον amounts to the sacredness of consanguinity; Ζεύς ξύναιμος is a special aspect of Ζεύς έρκειος, cf. 487. In Creon’s words is implied: . Hence the following γάρ (659). For this reason it would be a mistake to regard προς ταϋτα . . . ξύναιμον as a parenthesis. So the two γάρ’β (659 and 661) have the same reference (G.P.2 p. 64 (6) ). τά γ’ εγγενή: the emphasizing function of γε is clear; T, for good measure, adds γε also after τούς (66o) as well, but that seems too much of a good thing. άκοσμα θρέψω: άκοσμος ‘unruly’; θρέψω amounts to ‘shall allow to become’. The apodosis would run in unabbreviated form: κάρτα (‘with a vengeance’, Dutch: ‘dan toch zeker’) τούς έξω γένους άκοσμους θρέψω. 661, 2. γάρ: see preceding note. έν τοϊς . . .: οΐκείοισι: έν: 'in respect of’, 'in the case of’ (> ‘to­ wards’) (L.-Sc. s.v. I 7); cf. έν έμοί θρασύς Ai. 1315, έν θανοϋσιν ύβριστής Ai. 1092. It remains a moot point whether οΐκείοισι is neuter or masculine, οικείος though often referring to persons is rare as a real noun, certainly in Sophocles. Jebb’s 'in his own household’ is rather non-committal, Campbell notes: ‘neuter’ (thus Ellendt), Mazon seems to prefer the other course: ‘L’homme qui se comporte comme il le doit avec les siens’ (an excellent rendering). 663-65. Against the transposition of 663-667 after 671 (Seidler; Pearson, G. Muller) I endorse Jebb’s objection (‘Seidler destroys the point of w. 668 ff. by placing them after 662’). See also Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 883, note. ύπερβάς: absolute ‘by a transgression'.

130

COMMENTARY

νόμους βιάζεται: cf. 59 νόμου βία; as Bruhn remarks ‘Kreon tut mehr: θεούς βιάζεται’; see 1073. τοϊς κρατοΰσιν εννοεί: Λ (]ιν εννοεί), A, Lr. This reading, now attested by Λ, is at least as good as τοϊς κρατύνουσιν νοεί LR1). G. Muller’s arguments for preferring the latter are not convincing in my opinion. τούπιτάσσειν: the article with έπιτάσσειν is unexceptionable. 666, 7. στήσειε: on the optative see Goodwin G.M.T. § 555: ‘an optative in the relative clause sometimes depends on a verb of obligation, propriety, possibility, etc., with an infinitive’; χρή κλύειν amounts to δικαίως Sv κλύοι τις. Cf. Pl. Gorg. 482 b 8. καί σμικρά . . . καί τάναντία: cf. Sol. fr. 27D. άρχών άκουε καν δίκη, καν μή δίκη; Paroemiogr. I ρ. 394-100 κρεισσόνων γάρ καί δίκαια κάδικ’ έστ’ |άκούειν (άκουστέα) (fr. trag. ad. 436 Ν.2 δοϋλε, δεσποτών άκουε καί δίκαια κάδικα); Aesch. Cho. 78 (corrupt) (έμοι δ’, . . ., δίκαια f καί μή δίκαια | / πρέποντ’ άπ’ άρχας βίου / βία φρένων αίνέσαι . . .; Ar. Eq. 256 καί δίκαια κάδικα; And. I I and 135 και δικαίως καί άδίκως. τάναντία: euphemism in its relation to δίκαια. 668-71. τούτον τον άνδρα: referring to the implied subject of κλύειν; the man who obeys the ruler. θαρσοίην: θαρσέω with acc. c. inf. amounts to ‘believe confidently that’. Sv (669): belongs to άρχειν and to θέλειν. δορός . . . έν χειμώνι: ‘in the storm of sword’ (Jdrum skaldmaer, Sendibitr 5). προστεταγμένον: probably ‘posted at a place’ rather then 'iussum' i.e. ‘ubi iussus est' (see Ellendt s.v.). παραστάτην: 'a comrade in the rank’ (of the phalanx, where everything depends on everyone remaining in his assigned place). 672. άναρχίας: here for the first time (unless Aesch. Sept. 1030 is authentic), meaning ‘unruliness’, ».«. a state of affairs where the ruler cannot assert himself and where disobedience is rife. (Cf. Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 883). Cf. O.T. 628 άρκτέον γ’ όμως and the gloss a.h.l. άντί τού άπειθείας. 673-76. αυτή πόλεις ίλλυσιν: πόλις 6’ LA and πόλις τ’ LslAsl are impossible, πόλεις τ’ RA only acceptable if ήδ’ (before άναστά!) κρατύνειν = κρατεΐν is of course common usage (e.g. O.T. 14, El. 175, O.C. 1314) but I do not know examples of ol κρατύνοντες = ol κρατούντες ‘reges’.

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS.

666-682

I3I

τους) is read. But it seems better to delete τ’ (it may be regarded as a correction of θ’, itself either meant as a metrical correction after πόλις or to be attributed to a scriba who got into a tangle with the sequence IIOAEICO), to read ήδ’ (before άναστάτους) and ήδε σύν μάχη δορός 674· Jebb correctly draws our attention to 296 sqq., where we have τοϋτο . . . τόδ’ . . . τόδ’, as a parallel to αύτη . . . ήδ’... ήδ’ here, a parallel the more appropriate because these two anaphoric sequences are put into the mouth of the same speaker and that in similar remonstrances. πόλεις . . . οίκους: the same contrast as in 661, 2. σύν μάχη δορός *): I am all but convinced that these words are sound and that they mean either: 'in the course of a battle' (cf. L.-Sc. s.v. σύν 6) or 'together with the battle of the spear’ (sc. of the enemy). Cf. for μάχη δορός P. Oxy. 1083 fr. 1.9, 10 τά προς μάχην / δορός (Carden p. 141 and his comment p. 143). τροπάς καταρρήγνυσι: a pregnant phrase = καταρρηγνϋσα τροπάς ποιεί. Σ έκ γάρ διορρήξεως στρατού τροπή γίνεται. τών δ’ όρθουμένων: 'of those who are successful’, πειθαρχία: the opposite of άναρχία. 677-79. ούτως 'therefore’, itaque, a rare case of inferential οΰτως in Sophocles (cf. Pearson ad fr. 682.1). τοϊς κοσμουμένοις: as a rule this is taken as a neuter: 'the regula­ tions made by οΐ κοσμοϋντες, the rulers’ (Jebb). But Wex (1829) and Boeckh (1843) prefer: τοΐς κοσμουμένοις = τοϊς κοσμίως άρχομενοις, ‘denen, die sich ordnen lassen’; this is accepted by Vollgraff (L’Oraison funebre de Gorgias (1952) p. 47). We may well ask, then, whether τοϊς κοσμουμένοις is a dativus auctoris or commodi. If a dat. auct., we have mentally to supply τη πόλει or τω άρχοντι, if commodi, then the meaning is: 'thus one must defend the cause of the orderly subject’ (Campbell). This is much better than the alter­ native, for from 679, 80 it appears that Creon is thinking in the first place of himself (and by implication of Haemon) as the logical subject of άμυντέα and ήσσητέα. κοίίτοι. . . ήσσητέα: cf. 525, 649. 679, 80. έκπεσεΐν: sc. e.g. άρχής, 'be expelled’ (from one’s posi­ tion), ‘be overthrown’. 681, 2. τω χρόνω: i.e. by our old age. *) I do not think that the fact that LAR have συμμάχηι (A σύν μάχη) is of great importance. 9

132

COMMENTARY

κεκλέμμεθα: εί μή τής φρονήσεως υπό τοϋ γήρως σεσυλήμεθα. Evidently Σ knew the correct reading, which is in the text of AUY (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 182). 683, 4. The son speaks these words to the father whom the Chorus is referring to in the final words μεγάλοι. . . γήρα τό φρονεϊν έδίδαξαν (Ι35θ'53)· φρέζας takes its cue from φρονούντως 682, and cp. also 648 and 707, 754 sq. χρημάτων: LA, better than κτημάτων RL’sl; the reading ύπέρτερον probably derives from an interpretation of χρημάτων meaning ‘money’ or at least ‘material possessions’. 685, 6. λέγεις: not λέγης; μη after όπως as after δς and δστις. δπως: 'how', 'in what respect’. οδτ’ άν δυναίμην μήτ’ έπισταίμην λέγειν: cf. supra 500. ‘He could not if he would and would not if he could’ (Jebb). 687. γένοιτο . . . χάτέρως καλώς έ'χον: χάτέρως is what Erfurdt conjectured and Σ probably read: δυνατόν σε και έτέρως καλώς μεταβουλεύσασθαι. Μ (Modena a.T. 9.4) has in lemmate μεν γ’ άν χάτέρως. The meaning of the sentence, with χάτέρως, is acceptable in my opinion (‘Something good, however, may also come about in an other way’), but έτέρως is nowhere found in Tragedy nor in Hdt.; once in Aristophanes. Therefore χάτέρα (Musgrave) would be prefer­ able. But perhaps χάτέρω (mss) is right: ‘and yet another man, too, might have some useful thought’ (Jebb and the majority of editors). 688, 9. σοϋ δ’οδν πέφυκα. . . προσκοπεϊν: thus the reading in the text of L; L’s σύ δ’ ού πέφυκας is decidedly inferior: (1) it does away with the excellent δ’ οδν (‘be that as it may, in any case’); (2) it is much more natural (and respectful) for Haemon to say of himself that he is by nature the suitable person to watch on Creon’s behalf than for him to assert that Creon is not the suitable person to look ahead; (3) the v.l. seems to have arisen from a desire for an easy explication of τδ γάρ σόν δμμα δεινόν, σοΐ δ’ οδν πέφυκα RA is possible but σοϋ is better than σοΐ if (as seems a correct assumption) προhas the meaning of ύπέρ or of άντί. (Another possibility would be to regard σοϋ in the first instance as a genit, orig. with πέφυκα, which is then construed with the inf. expressing that for which somebody is fit, well adapted: thus Mazon: ‘Νέ de toi, je suis tout d&igne, pour guetter, dans ton int6rSt’, etc.). 690, 1. γάρ: refers to the negative idea implied in the preceding words, viz. that Creon himself could less suitably perform the aforementioned function.

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS.

683-706

I33

δεινόν: 'intimidating', ‘inspiring with fear’. λόγοις τοιούτοις: the dative is best explained as a dative of the occasion with a causal element ('at', ‘on account of’, cf. Pearson ad Ichn. 153 sq.). A less pregnant way of expressing the same would have been: τοιαϋτα λέγοντι. It seems then hardly desirable to suppose a lacuna of one line between 690 and 691 (Dindorf, van Herwerden and others; the number of lines of Creon’s and Haemon’s rhesis need not be exactly the same). 692-95. ύπό σκότου: implying: ‘I hear in secret what is spoken in secret’ (Campbell). oF οδύρεται: depends on άκούειν and the clause with ώς depends on οδύρεται, borrowing its subject from την παϊδα ταύτην. 696-98. ήτις . . . / .../.. . τινός: construe: ήτις τον αύτης αύτάδελφον, έν φοναϊς πεπτώτα, μήθ’ είασ’ άθαπτον όλέσθαι ύπ’ ώμηστών κυνών μήθ’ < εϊασ’ όλέσθαι> ύπ’ οιωνών τινός. μήθ’ because ήτις amounts to: ‘since she is one who’. For αύτάδελφον cf. I and 503. έν φοναϊς: 'in bloody battle’, ‘carnage’: Aesch. Ag. 447, Hdt. IX 76.1. εϊασ’: the verb has a double function: she did not leave him un­ buried (cf. 29, 205) and she did not allow him to be devoured etc.. I do not think it recommendable to take πεπτώτ’ άθαπτον closely to­ gether (Campbell, with the interpretation πεπτώτα καί άθαπτον όντα). 699, 700. ούχ . . . λαχεΐν: for a moment Haemon seems to speak his own mind, but he immediately corrects himself: τοιάδ’ etc.. έρεμνή: cf. ύπό σκότου 6gi. επέρχεται: 'spreads over the town’. There is no reason for reading ύπέρχεται (van Herwerden, Pearson). G. Muller’s speculations (Ρ· Τ55) about φάτις: ‘Volkes Stimme ist hier Gottes Stimme’ (cf. O.T. 151) are unconvincing.—There is in the passage 692-700 some similarity to Aesch. Ag. 449, 456, 459, cf. Ed. Fraenkel a.l.. 701, 2. σοϋ πράσσοντος ευτυχώς: somewhat more emphatic than πράσσοντος εδ. 703, 4. εύκλειας: genit, compar, depending on μεϊζον. άγαλμα: just as πατρός θάλλοντος εύκλειας is a richer and more expressive variation of σοϋ πράσσοντος εύτυχώς so άγαλμα is emphati­ cally more suggestive than κτήμα. Note that a general reflection in interrogative form illustrates the special case posed in 701, 2. προς παίδων: instead of παίδων θαλλόντων εύκλείας; προς amounts to French ‘du cot0 de’. 705, 6. νϋν: probably νϋν, whether adverb or particle, has to be

134

COMMENTARY

regarded, as 'perispomenon’ (But Tragedy knows also νϋν, cf. supra 524). As a particle, often with the imperative, it has about the same transitional functions as δέ (δή), οδν: iam vero, igitur, ut nunc est. See C. J. Ruijgh, I’Element acheen (1957), pp. 64-67. ήθος: 'mode of thought’, 'way of thinking’, as at Theogn. 213 Θυμέ, φίλους κατά πάντας έπίστρεφε ποικίλου ήθος, / οργήν συμμίσγων ήντιν’ έκαστος έχει". The following acc. cum inf. depends on έν ήθος μοϋνον. ώς . . . έχειν: Subject of όρθώς έχειν is ώς φής σύ κούδέν άλλο, resumed by τοϋτο. 707-09. φρονεϊν: cf. note ad 683. ήν ούκ άλλος: i.e. better than anybody else. In 707, 8 we have a portrait of the αύθάδης (see Σ ad 711). Cf. Theogn. 221 sqq. δστις τοι δοκέει τδν πλησίον ϊδμεναι ούδέν / άλλ’ αύτός μοϋνος ποικίλα δήνε’ έχειν, / κεϊνός γ’ άφρων έστί, νόου βεβλαμμένος έσθλοϋ· / ίσως γάρ πάντες ποικίλ’ έπιστάμεθα. διαπτυχθέντες: for the idea of ‘opening’ one’s soul cf. fr. 393 P. ψυχής άνοϊξαι την κεκλημένην πύλην; Scotia 7 (6 D.) εϊθ’ έξην, όποιος τις ήν έκαστος / τό στήθος διελόντ’, έπειτα τον νοϋν / έσιδόντα, κλήσαντα πάλιν, / άνδρα φίλον νομίζειν άδόλφ φρενί. Further Eur. Med. 659. Troad. 662 πρός τδν παρόντα πόσιν άναπτύξω φρένα, Andr. 33θ-32 έξωθέν είσιν οί δοκοϋντες εύ φρονεϊν / λαμπροί, τά δ’ ένδον πασιν άνθρώποις ίσοι. See Koerte ad Men./r. 627, von Wilamowitz Hermes LX (1925) p. 290 n. I. For διαπτύσσειν cf. Eur. Hipp. 985: τό μέντοι πράγμ’ έχον καλούς λόγους / εί τις διαπτύξειεν, ού καλόν τόδε. The metaphor seems to be taken from a writing tablet, cp. Eur. I.T. y2y, 760 (cf. Knox, Heroic Temper p. 71 with note 18). Compare also π.ύ. 7· I τήδέ που και έπΐ των διηρμένων έν ποιήμασι καί λόγοις έπισκεπτέον, μη τινα μεγέθους φαντασίαν έχοι τοιαύτην, ή πολύ πρόσκειται τό είκή προσαναπλαττόμενον, άναπτυττόμενα δέ άλλως εύρίσκοιτο χαϋνα, ών τοϋ θαυμάζειν τό περιφρονεϊν εύγενέστερον. But one is also reminded of Pl. Symp. 2x5 b (a reverse image). 710. This line is indented in Pearson’s text, wrongly as is argued by H. Friis Johansen {General Reflection in Tragic Rhesis (1959), pp. 30 sqq.), discussing the structure of 701-717; 701-704 contain a captatio benevolentiae, 705-711 the ‘thematic paraenesis’, 707-711 together form the 'illustrandum’ of the 'comparatio paratactica’ consisting of the two ‘illustrantia’ yu-yiJS, and 715-717. κεϊ τις ή σοφός: in this general reflection it seems better to read ή (with most editors; κεϊ τις εί L, κήν τις ή Α, κεϊ τις ήν R).

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS.

707-718

I35

710, 11. άνδρα . . . τδ μανθάνειν / πόλλ’ αισχρόν ούδέν . . . άγαν: construe: τδ μανθάνειν πολλά άνδρα καί τδ μή τείνειν άγαν αίσχρδν ούδέν. τείνειν: a ‘key-word’ of the passage, cf. 714,716. Similarly ύπείκει 713 ~ 716, 718; μανθάνειν 710 ~ 723· 712-14. όρας άπόλλυται: the passage is parodied in the fragment of a comedy perhaps belonging to Eupolis' Prospaltioi (see Page G. Lit. Pap. 41.14-16) όρα.ς παρά ρείθροισιν όταν ή[ι που] δ[ικών, / ήν μέν τις είκη τοϊς λόγοις, έκσώ(ι)ζε[ται, / δ δ’ άντιτείνων αΰτόπρεμνος οίχε[ται. Another parody in another vein Antiphan. fr. 231.2-7 K.. αύτόπρεμν’: πρέμνον strictly the 'foot of a trunk of a tree’; αύτόπρεμνος in parody Ar. Ran. 903. 715-17. αότως: whether we write αΰτως or αδτως, the meaning is: ‘in the same way’. See note ad 85. έγκρατης: reading of A; έγκρατεϊ LR (L with η s.Z.) seems an error instead of εγκρατή, ναδς . . . εγκρατή πόδα is taken to mean ‘the sheet which has power over the vessel’ by Campbell; Jebb regards εγκρατή as proleptic (‘he who keeps the sheet of his sail taut’). The latter interpretation perhaps strains the meaning of εγκρατή, the former suggests the existence of different categories of πόδες (cf. H. Friis Johansen o.l. p. 30 n. 30). So, with Erfurdt, Bruhn, Dain-Mazon and others, I prefer the reading of A. (Knox, Heroic Temper p. 16 and G. Muller are of the opposite opinion). In favour of όστις έγκρατης can be said that the phrase seems to allude to Creon as the steersman of the ship of state (ναδς has to be taken with εγκρατής). But I must admit that reading and interpretation are not certain. κάτω / στρέψας: τήν ναΰν. ύπτίοις .../... σέλμασιν ναυτίλλεται: an absurd, ironic way of saying (cf. Aratus 425 άλλοτε μέν καί πάμπαν ύπόβρυχα ναυτίλλονται). Compare also supra 189 sq.. 718. άλλ’ εϊκε . . . δίδου: after the long and careful preparatory structure 701-717 the urgent personal appeal. Cf. on this line the excellent discussion by Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles pp. 86, 7, and on εϊκειν 'to yield’ in particular Knox, Heroic Temper pp. 15-17, who remarks: ‘This word (with its compounds) is the key-word of the Sophoclean situation; it occurs in every one of the six plays *) in the significant context of the attack on the hero’s *) Not in the Trachiniae.

I36

COMMENTARY

resolution' (But note that Creon is not the hero proper, for he does yield to Teiresias’ admonitions). Knox as well as Long take θυμοϋ (or θυμψ) with μετάστασιν δίδου, punctuating after εΐκε and ad­ mitting hyperbaton of καί (on hyperbaton in Sophocles cf. Kells, Cl. Rev. N.S. XI (1961) 188-195). This is surely the correct way of dealing with this verse, also followed by Campbelll)—but he assumes asyndeton regarding καί as adverb (not attractive)—, Bruhn, Dain-Mazon, G. Muller, in contradistinction to Jebb and Pearson, for εΐκε θυμψ (θυμψ LRA; θυμοϋ a number of recc.) does not yield any sense and εΐκε θυμοϋ a poor one. On the other hand, θυμψ μετάστασιν δίδου is perfectly understandable and θυμοϋ μετά­ στασή δίδου might be regarded as a normalization—the genitive with μετάστασις is normal 2)—of the uncommon θυμψ μ.δ. So, after all, θυμψ should probably be read (as is done by Bruhn and DainMazon). (If θυμοϋ was what Sophocles wrote and if the asyndeton was not understood, it is hard to see why θυμοϋ was altered into θυμψ: the result εΐκε θυμψ is the reverse of what the situation requires, whereas εΐκε θυμοϋ yields sense of a sort. But, of course, the dative could have arisen, in a mechanical way, after εΐκε. This is what G. Muller supposes to have taken place). 719-21. κάπ’ έμοΰ: καί άπ’ έμοΰ. πρόσεστι: ‘is (helpfully) at hand’. The words amount to: ‘If I, notwithstanding my youth, can contribute a sensible counsel’. πρεσβεύεις: ‘take the first place (L.-Sc.). τον άνδρα: I reject Blaydes’ τιν’, adopted by Pearson. Cf. K.-G. I p. 589 ό άνθρωπος (b). πάντ’: ‘in all respects’, πλεων: cf. 709. 722,3. εΐ δ’ ούν: elliptical and amounting to εΐ δέ μή (G.P.2 p. 466). The expected negation makes its appearance in the causal clause with γάρ. The relation between εΐ δ’ ούν . . . γάρ is similar to that between άλλα ... γάρ ’). ταύτη ρέπειν: ‘turn out that way’. καί καλόν: sc. έστίν (or, at a pinch, είναι), καί is suggestive of the idea ‘second best’, εύ with λεγόντων. 724, 5. σέ τ’ αδ τοΰδ’: addressing Haemon. *) Also in Par. Soph., p. 718. *) Cf. Long o.l. p. 86 and note 81. 8) One could conjecture el δ’ οΰν, φιλεΐ γάρ τοϋτο, μή ταύτη ^έπει,.

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS. 7I9-734

. I37

δίπλα: not to be altered into διπλή; ‘two sets of arguments’ (Jebb). As always in the άγων, the Coryphaeus plays the impartial umpire between the contending parties. 726,7. οί τηλικοίδε .../... τηλικοΰδε: on the relativity of τηλικόσδε cf. the problem El. 614. καί: ‘indignant’, cf. El. 385 (here δή precedes); G.P*. p. 316. φρονεϊν: cf. 683, 707. τήν φύσιν: here amounts to ‘age’. Possibly it belongs to both oi τηλικοίδε and τηλικοΰδε. 728, 9. Cf. Men./r. 532 Koerte: μή τοϋτο βλέψης, εί νεότερος λέγω, / άλλ’ εί φρονοϋντος τούς λόγους άνδρός | έρώ (λέγω Cobet, άνδρός ούς λόγους έρώ Kaibel). τάργα: not to be altered (τοΰργον Hilberg, G. Muller). But there is some doubt as to the exact meaning. Jebb translates ‘merits’ which allows him to continue in the next line with: 'Is it a merit.. .’. As an expedient for the translator this is satisfactory, but in my opinion no more than ‘acts’, ‘ways of action’, ‘conduct’ is meant. In Creon’s rejoinder εργον takes the special meaning of ‘acceptable way of acting’, ‘acceptable line of conduct' (Cf. Mazon’s translation: ‘Est-ce une conduite a tenir’). Note that έργον έστί can mean opus est. 730. τούς άκοσμοϋντας: cf. 677. 731. ούδ’ Sv... κακούς: , I should not even exhort to show reverence for the wicked. The answer is somewhat evasive. To Creon’s mind άκοσμοϋντες are of course κακοί and his άκοσμοϋντας refers to Antigone. Whether or not Haemon reckons Antigone among the άκοσμοϋντες does not appear from his words; in any case she is not among the κακοί. His words are based on the thought: If Antigone were κακή, I should not honour her, nor should I exhort another to it. 732. τοια δ’ . . . νόσω: κακία. Thus correctly in my opinion Jebb and Campbell. Not: τω εύσεβεΐν ές τούς κακούς Bruhn and Mazon; this would disturb the present argument. 732. έπείληπται: of a disease e.g. Hdt. VIII 115.3 έπιλαβών δέ λοιμός τε τόν στρατόν καί δυσεντερίη κατ’ οδόν έφθειρε, Thue. II ζΐ.6. 733. Θηβης .. . όμόπτολις λέως: ‘the people of Thebes forming together its body of citizens’. But perhaps better: ‘her fellowcitizens in this town of Thebes’ (Campbell); the majority of com­ pounds with όμο-favour this interpretation. 734. γάρ: implying indignation (as in 730, 732, 736, 744), G.P.2 p. 77 (II).

138

COMMENTARY

735. όρας: it would be possible to punctuate όρας; τόδ’ ώς (exclamative) είρηκας ώς άγαν νέος. But a subordinate clause with ώς is equally possible, όρας; introducing a rebuke or a reproach is well illustrated by El. 628; Eur. Andr. 87, El. 1121. It is frequent in Comedy (see Stevens ad Andr. 87). ώς άγαν νέος: see 726-29. Creon is speaking with the unwise brutal­ ity of a νεανίας, νεανικώς; Pl. or Dem. would say νεανιεύεται. The line ‘χιάζεται’ by Σ ότι αύστηρότερον προσηνέχθη τώ πατρί. Same note ad 741. 736. άλλω γάρ ή ’μοΐ χρή με: Dobree’s με (γε mss) is certainly right. The datives are best explained as meaning: ‘pour un autre que moi, c’est-a-dire de maniere it contenter un autre plutot que moi-meme’. (Tournier-Desrousseaux3 1885). χθονός: a clear example of χθων = πόλις. So terra = citta in Tasso. 737. γάρ: ‘no, for. . .’ πόλις . . . ενός: ‘That is no city, which belongs to one man’ (Jebb) is better than‘Il n’est point de cit£ qui soit le bien d’un seul' (Mazon). 739. έρημης: in Attic the feminine form occurs three times in Soph. (Track. 530 (lyr.), O.C. 1719 (lyr.) ) and in έρημη δίκη and the like. Needless to read έρημου (A). 741. είπερ γυνή σύ: cf. 484. γάρ ούν: 'for ... in truth’. (G.P.2 p. 446). πρόκηδομαι: for προ- cf. προσκοπεϊν 688. 742. διά δίκης ίών πατρί: either in apposition with the vocative or with to be understood from the preceding verse. 743. ού δίκαια: a proleptic internal accusative. 744. σέβων: ‘upholding’, colens, ‘exercising’, cf. Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 1612, p. 762. 745. ού γάρ σέβεις: ‘ for you do not uphold your royal privileges since you trample on the honours due to the gods’. For γε with the participle cf. G.P.2 p. 143 (4), for τιμάς τών θεών cf. τά των θεών έντιμα 77· 746. μιαρόν: ‘abominable’. γυναικός ύστερον: the best rendering is Ellendt’s 'quod suam dignitatem mulieri ■postponit'. Neither Jebb’s ‘inferior to a woman’ nor Lattimore’s 'which cannot resist a woman’ (A.J.Ph. 1944, p. 174) are entirely satisfactory. Of course, the latter is so far right in that ήσσω in the next line points to the idea of ‘submitting to’ implied in Creon’s words 1). x) Σ explains by ήττηθέν ύπά γυναικός.

THIRD EPEISODION, vss. 735-751

139

747. οΰ τάν: Elmsley’s certain correction of ούκ άν (ού κάν) LR, ούκ άν γ’ A (cf. e.g. Eur. Ale. 93, where οΰ τάν Matthiae is equally certain instead of οΰτ’ άν codd.). Haemon’s retort here has something in common with 731. There the charge τούς άκοσμοΰντας σέβειν is parried by ούδ’ . . . ές τούς κακούς, here γυναικύς ύστερον by οΰ . . . ήσσω γε των αισχρών. The emphatic εμέ suggests that Creon himself is liable to that charge. των αισχρών: neuter. ήσσω γε τών αισχρών: i.e. ήσσω τών γε αισχρών (G.P.2 ρ. 149)· 748. γοϋν: ‘at any rate’; Creon’s statement implies that Haemon is ηβσων τών αισχρών. 749. Haemon does not deny that all his words are spoken in defence of Antigone but he emphatically states that they are in defence of Creon, himself and the nether gods as well, that is to say that the vindication of Antigone’s deed is bound up with the salvation of them all, the city included. For if the rights of the nether gods are not vindicated the results will be as depicted by Teiresias 1064 sqq.. 750-57. Attempts at altering the order of these lines have not resulted in real improvements and can be safely disregarded. See Knox, Gnomon 40 (1968) p. 758 on G. Muller's adoption of Enger’s transposition of 756-57 after 749 and Jebb on this and other rearrangements. 750. ταύτην . . . γαμεϊς: a cruel statement, tragically ironic and as such the counterpart of 524. For the emphasis by hyperbaton see J. H. Kells 2). 751. ήδ’: G. Muller is right in rejecting ή 8’ (Hartung, Pearson) (cf.G.P.2467). θανοϋσ’ όλεΐ τινά: the phrase is ambiguous for τινά can be taken to refer to Haemon himself as well as to Creon; Creon takes it as a threat against himself but even if we do suppose that Haemon means his father, no threat on his part against Creon’s life is necessarily involved: όλεΐ itself is ambiguous, for the words can mean: Antigone’s death will be somebody’s undoing. In the light of καί σοϋ γε κάμοϋ, of the whole tenor of Haemon’s argument and of his retort 753 this interpretation is attractive but by no means sure, and after all less probable than that Haemon thinks of his ■) Also followed by Bruhn. ’) Article cited in notes ad 45, 6 and 718.

140

COMMENTARY

own suicide. I.T. 548 τέθνηχ’ ό τλήμων πρός 8’ άπώλεσέν τινά is an almost sure instance of τινά = έμέ. The onslaught on his father in a moment of blind passion (1233, 4) is certainly not what he is to be imagined as contemplating now but it is, on the part of the poet, an admirable device, in view of what will happen later on in the play, that he should make Creon interpret Haemon’s words in this way. 752. κάπαπειλών: = ώστε καί έπαπειλεϊν, quite correctly Jebb. έπεξέρχη: ‘proceed to an extremity’ (L.-Sc.). 753. προς κενάς γνώμας λέγειν: ‘to speak (argue) against decrees devoid of sense’. His words convey a warning, no threat (this holds good whether we interpret τινά as έμέ or as σέ). κενάς: cf. 709, 721. I do not accept Lloyd-Jones’ conjecture τις 8’ έστ’ άπειλή πρόσ σ’ εμάς γνώμας λέγειν; (Cl. Qu. 1954· Ρ· 93)· 754. κλαίων φρενώσεις: the real threat comes from Creon; φρενώσεις functions as a causative of φρονεΐν, for which see note ad 683. 755. Cf. 686. Even here he tries to save the appearance of respect, εϊπον αν σ’: thus, correctly, A. Platt Cl. Qu. 1921, p. 129: the pronoun can not be enclitic (cp. Mazon's translation; 'je dirais que c’est toi qui n’as plus ta raison’ (but his text has, inadvertently, άν σ’). On the construction cf. Goodwin G.M.T. § 414, Sandbach ad Men. Sam. 623. 756. γυναικος ών δούλευμα: mark the climax 740, 746, 756. μή κώτιλλέ με: ‘do not seek to cajole me’ (Jebb), 'mince not your words with me’ (Campbell). The cajoling is to be found in the irrealis. For κωτίλλω cf. Hes. Erg. 374 αίμύλα κωτίλλουσα, Theogn. 852 μαλθακά κωτίλλων, 363 εδ κώτιλλε τον εχθρόν, κωτίλος ‘chattering’, ‘babbling’, ‘garrulous’ Theogn. 295, Soph. fr. 683.3, Theocr. 15.89. (‘sans itymologie’, Chantraine). 757. μηδέν κλύειν: λέγειν (LA) is one of those ‘howlers’ in λ, avoided in other manuscripts (here RA). Haemon’s question J), though suaviter in modo, is unmistakably fortiter in re. Hence Creon’s outburst and for that reason those who want to alter the order of the lines are in the wrong. The tyrant, indeed, is asked to listen to others, by his own son. And is there not a provoking element in the litotes λέγειν τι ? 758. 9. άληθες: cf. O.T. 350. ’) Perhaps J. H. Kells (Cl. Rev. N.S. XI. 3-1961-191) is right in regarding the line as a statement and in taking λέγειν τι in its elementary sense. But then, one would have expected λέγειν τι βούλει κτλ,.

THIRD EPEISODION, VSS. 752-769

I4I

επί ψόγοισι: with δεννάσεις; perhaps the best explanation is ‘in addition to your censure’. Certainly not final; possibly ‘while censuring me’. δεννάσεις: ■'- = ««) 3 a\ —I/ I synapheia is possible. — //)with v— the transition to the iambics is manifest. 966-70. : the text of the mss is manifestly corrupt: in κυανέων πελαγέων πετρών, πετρών is surely an intrusive gloss, rightly ejected by Brunck and many editors. The two islets north of the Bosporus are often called Κυάνεαι, Hdt. IV 85.1. The genitive with παρά is hardly to be defended; so Jebb’s πέλαγει is probable and so is his reading Κυανεαν. After Θρηκών there is a lacuna (-^-). ήδ’ (ήδ’) mss is metrically impossible (the syllable has to be short (and moreover the shortening of -αι is very dubious); responsion between 970 with 981 is only to be recognized on the assumption of a resolved longa (inachoriamb (άγχϊπδλΐς’Άρής). Perhaps J. Jackson (Marg. Scaen., p. 24) is right in correcting 970 into Σαλμυδησσός,

FOURTH STASIMON, VSS. 966-980

169

"Αρης άγχίπολις; further he replaces ήδ’ by tv’ (correctly rejecting Triclinius IS’ x) and altering άκταί Βοσπόριαι into άκτάν Βοσπορίαν. But his starting-point is the idea, that the lost word after Θρηκών must be είσορα. We may then write, partly with Jebb, partly with Jackson: παρά δέ Κυανεαν πελάγει διδύμας άλός άκτάν Βοσπορίαν ίν’ ό Θρηκών (or είσαθρεϊ) Σαλμυδησσός, "Αρης άγχίπολις ‘Where near the waters of the Cyaneai, the waters of the twofold sea Thracian Salmydessus looks out upon the shore of Bosporus, Ares . . . )2. Salmydessus, city and coast, 60 miles north of the Bosporus, of ill-fame for the shipwrecks caused by its shallows, and the murderous robbery of its inhabitants (cf. [Archil.] fr. 79 a D.). 970. άγχίπολις: Ares’ home is in Thrace. 971-73. είδεν: = περιεϊδεν; both Ares’ assenting to and enjoying of the cruel deed are implied. άρατόν: 'baneful', ‘causing ruin’ rather than 'accursed', έλκος I τυφλωθέν: 'blinding wound dealt to’ (Jebb). δάμαρτος: Phineus’ second wife, their stepmother. 974. άλαόν άλαστόροισιν όμμάτων κύκλοις: expansion of the ideas implied in άρατόν and τυφλωθέν: 'causing blindness to the orbs of the eyes, crying for vengeance', άλαστόροισιν is a proleptic predicate; the όμμάτων κύκλοι are seen as the spirits of revenge emerging from their blinding. (The thematic form is also used by Aesch./r. 294 N.2 and by Pherecyd. fr. 175 Jac.). 975, 6. άραχθέντων: Seidler’s conjecture for άραχθέν έγχέων, better than Hermann’s άτερθ’ έγχέων. ύφ’ αίματηραϊς . . . άκμαϊσιν: έν διά δυοϊν. κερκίδων άκμαϊσιν: lit. ‘with points of shuttles’, elegantly rendered by Jebb: ‘with her shuttle for a dagger’. 977-80. κατά: belongs to τακόμενοι. πάθαν: on πάθδ (πάθη) cf. P. Chantraine, Formation des Noms, P· 23· Masqueray’s translation may be correct: 'les malheureux d0pdrissaient et pleuraient leur malheureux sort’. But μελέαν πάθαν can also be regarded, in the first instance, as cognate accusative with *) Cf. Carden ad Euryp. 33 (p. 20). ·) Lloyd-Jones (Cl. Qu. 1957, P- 23) wants to read άκτα Βοσπορία, retaining πελαγέων and leaving out πετρών; he prefers to read 4 Θρηίκων, supposing a gap after Βοσπορία.

L

I7O

COMMENTARY

κατατακόμενοι (= πάσχοντες κατατακόμενοι); thus Mazon: ‘Ils pleuraient et se consumaient, misdrables, dans leur misere douloureuse’. ματρδς: RAX; πατρδς L. πατρδς seems to be a mistake (the scholia, although very much in doubt about the interpretation of the words, do not know the reading). Bruhn, Campbell and G. Muller, among others, want ματρδς to go with πάθαν (Muller at the cost of conjec­ turing εχοντος and regarding this as feminine going with ματρδςsee Knox, Gnomon 1968, p. 760—). Campbell prefers the comma after ματρδς, ‘simply because the fate of Cleopatra, and not that of the Phineidae, is the chief point of the illustration’. In itself this is not untrue, but it is not the whole truth. The Chorus has in view the cruel story of Cleopatra and her offspring and comes to speak of Cleopatra by way of the terrible fate of her sons; as is normal in choral lyric the order of the narrative elements is the reverse of the order of time. 980. ματρδς . . . γονάν: έχοντες γονάν is an uncommon periphrasis of γεγονότες. The first schol. ad 980 is right: κακόνυμφον γονήν δτι έπ'ι κακώ νυμφευθεϊσα δυστυχείς αύτούς έτεκεν. γονά does not exclu­ sively denote ‘Abstammung’ or ‘Nachkommenschaft’ but also ‘the fact of being born of’; it may even mean ‘womb’ (cf. Eur. Phoen. 1597 πριν . . . μητρδς έκ γονής μολεϊν). The ‘enallage’ of άνύμφευτον is most impressive, since thus the misery of both mother and sons is emphasized. As Jebb has it: ‘μητρδς-γονή, mother-source, forms one notion’. 981. σπέρμα: acc. of limitation, σπέρμα ‘origin’, ‘descent’, rather frequent in the language of Tragedy (Bruhn’s note is mistaken; cf. O.T. 1077, O.C. 214). 982. άντασ’: άντάω: ‘meet’ > ‘attain’ > ‘belong to’, 'partake in’. The bold use of the verb, which with the genitive comes near to the meaning of μετέχω, is mitigated by the acc. of limitation. We may venture to think that the notion 'when you follow up the trail of her origin, you meet with the Erechtheidai’, is at the bottom of the wording. 983. 4. τηλεπόροις .../... πατρώαις: the cave of Boreas in Mount Haemus is meant. Cf. Ap. Rh. I 213 sq., Call. H. Del. 62 sqq. See Pearson’s note ad/r. 637 tympanistae}. 985. Βορεάς: Boreas’ daughter, Cleopatra. άμιππος όρθόποδος ύπέρ πάγου: ‘prompte comme une cavale i franchir un haut sommet’ (Mazon). But if Lloyd-Jones (Cl. Qu.

FOURTH STASIMON,

980-987 — FIFTH

EPEISODION,

988

I7I

1957, pp. 24, 25) is right in supposing that we have to see horselike beings in the θύελλαι πατρωαι, άμιππος may rather mean ‘riding the air’ with the other Boreads, 'the dative of θύελλαι being easily supplied from the preceding line'. ‘The implication would be that Cleopatra, like the rest, had wings, έν ούρανώ ίππεύουσα’. I do not regard this interpretation as certain. The few compounds with άμα (see Chantraine, Diet. Ft. s.v. άμα) are not helpful for stating the exact meaning of άμιππος (either ‘together with the steeds’ or 'swift as a steed’). όρθόποδος . . . πάγου: Perhaps the Σαρπηδονίη πέτρη of Ap. Rh. I 213, Σαρπηδών πέτρα of fr. 637, is meant, όρθόπους: ‘steep’. 986. θεών παϊς: after the evocation of Cleopatra’s superhuman power and divine descent (perhaps we have also to remember the divine origin of her maternal forbears) this emphatic apposition serves to summarize her lofty status and prepares the hearer for άλλα κάπ’ έκείνα. 986, 7. Cf. in general 949-951 supra. μακραίωνες: of the divine powers also O.T. 1099 and Emp. 115.5 D., cf. v. Wilamowitz Kl. Schr. I 464.1. έπ’ έκείνα / . . . έσχον: έκείνα έπεσχον. έπέχω: ‘attack’ (Jebb). That the Μοϊραι μακραίωνες are mentioned here, in the presence of Creon, just before the scene wherein his άτη and the divine wrath are revealed by mouth of the seer is surely significant; in this respect G. Muller is right. Fifth Epeisodion

First and second scene 988-1090, 1091-1114

The structure of the first scene is, in many respects, comparable to that of the Haemon-scene, but the differences are still more important. Just as there, Creon has remained on stage during the preceding stasimon. Teiresias' approach, however, is not, as Haemon's, announced by the Chorus, but by himself. After Teire­ sias' three introductory lines, a stichomythia of seven lines, swiftly raising the tension to a high pitch (cp. Creon’s 991 and 997: τί δ’ έστιν . . . νέον; and τί δ’ έστιν; . . . φρίσσω . . .) leads up to Teiresias’ first long rhesis (35 lines), answered by Creon’s furious protest, his only rhesis in this scene and shorter by half than Teiresias’ first. This is followed, without any intervention on the part of the Coryphaeus (the clash between King and Seer is such that the

1

172

COMMENTARY

Chorus, aghast, remains as it were dumbfounded, an extraordinary effect if one considers it), by a vehement stichomythia (1048-1063). Creon’s stubbornness induces Teiresias to pronounce his second rhesis, in which he reveals what is in store for him; and at the end, with what amounts to a fierce denunciation of Creon’s whole line of conduct, he leaves the stage without waiting for an answer (1064-1086, 1087-1090). Creon indeed is for the moment struck dumb and the first words, after Teiresias’ shattering departure, are spoken by the Coryphaeus: never did the seer deceive the city by a he. Only then does the Coryphaeus prevail upon Creon to give in, to rescue Antigone and to bury Polynices’ corpse. 988. Θήβης άνακτες: for this term of address referring to the δημογέροντες, cf. O.T. 911, O.C. 831; see also 940 supra. 988, 9. ήκομεν .../... βλέποντε: at O.T. 297, where Teiresias has been sent for, he is escorted by Oedipus’ servants or attendants; here where he comes of his own accord, a certain stress is laid on his προηγητής, who is evidently also a sort of camillus (cf. 1013). (At Eur. Phoen. 834 he is escorted by his daughter). 989, 90. τοΐς τυφλοϊσιπέλει: I fail to see why the sim­ plest construction of these words (αΰτη subject, κέλευθος predicate, explained by έκ προηγητοϋ: ‘such is the way of going for the blend, by means of a guide’; we may put εκ προηγητοϋ between comma’s) is not the best. Possibly we have to read into the words the idea that the blinded Creon is in need of a guide; 1014 may be a pointer in that direction. But I for one am far from being as convinced of this ambiguity as G. Muller declares himself to be. προηγητοϋ: cf. O.T. 1292. 991. νέον: adsignificatur res insperata, gravis vel sinistri ominis (Ε·). 993. οΰκουν . . . γε . . . φρενός: 'Well, at any rate, I never dis­

obeyed you in the past’. (G.P.2 p. 423 (1) ). σής άπεστάτουν φρενός is rendered by Σ τής σης κατωλιγώρουν μαντείας. 994. τήνδ’ έναυκλήρεις: Valckenaer's reading, followed inter alios by Jebb, Kuiper, Dain, G. Muller (not by Campbell, Bruhn, Pearson) instead of τήνδε ναυκληρεΐς πόλιν, is surely to be preferred. δι’ ορθής ... έναυκλήρεις: reminiscent of 163, 190, 717, but δι’ όρθής = δι’ ορθής κελεύθου or όδοΰ. 995. έχω . . . όνήσιμα: 993 and 995 probably allude to Megareus’ sacrificial death on Teiresias’ instigation (cf. 1303, and perhaps 1058); but in Eur. Phoen. this son is called Menoeceus (as is Creon’s

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. 988-999

I73

father in O.T. 69, 85). We have to assume that the audience knew of Megareus’ death as a well-established fact in the legend; Mega­ reus, Creon’s son, is mentioned as one of the Thebans stationed at the gates in Aesch. Sept. 474, but whether or not Jebb is right in stating that ‘his patriotic death is foreshadowed ib. 477’, is far from certain. At any rate, it is not from this passage that the audience can have drawn its supposed knowledge of Megareus, αδ in 996 makes clear that 993-995 refer to a situation as critical as the present one. But since our knowledge is deficient we cannot be sure whether bitterness on Creon's part is involved in πεπονθώς όνήσιμα. As to the structure of the sentence, we have the choice between (i) έχω^ιαρτυρεΐνπεπονθώς όνήσιμα and (2) πεπονθώς όνήσιμα, έχω μαρτυρεϊν , preferred by Jebb. For (1) cf. SchwyzerDebrunner II 396.7. Less probable έχω_πεπονθώς with μαρτυρεϊν = ώστε μαρτυρεϊν and όνήσιμα to be taken with πεπονθώς (contra G. Muller, although in itself έχω_πεπονθώς = πέπονθα is not im­ possible, cf. O.T. 701). 996. φρόνει βεβώς: closely to be taken together; not φρόνει with βεβώς in the function of a causal adjunct. έπί ξυροϋ τύχης: έπί ξυροϋ ΐσταται ακμής II. X 173: 'οη the razor’s edge’, but there of course, ξυροΰ is poss. genitive with άκμής, here τύχης poss. genit, with ξυροϋ (= ξυροΰ ακμής). Both επί ξυροΰ and έπί άκμής alone are used = έπί ξυροΰ ακμής (cf. Eur. Her. 630 and Hel. 897 with Kannicht’s excellent note). 997. τί δ* έστιν; cf. 991. The repetition is suggestive of his growing anxiety, which finds its explicit expression in his next words. ώς: probably exclamative (cf. El. 1112 and 82 supra}. But an elliptical interpretation ( ώς) or one with causal implication ( for) is not to be excluded. 998. γνώση; not more than ‘tu vas le savoir’ (Mazon), answering τί δ* έστιν. So it is not desirable to alter κλύων into κλυών. 999. γάρ: ‘after an expression... conveying a summons to attention’ (G.P.2 p. 59 (2) ). It is the same γάρ as often found at the beginning of the story proper in a messenger’s report, e.g. O.T. 1241. παλαιόν θακον όρνιθοσκόπον: the όρνιθοσποπεΐον Τειρεσίου at Thebes was seen by Pausanias (IX 16.1 and cf. 18.4.). Cf. Eur. Phoen. 840 θάκοισιν έν ίεροΐσιν, οδ μαντεύομαι, Bacch. 347 θάκους τοΰδ’ ϊν* οΐωνοσκοπεϊ (with Dodds’s note).

174

COMMENTARY

1000. λιμήν: see my note ad O.T. 420. The word seems to mean here: ‘gathering place’ (in Thessaly and Paphos it was used = άγορώ, Bechtel. Dial. I 450 sq.). In our context it may be a sacral term (but we have no other instances in support of such a supposi­ tion). It is the place where he was wont to observe the auguria. 1001, 2. άγνώτ’: άγνώς = ignotus, ‘unintelligible’ (cf. Aesch. Ag. 1051 άγνώτα φωνήν βάρβαρον κεκτημένη). οίστρω: οίστρος means gadfly > sting > vehement passion > frenzy. The frenzy manifests itself in the strident cries of the birds, likened to the unintelligible screaming of barbarians. Cp. Fraenkel ad Ag. l.c.). κλάζοντας: construed κατά σύνεσιν, cf. e.g. Ar. Av. $y. 1003. έν χηλαϊσιν . . . φοναΐς: instrumental; φοναΐς probably adj. (so Σ and cp. Wackernagel, Kl. Schr. 1199 on Pind. Pyth. IV 250 Μήδειαν . . . τάν Πελίαο φονόν); G. Muller seems to be right in preferring this to Jebb’s interpretation of φοναΐς as a modal dative. But the possible parallel in Pind. is not exact. 1004. ροΐβδος: ‘rushing noise’ (L.-Sc.). Cf. infra 1021. ούκ άσημος: i.e. unmistakable. For άσημος cf. infra 1013. 1005. έγευόμην: Dutch ‘beproefde’ is the exact rendering. 1006. παμφλέκτοισιν: cf. El. II39. 1006-1011. Of course the non-burning of the offerings signifies their non-acceptance on the part of the gods. "Ηφαιστος: the metonymy is Homeric. 1008, μυδώσα κηκίς: juice drawn from the flesh and the fat of the offerings (μηριών). έτήκετο: melted > exuded > ‘dripped’ (to be taken with έπϊ σποδω). 1009, 10. μετάρσιοι / χολαΐ διεσπείροντο: the gall-bladder bursting with the heat, the gall spouts upwards and is dispersed. It would be a mistake to imagine that in itself, in these sacrifices meant for burning, the gall-bladder as connected with the liver has anything to do with divination by inspecting entrails. 1010, 11. καταρρυεΐς / . . . έξέκειντο: καθυγραινόμενοι έκ τοϋ λίπους της καλυπτούσης αύτούς πιμελής έξέπιπτον (Σ). As an ecphrasis the description is to be compared with Track. 697-704 and as there its sinister meaning is easily grasped. But we have to bear in mind that the proper aim of divination by means of έμπυρα is the watching of the flame; here that aim is frustrated by there being no flame at all.

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. IOOO-IO25

I75

1012, 13. τοιαϋτα . . . / φθίνοντ’ άσημων οργίων μαντεύματα: It seems better to put a comma after πάρα (as is done by Bruhn) than directly to connect τοιαϋτα with μαντεύματα (Jebb and others). What he hears from the boy amounts to φθίνοντα . . . μαντεύματα, gram­ matically in apposition with τοιαϋτα. The μαντεύματα aimed at by the sacrificial rites (οργίων, cf. Track. 765 όπως δέ σεμνών οργίων έδαίετο / φλόξ) came to naught (φθίνοντα) because, the flame failing, the όργια remained without sign (άσημων). But the paradox is that nonethe­ less the φθίνοντα μαντεύματα result in a μάντευμα. The failing of the sign is in itself a sign. 1015. ταΰτα: ‘cognate’ accusative; ταΰτα refers to the rotten state of the πόλις signified by the failing of the έμπυρα. For νοσέω esp. of states cf. L.-Sc. s.v. 3. 1016. παντελείς: goes both with βωμοί and έσχάραι (sacrificial hearths, esp. used in the cult of heroes) and amounts to πάντες. 1017. 18. πλήρεις . . . βοράς / . . . γόνου: βοράς goes with πλήρεις (amounting to 'defiled with'), τοΰ . . . γόνου depends on βοράς ( from the son of Oedipus’ J.), ύπ’ οιωνών τε και κυνών denotes the agents of the verbal notion implied in πλήρεις (άναπεπλησμένοι εΐσίν). 1019. κατ’: ‘and so’, ‘accordingly’; in interrogative sentences this use of είτα (often with the connotation of surprise or indignation at the incongruity of somebody’s conduct) is frequent, in noninterrogative sentences rare, θυστάδας λιτάς: preces in sacro faciendo fusas (E.), θυστάς ‘sacrificial’ (Aesch. Sept. 269) is a solemn and rare word. 1021. οΰδ’ όρνις . . . βοάς: cf. supra ΙΟΟΙ, 2. άπορροιβδεϊ: άπηχεϊ, άφίησιν (Σ). εόσήμους: distinct and intelligible (from the standpoint of divination). 1022. βεβρώτες: as if preceded by όρνιθες (or we may state that όρνις is used as a collective noun); for a comparable case in Sopho­ cles see Phil. 356, 7 (but there στρατός is by its nature always ‘collective’). K.-G. I 53, 54, Bruhn Anhang § 21. άνδροφθόρου . . . αίματος: i.e. αίματος άνδρός φθαρέντος. Cf. Aesch. fr. 327 N.s αίματος χοιροκτόνου. αίματος λίπος: not: ‘fat and blood’ (L.-Sc.) but ‘the fatness of blood’ (J.). 1023. τέκνον: expressive of concerned authoritativeness. 1025. άμάρτη: for the omission of άν cf. K.-G. II p. 449 Anm. 4.

176

COMMENTARY

1026. άβουλος ούδ’ άνολβος: άτη as the consequence of αβουλία lies at the bottom of these words. 1026. 7. ές κακόν / πεσών: κακόν cf. supra Tfyj. πίπτειν does not always mean ‘fall’ but also ‘throw oneself’; κακόν denotes ‘evil’, implying ‘misery’. 1027. άκεϊται: 'makes amends’ (a passive interpretation is not probable); cf. Hdt. I 167.2 άκέσασθαι την άμαρτάδα, O.C. 1270 των γάρ ήμαρτημένων / άκη μεν έστι, and the proverbial phrase κακόν κακφ διδούς άκος Ai. 362. άκίνητος: άϊνητος or άινητος LA is a vox nihili', άνίητος R (and Ven. Marc. 468 according to Pearson); άκίνητος A and in ‘Thoman’ mss (Turyn p. 64), T. άνίητος would make sense (the ionism would not need correction). A thoughtless corruption άνίητος > άινητος would seem somewhat easier than άκίνητος > άινητος. Should άινητος represent the only reading transmitted from antiquity, both άνίητος and άκίνητος would have to be regarded as Byzantine conjectures, but άινητος may as well have originated by confusion from a lectio duplex άνίητος / άκίνητος. άκίνητος yields the more forcible sense and seems more suitable to the following αύθαδία. There is no need to read άκήται and πέλη. 1028. αύθαδίαν: ‘self-will’, contrasted with εύβουλία Aesch. Prom. 1034 and 1037. σκαιότητ’; only here in Tragedy; it implies άβουλία and its results, cf. Hdt. VII 9 β I ύπό τε άγνωμοσύνης και σκαιότητος. 1029. εΐκε τφ θανόντι: I fail to see why τφ θανόντι should be regarded as corrupt and Wecklein’s νουθετοϋντι accepted (G. Muller and cp. Bruhn a.l.). 1029, 30. μηδ’ όλωλότα I κέντει: Σ aptly quotes κωφήν γάρ δη γαΐαν άεικίζει μενεαίνων (II. XXIV 54)· άλκή: Jebb’s translation ‘prowess’ is very good indeed, έπικτανεϊν: by his refusal of burial he kills Polynices as it were again. Cf. infra 1288 όλωλότ’ άνδρ’ έπεξειργάσω. In compounds έπιoften denotes accumulation. 1032. λέγοι: this seems to be the best reading, cf. supra 666 and Ai. 521. See Goodwin G.M.T. § 501. 1033. πάντες: he is supposed to think of Haemon and the covert opposition among the citizens (cf. supra 290 sqq. and 693 sqq.). 1034. 5. ούδέ μαντικής / άπρακτος: 'not even unassailed by divine arts’ (L.-Sc.). The genitive, as often, with a compound with a privativum. In άπρακτος πράσσω is used with the special meaning

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. IO26-IO4I

I77

of ‘managing by secret practices and intrigues’, cf. O.T. 125, At. 446. The phrase amounts to καί μαντική πεπραγμάτευμαι ύμϊν. ύμΐν: 'by you and your congeners’; this is made explicit by τών δ’ ύπαΐ γένους; Teiresias is regarded as the representative of all the seers and oracle-mongers. 1036. έξημπόλημαι: as we say 'verkocht en verraden’; this is strengthened by έμπεφόρτισμαι ‘made into cargo’. Σ quotes Call. (Aet. 1.7.31 Pf.) έποιήσαντό με φόρτον. Note that the two metaphor­ ical expressions from the same 'Bildersphare’ are also combined at Track. 537, 8 but applied in quite another way. πάλαι: cf. 289. 1037, 8. έμπολατε: ‘get by barter or traffic’. The 2. pers. pi. seems to refer to all his opponents. ήλεκτρον: λευκός χρυσός as occurring in Hdt. I 50.2 (Croesus’ anathema). Both this ήλεκτρον and the ’Ινδικός χρυσός are reminis­ cent of Hdt. (Ill 94.2). Against τόν προς Σάρδεων (RA) two objec­ tions can be made (1) ήλεκτρον is neuter in Hdt. >) (but feminine Ar. Eq. 532, there used of the pegs of the lyre made from electrum or possibly from amber); (2) προς is rarely used to denote ‘coming from’ (a country or the like * 2) ). So the conjecture τάπό, meant as a correction of τα προ L (Blaydes, Nauck, Jebb, Pearson) may be correct3); the v.l. τόν πρό Τ8ΐΣ*Λ is not convincing, though not entirely to be excluded (it may be supposed that the Tmolus where the electrum was found is meant to be in front of or off Sardes; πρό would mean about the same as έπίπροσθ’ Men. Asp. 42). 1040, 41. ούδ’ εΐ θέλουσ’: ού δή θέλουσ’ L, simple mistake origi­ nating from iotacism; we had better not follow those who read with Blaydes ούδ’ ήν and Θέλωσ’ (with Bergk). Creon’s words are more forceful if he says: ‘if really Zeus’ eagles are willing etc.’ than if his words mean: ‘if haply Zeus’ eagles will etc’.. βοράν / φέρειν . . . θρόνους: the words overbid as it were 1016-1018 (Creon’s hysterical outburst supra 486, 7 is comparable), βοράν is predicative adjunct and βοράν . . . viv are object with predicative adjunct of άρπάζοντες as well as of φέρειν. It is perhaps preferable to put a semi-colon after κρύψετε and a comma after Θρόνους, as is done by the Bude-editors. *) *) 3) able

III 115.1, 2, but there ‘amber’ is meant. But 'du c6t0 de' may be the exact meaning. But I fail to understand Campbell’s remark: 'τάπό Σάρδεων is prefer­ here in point of rhythm’.

1

178

COMMENTARY

1042, 3. ούδ’ . . . μή τρέσας .../... παρήσω: construe ούδέ μή Οάπτειν παρήσω, τρέσας τούτο μίασμα (with Jebb and contra Bruhn). Bruhn’s objections are not valid. (The alternative construction: ούδ’ ώς, μίασμα τούτο μή τρέσας, παρήσω is possible but introduces a needless lack of clarity into the text). I cannot find any ambiguity in these words, pace G. Muller). 1043, 4. εδ .../.. . σθένει: seemingly a pious adstruction, but in this context and in Creon’s mouth a sophism of the worst sort. For a serious application of the maxim, cf. Eur. Her. 1232. 1045-47. The sententious warning is in keeping with his last uttering and the dramatic irony of these words, which, but for τού κέρδους χάριν (but cp. 1056), exactly apply to himself, is clear. 1049. πάγκοινον: ad omnes spectans, omnes tangens (E.). 1050. δσω: the dative of measure is also used with superlatives; cf. infra 1347. εύβουλία: its meaning is well illustrated by Diodotus’ words Thue. ΠΙ 42.I νομίζω δέ δύο τά εναντιότατα εύβουλία είναι, τάχος τε καί οργήν. 1051. μή φρονεϊν: cf. infra 1348. Ι3531052. καί μην λέγεις: ‘Yet that is what you are doing’ (Denniston, G.P? 357 (8) )· 1054. ψευδή: the lies are implied in Teiresias’ supposed bribability. 1055. γάρ: ‘yes, for . . .’ For the wording cf. fr. 587 P.. 1056. το δ’ έκ τυράννων: no need to alter the text; the words mean 'a regibus orti’. αισχροκέρδειαν: see supra 1047. For the word cf. Theogn. I 225 κακοκερδείηισιν. 1057. ταγούς: hapax in Soph., four times in Aesch., hapax in Eur.. Probably borrowed from the Thessalian dialect (the word may be non-indo-european) and used by the tragedians for dux, dominus, rex. Its rarity and its unattic long a invest its use with an effect of preciosity (in this respect comparable with τάλιδος supra. 629 or for instance Ινις in Aesch.). The plural is in keeping with this. If it were less compressed what is meant would run as follows: άρ’ οΐσθα τούτους ούς λέγεις ά αν λέγης ταγούς όντας ‘do you realize that those of whom you say whatever you say are rulers’. As the words stand λέγων depends on οΐσθα, and ταγούς δντας and άν λέγης are the accusativi personae and rei dependent on λέγων. But the word order makes the hearer immediately connect ταγούς δντας with οΐσθα.

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. IO42-I063

I79

1058. οΐδ· . . . γάρ: γάρ is easily understood, if we do not take έχεις σώσας as a periphrasis = σέσωκας (as is done by Jebb and others). Creon’s words 1057 amount to: 'I am the ruler; your taunts are directed against a ruler, do you realize that’. Teiresias answers: ‘I do; for through my having saved the city you have control over it through me’ or, simpler in Camp­ bell’s translation: 'For you possess this city through saving it by my counsel’, έχεις σώσας taken as a periphrasis saddles us with a non-sequitur (‘do you realize I am the ruler’: ‘Certainly, for through me you saved the city’). For another view of the line cp. W. J. Aerts, Periphrastica, thesis Amsterdam 1965, p. 133. The words may refer to Teiresias’ counsel in respect of the sacrifi­ cial death of Creon’s elder son (cf. infra 1303). 1059. σοφός . . . φιλών: construe σοφός σύ μάντις, άλλα τάδικεϊν φιλών. 1060. τάκίνητα διά φρενών: these words belong together: ‘the things which hidden in my soul ought not to be stirred’. For διά cf. perhaps supra 639, see Schw.-Debr. II 452. The idea is that the terrible secret extends throughout his soul. For άκίνητα cf. O.C. 624 and 1526. (But a really striking parallel of διά φρενών remains to be found). 1061. επί κέρδεσιν: as in Dem. έπ’ άργυρίω λέγειν, επί χρήμασιν εξαπατάν. 1062. οΰτω . . . τό σόν μέρος;: not affirmative {pace Jebb and Denniston G.P.2 316 (IV in fine)), but interrogative, γάρ . . . καί expresses indignation (for the combination cf. Ar. Av. 74); καί is used as supra 726, El. 385 (‘actually’). ‘Do I really already seem, as to you (as far as it depends on your opinion) to speak for gain ?’ For τό σόν μέρος cf. O.T. 1509, O.C. 1366, τούμόν μέρος Track. 1215. τό σόν μέρος cannot mean ‘for your good’. ήδη: its meaning may be paraphrased by ‘have things come to such a pass that'. Its function, with the interpretation of the line given above, is much clearer than with, for instance, Jebb’s inter­ pretation: ‘Indeed, methinks, I shall not—as touching thee’, γάρ, ήδη, καί reinforce each other. 1063. ώς . . . φρένα: with the interpretation of 1062 given above Creon’s words are to be explained as follows: ‘you have to be con­ vinced that you shall not for personal gain make traffic of my purpose’. This interpretation, not differing in substance from Jebb’s, Campbell’s or Mazon’s is more in keeping with 1062, as understood 12

I

180

COMMENTARY

here, than with any other interpretation of 1062. Creon’s words imply that indeed he thinks that Teiresias is open to bribery and that Creon will not fall a victim to his cheats. For έμπολήσων cf. 1037. φρένα, as in 993, approximates to 'purpose'. It refers to the non-burial of Polynices and to Antigone’s condemnation. 1065. τροχούς ... τελών: according to Ammonius p. 137 (he quotes Trypho) τροχός means rota, τρόχος = δρόμος. If this distinc­ tion is correct our scholia interpret as if τροχούς should be read (mss have τροχούς, the scholia L have no lemma but in their text τροχούς is read, thus: μή πολλούς ήλιου δρόμους τελέσων 6 έστιν ημέρας' άμιλλητηρας δέ τούς άλλήλους διαδεχομένους, τροχούς δέ άντ'ι τούς κύκλους, δρόμους κτλ. Perhaps two explanations have been conflated in this somewhat clumsy redaction). But since κύκλος may be used of circular motion as well as of a circular body, τροχός may mean ‘wheel’ as well as ‘course of the wheel’ or ‘circular motion’. There is a similar difficulty in Eur. Med. 46 (έκ τρόχων or έκ τροχών, where see Page; the mss there have τρόχων). Possibly the formal distinction between τροχός and τρόχος is not valid (cp. δρόμος ‘race’ and 'place for racing’); in that case we should perhaps write τρόχος everywhere. As to the interpretation of our words I prefer the line taken by Σ: τροχούς ήλιου = ήμέρας, άμιλλητηρας = άλλήλους διαδεχομένους. For although the span of time referred to is the tragic day of the dramatic action, Teiresias can very well be supposed to refer to it by μή πολλούς έτι τροχούς ήλιου έν οϊσι and it is less probable that the phrase has been used to express the swift motion of the wheels of the Sun’s chariot during one day (G. Hermann’s interpretation in defence of the reading τροχούς). 1066. έν οϊσι: 'as if the beginning were όλίγαι ήμέραι έσονται’ (Campbell); cf. O.C. 617-19. τών σών αύτός έκ σπλάγχνων: ‘(un mort) issu de tes propres entrailles’ (Mazon). 1067. άμοιβόν: adjectival (rare) 'in requital for’. άντιδούς έση: other instances of this periphrasis of the future (here amounting to a future perfect) in Soph.: O.T. 1146, O.C. 816 (W. J. Aerts, Perifihrastica, p. 33). 1068. άνθ’ ών: άντί τούτων ότι. Thus the majority of commen­ tators. Campbell (with Schutz) seems to understand αντί τούτων ούς but this renders further interpretation all but impossible; ών has to be taken as neuter.

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. XO65-IO79

181

έχεις . . . βαλών: periphrasis of βέβληκας, but note that by the opposition έχεις μέν . . . έχεις δέ 1070 (where έχεις has its full force of ‘hold’) somewhat more is expressed than would be the case with βέβληκας. τών άνω: partitive, οί άνω: the living; cf. Phil. 1348 τί με τί δήτ’ έχεις άνω . . .; J) 1069. ψυχήν: 'a living soul’ (Jebb). 1070. των κάτωθεν . . . θεών: one belonging to the gods below. 1071. άμοιρον, άκτέριστον, άνόσιον: i.e. without his share, because bereft of funeral rites and so unholy. 1072. ών: κατά σύνεσιν referring to 'the dead’ (thus correctly Σ). 1073. τάδε: what is implied in άμοιρον, άκτέριστον, άνόσιον. 1074. 5. τούτων: causal genitive, cf. supra 931. λωβητήρ: λωβάομαι and cognates fairly common in Hom., not in Aesch., frequent in Soph, and somewhat less so in Eur., not ab­ sent in prose (Hdt., Pl., others), ‘violate’, ‘slander’, labe exitii afficere. Here λωβητήρες in the general sense of 'destroyers'. It seems better not to take it as adjective, but as noun, to put a comma after λοχώσιν and to regard "Αιδου καί θεών Έρινύες as an explicative apposition. Or we may take λωβητήρες ύστεροφθόροι as predicative adjunct with "Αιδου καί θεών Έρινύες as the subject. σε . . . λοχώσιν: ‘lie in ambush for you’. The construction already in Homer. 1076. έν . . . κακοϊς: this must not be taken in too literal a sense; Creon’s misery will be as terrible as his victims’. As to τοϊσδε: we may hesitate between ‘in these same miseries’ (the common inter­ pretation) and ‘in the same miseries as these' (masc. referring to his victims). 1077. κατηργυρωμένος: ‘bribed’, a case of catachresis (proper meaning: ‘covered with silver’). Pind. Pyth. XI 42 φωνάν ΰπάργυρον is up to point comparable (and perhaps Isthm. II 8). 1078. 9. φανεί . . . κωκύματα: probably κωκύματα is the subject and ταϋτα the object (to be taken from the preceding line), ού μακ.ροΰ χρόνου τριβή being a parenthesis functioning as an adverbial adjunct of time (cf. Barrett’s comment ad Eur. Hipp. 908). It will not do to take, with Jebb, τριβή as the subject. But intransitive *) But in the context: ‘belonging to the gods above’ would also be possible, the more so since τοΐς άνω / θεοϊσιν follows in 1072, 3. If accepted, Bothe’s ψυχήν [τ’] άτίμως . . . κατοιχίσας should be read and the periphrasis becomes dubious. 13’

ΐδ2

COMMENTARY

φανεί with κωκύματα as the subject (thus Ellendt) might be possible. Σ has the unclear gloss δείξει (we are reminded of phrases like αύτδ δείξει, δείξει δή τάχα Ar. Ran. 1261 and of intransitive δηλώσει). άνδρών γυναικών . . . κωκύματα: the genitives admit of the inter­ pretation as subiectivi as well as obiectivi. Mazon for instance translates: '. . . on se lamente ft ton propre foyer sur des hommes, des femmes’. We are free to think of Haemon, of Eurydice, of An­ tigone and of Creon. If we have to choose, Mazon’s choice is perhaps to be preferred. σοΐς δόμοις: generally taken as locative; but a dativus incommodi has to be taken into consideration: this will even be preferable if we regard φανεί as intransitive. 1080-1084. Sometimes the authenticity of these lines has been contested (Wunder, Ellendt, followed by G. Muller). But the arguments alleged for their spuriousness are not convincing and it would be difficult to understand an interpolator’s reason for insert­ ing them. Boeckh’s interpretation of the passage as the formulation of a general truth is hardly acceptable. The words have to be under­ stood as referring to the war of the Epigonoi and so to Thebes’ ultimate doom. We have to assume that the poet supposes his audience to know that burial had also been refused to Polynices’ allies, though I do not believe (with Jebb and Knox, Heroic Temper, p. 81) that 1. 10 alludes to the fact. I agree with Kirkwood (Sophoclean Drama, p. 65) when he states: 'It is altogether likely that the incident was a standard part of the legend from early times’,—at least in Athens (but not acknowledged by Pindar); let us say that the Athenians were acquainted with Aeschylus’ Eleusinians. έχθραΐ: thus mss. If taken as predicative adjunct the difference with έχθρα (Reiske) will be small. 1081. δσων: the antecedent is either πασαι πόλεις or . σπάραγματ’: mangled corpses or mangled parts of the corpses, καθήγνισαν: possibly better καθήγισαν. Properly meaning ‘to hallow’, especially 'bury according to rite’, the verb is used in a way well illustrated by El. 1487 sq. και κτανών πρόθες / ταφεϋσιν ών τόνδ’ εΐκός έστι τυγχάνειν, and by Gorgias’ famous metaphor γϋπες έμψυχοι τάφοι (π.ύ. 3-2). 1083. έστιοϋχον ές πόλιν: the acropoleis of the various cities are meant, where the state-hearth is supposed to be. 1084, 5. τοιαϋτα τοξεύματα: a sarcastic retort to Creon's 1033,

4-

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. IO8O-IO97

183

σου: genitive dependent on άφήκα as verbum delineandi. θυμω: ‘with passion’ (cf. perhaps O.T. 892). καρδίας: with τοξεύματα (see note ad O.T. l.c.}. 1086. βέβαια: ‘striking home’; I do not know an exact parallel, θάλπος: among the explanations offered by Σ τον έμπρησμόν seems best. Cf. Track. 1082; Aesch. Prom. 650, 1 ιμέρου βέλει. . . / . . . τέθαλπται. 1088. τον θυμδν . . . άφη: echoing άφήκα 1085. 1089. ήσυχωτέραν: we need hardly alter into ήσυχαιτέραν. 1090. τδν νουν . . . των φρένων: not stranger than γνώμη φρένων O.T. 524. φρένων properly denotes the organ, νους its function (but τδν νοϋν των φρένων may be regarded as an amplification of τδν νοϋν). It would be a stranger expression if we were to take των φρένων as a genit, of comparison, which necessitates Brunck’s ών instead of ή. 1091. άνήρ, άναξ, βέβηκε: echoing 766 and thus underlining the parallelism in function of the two scenes. 1092. 3. λευκήν έκ μελαίνης . . . τρίχα: cf. Sappho 58.14, 5 ]ντο τρίχες έκ μελαίναν / . . . ]αι. The general meaning of the clause is, of course: ‘all my life’; the somewhat illogical wording lends it a certain emphatic pathos (άντί τοϋ άπδ νεδτητος άχρι γήρως Σ). 1094. μή: though ού would be normal, μή, implying the emphatic rejection of an opinion contrary to the Chorus' conviction, is not at all surprising. έπιστάμεσθα: ‘we know and are convinced’, ‘it is our strong conviction’ (K.-G. II 196 Anm. 1). λακεϊν: the meaningless v.l. λαβεΐν arose from confusion between β and κ in minuscule. Cf. Phil. no. 1096, 7. τ’ . . . δέ: see G.P.2 p. 513 (6) (II). Add Eur. Ion 583, Suppl. 97. έν δεινω πάρα: for έν δεινώ 'im Bereich des δεινόν’, practically amounting to δεινόν, cf. El. 384 and a number of instances in Eur., listed by Kannicht ad Pel. 1277. πάρα means: in promptu est (often used of an evil lot, cp. Jebb a.I.). The two idioms are combined and we may (as Jebb suggests) mentally supply , lit. ‘offers itself as belonging to the reign of τδ δεινόν’. The change into πέρα (Musgrave, G. Muller) is unwarranted. The whole of the sentence is well rendered by Campbell: ‘but by resistance to bring the stroke of calamity upon one’s soul is an alternative which presents a terrible aspect’. But θυμδν implies more than ‘soul’: ‘proud spirit’ (Jebb)

L

184

COMMENTARY

and even ‘colere’ (Mazon) are better: the word has to be interpreted in connection with άντιστάντα. H. Lloyd-Jones regards the text as corrupt, agreeing with J. Jackson (M.S., p. 150) and he proposes: άτης πατάξαι θυμόν έν λίνω πάρα (Cl. Rev. N.S. XIV 2,1964, ρρ· 129 sq.), a very shrewd conjec­ ture, perhaps not convincing, but deserving serious consideration. On the one hand, bird-catching and hunting metaphors are to be ex­ pected in Soph., on the other hand I should demur at his having made Creon speak this metaphorical language under these circumstances, άτη: dative of instrument. For the stroke of άτη cp. infra 1272-74, and for S-nj’s role in particular 624, 5 and 1260. 1098. εύβουλίας . . . λαβεϊν: it is just possible that λαβεϊν has to be taken as an epexegetic infinitive; it is retained by Jebb and Pearson. It would then mean 'apprehend with the mind’ (impossible to construe εύβουλίας either as genit, sing, or as acc. plur. with λαβεϊν). Κρέον A (Κρέων R) is the easy way out and λαβεϊν may be a scribe’s error due to λακεΐν, λαβεϊν 1094. 1099. τί. . . έγώ: Creon yields. His yielding is enough to prove that he is not the hero of the tragedy. 1100. 1. On the reversal of this order (first the deliverance, then the burial) in the performance of these commands and its dramaturgic necessity see the Introduction. τω προκειμένω: the term is used of Polynices’ body only here and denotes ‘lying exposed’, implying ‘waiting for burial’ (cf. Eur. Ale. 1012; πρόθεσις ‘laying out’). 1102. καί ταΰτ’ επαινείς: καί ‘actually’, Denmston G.P.2 p. 311 II (b). δοκεϊς παρεικαθεϊν: this can only mean: ‘are you minded to yield’J) (cf. Aesch. Ag. 16 δοκώ ‘I have a mind to’) and not ‘do you think it right that I should yield’ (thus correctly Jebb, followed by G. Muller). But that does not necessitate the change into δοκεϊ (Rauchenstein, N.-Schn.-Bruhn, Jebb, Miiller) for Creon at this moment can be supposed to identify the desire of the Chorus with what has to be done; by 1099 he has already left the decision to the Chorus, and let us not forget that throughout the play the King has been under the delusion of acting in harmony with the elders, so that now he can be supposed to consider his yielding as a yielding of the council too. x) Or perhaps still better: ‘do you agree to yield' (in view of the etymology of δοκεω < Υ8εκ = to accept).

FIFTH EPEISODION, VSS. IO98-III

185

1103. γ’: 'yes .. συντέμνουσι: 'to cut off’ with the personal object τούς κακόφρονας, a compressed phrase instead of συντέμνουσι τήν όδύν τοϊς κακόφροσιν (‘coupent la route aux criminels’ Mazon). 1104. θεών ποδώκεις . . . Βλάβαι: Pace Jebb I think it obvious that the phrase is a variation of "Αιδου καί θεών Έρινύες 1075 and I accept the capital of Pearson’s text. O.T. 471, 2 δειναί δ’ άμ’ επονται Κήρες άναπλάκητοι is closely related to our passage and Aesch. Sept. 1055 has Κήρες Έρινύες. But Jebb is certainly right in positing that in Βλάβαι the primary sense of βλάπτω, ‘to disable’, has to be perceived. 1105. μόλις μέν, καρδίας δ’έξίσταμαι: cf. Pl. Ep. VII 325 a 7 βραδύτερον μέν, εΐλκεν δέ με όμως ή . . . έπιθυμια. Much more common (in poetry) is μέν . . . άλλ’ όμως, καρδίας is the reading of ’Thoman’ mss (according to Turyn) and possibly of LE (μόγις μεθίσταμαι τής προτέρας γνώμης); καρδία LRA is a mistake, not easily to be ex­ plained. καρδία, as is well remarked by Jebb, is used with its Homeric sense of seat of desire and passion, έξίσταμαι ‘depart from’ is common in prose, less so in poetry (Eur. I.A. 136 γνώμας έξέσταν, Or. 1021 έξέστην φρενών are not comparable). 1106. τύ δραν: amounts to ώστε δραν. Cf. Phil. 1252 άλλ’ ούδέ τοι σή χειρ! πείθομαι τύ δραν. Not all the many examples listed in K.-G. II p. 44 are comparable. This is a case of epexegetic infinitive determined by τύ rather than of an infinitive with τύ with the function of an internal object (although the phrase may be con­ sidered as such if we regard the notion < και αινώ, καί στέργω or the like > as implied in καρδίας έξίσταμαι; perhaps the difference is terminological rather than essential). άνάγκη . . . δυσμαχητέον: cf. Trach. 492 θεοϊσι δυσμαχοϋντες. 1107. έπ’ άλλοισιν τρέπε: άλλοισιν έπίτρεπε. 1108. ώδ’ ώς έχω: emphatic ‘forthwith’. 1109. οί τ’ όντες οΐ τ’ άπόντες: a strong instance of polar expression in line with the emphatic and excited preceding words. Cf. v. Wilamowitz on Eur. Her. 1106 ώή, τίς έγγύς ή πρόσω φίλων έμών, Soph. El. 305 sq., Kannicht on Eur. Hei. 1137, Dodds on Eur. Bacch. 801. 1110. έπόψιον τόπον: φανερόν διά τύ ΰψος, cf. ΙΙ971111. έγώ δ’: δ’ does not mark an antithesis with the preceding lines; it is continuative. δόξα τήδ’ έπεστράφη: ‘turned about in this direction’. It is perhaps

ι86

COMMENTARY

noteworthy that in later Greek επιστρέφω can mean: 'turn', ‘convert from an error’ and επιστροφή ‘conversion’ (L.-Sc. s.v. II 7). 1112. αυτός . . . έκλύσομαι: the parataxis is more forcible than a hypotactic construction would have been, παρών is practically a variation of αύτός. If the middle in έκλύσομαι has any function, it emphasizes Creon’s personal engagement in the matter. But we cannot be certain that these last two lines refer to Antigone for 1112 may be a variant of a proverbial expression (cf. supra 40) and the words may mean: ‘What I did myself, I myself will undo’ (Cf. I. M. Linforth, Antigone and Creon, Univ. of Cal. Publ. in Cl. Philol. 15.5 (1961) p. 241). Antigone, according to Linforth, was imprisoned, not fettered. But, we can easily object, έδησα may have been used for ‘I have imprisoned’. 1112 had already been taken figuratively by Nauck and Jebb strongly opposed this view. I must confess to some doubt. 1113, 4. δέδοικα. . . μή: he means to convey that this is finally the conviction to which he has been converted, and Antigone’s triumph is complete. But the wording is such that we may perceive in it a lurid allusion to Antigone’s fate (. . . σωζοντα τόν βίον τελεϊν), for βίον τελεΐν is ambiguous. Fifth Stasimon

Two strophic pairs: 1115-1124 = 1126-1136; 1137-1145 = 1146-1154 This choral song is in many ways comparable to Ai. 693-718, O.T. 1086-1109 (in a lesser degree to Track. 633-662). The Chorus, under the delusion that there still is hope of a happy issue, break into an urgent hymn to Dionysus, god of Thebes, to come to the rescue of his city, now in the grip of imminent danger by awful defilement, and to come forthwith with purifying feet. It is not the first time in this play that Dionysus’ arrival is prayed for (cf. 153, 4) but the difference in tone and urgency is the measure of the entanglement into which Creon’s fateful decree and Antig­ one’s heroic stand have enmeshed all those concerned in the fate­ ful course of the tragedy. The almost ecstatic character of this dithyrambic song with its joyous overtones against a background of urgent earnest and entreaty has the function of emphasizing the unbridgeable cleft between man's vain hopes and the inexorable outcome of his folly which will forthwith become manifest in the finale of the play. I am not able to follow G. Muller in his argu-

FIFTH EPEISODION, III2-III4 — FIFTH STASIMON, III5-II25

187

mentation for many hidden meanings and allusions to be detected in the wording of the Chorus. I for one am prepared to be deemed 'urn jeden Preis nicht hellhorig zu sein’ rather than to believe that Καδμείας νύμφας in6 alludes to Antigone or ‘dass man hintersinnig Kreon als Subjekt zu μολεϊν 1144 hinzudenken soil’ or that στονόεντα πορθμόν (1145) has to do with ‘den schmerzensreichen Eingang in Antigones Grabkammer’. 1115. x) The song has all the traditional elements of a hymn of invocation praying for the epiphany of a god. Dionysus’ wide­ spread cult and Thebes as his birthplace and centre of his veneration are combined in order to add force and weight to the entreaty for his coming to the rescue of his imperilled native town. πολυώνυμε: though all the gods are πολυώνυμοι, Dionysus is so κατ’ εξοχήν. (Eur. Ion 1074 τόν πολύυμνον θεόν is probably IacchusDionysus). άγαλμα: ‘matter of pride’ (as often). 1117. βαρυβρεμέτα: only here, aptly used in view of the story of Zeus and Semele. 1118. άμφέπεις: colis, hieris. 1119. ’Ιταλίαν: the unfounded objections to the mss reading have been ably refuted by Campbell and Jebb and ought not to be renewed. The very mention of Eleusis in the next line (παγκοίνοις Έλευσινίας έν κόλποις), its connection with Triptolemus who ac­ cording to Sophocles came to Italy (frr. 598 an 600 P.) should warn us that ‘the aim of the song is to celebrate the universality of his empire’ (Campbell) and that we should beware of changing anything (Σ ad 1145 aptly relates στονόεντα πορθμόν with this line). 1120. 1. παγκοίνοις ... κόλποις: the Thriasian plain is meant; παγκοίνοις έν οίς πάντες συνάγονται διά τάς πανηγύρεις (Σ), not ότι κοινά τά μυστήρια Δήμητρος καί Διονύσου (alternative of Σ). 1123-25. For metrical reasons some changes are necessary in the words as transmitted. On the whole I follow Pearson’s text, though not his colometry; in the antistrophe I do neither accept έπεταν nor Θηβαίας. With Pearson I read ναιετών (Dindorf) and ύγροϊς . . . ρείθροις (Hartung-Blaydes): ναιετών παρ’ ύγροϊς 1134 άμβρότων έπέων -«-νν,dodr. Ίσμηνοϋ ρείθροις άγριου τ’ εύαζόντων Θηβαίας -------- 33- chor. dim. έπΐ σπορά δράκοντος. έπισκοποϋντ’ άγυιάςiamb. sync. 1) On the metrical problem of this line cf. A. M. Dale, The Lyric Metres of Greek Drama1, p. 181, n. 1. I think Nauck’s άγαλμα νύμφας preferable to mss νύμφας άγαλμα.

1

ι88

COMMENTARY

Against Jebb’s ναιετών παρ’ ύγρόν / Ίσμηνοϋ ρεΐθρόν see Ed. Fraenkel ad Aesch. Ag. 229 f. n. 2 ’). If either ύγροΐς or ρείθροις corrupted into ύγρόν or ρεϊθρον, ρείθροις or ύγροΐς would follow suit. But, of course, the restoration is far from certain. (The Triclinian reading ύγρών . . . ρεέθρων supposes the dubious construction of παρά with genit. —'du c6ti de’, but see ad 966—and is evidently conjectural). 1124, 5. άγριου τ’ / . . . δράκοντος: παρά τον τόπον έν ω έσπάρησαν οί όδόντες τοϋ δράκοντος (Σ). 1126. διλόφου πέτρας: the two cliffs, called Φαιδριάδες, belonging to the Parnassus massif are meant. On the uplands above these cliffs the Dionysiae trieteris was celebrated. 1126,7. στέροψ δπωπε / λιγνός: bold formulation for: ‘you are seen in the lucidus vapor of the torches’. Cf. perhaps λαμπάδα θεωρόν Eur. Ion 1076. Κωρύκιαι: of the Κωρύκιον άντρον, not far from the place of worship. 1129. στείχουσι Νύμφαι: probably better than Νύμφαι στίχουσι (στείχουσι mss). 1130. Κασταλίας τε ναμα: second subject of δπωπε (not to be coordinated with Νύμφαι Βακχίδες—sc. έστι—as preferred by Campbell). 1131. Νυσαίων: here probably the Euboean Nysa is meant. 1134, 5. άμβρότων έπέων /εύαζόντων: a bold figure of speech, but not bolder than σέ στέροψ δπωπε λιγνός. We should not forget that we have to do with the μίμησις of a dithyrambic song. There is not the slightest reason why we should read άβρότων (with 'Thoman' and Triclinian mss 2) ), nor why we should conjecture έπετάν (the word does not occur in Tragedy), άμβρότων: divine. 1139. ματρί σύν κεραύνια: goes with the subject, κεραύνια: cf. Eur. Bacch. 6 μνήμα μητρός τής κεραύνιας. 1140. Only here do we have the apodosis of the long protasis structured thus: invocation in the vocative 1115-17, expanded by δς άμφέπεις . . . μέδεις δέ . . . δράκοντος 1118-1125, a long bipartite parenthesis σέ δ’ δπωπε . . . καί σε πέμπει . . . άγυίας 1126-1136, *) Moreover, since the antistrophe seems to point to synaphy from 1132 to 1136, ύγρόν coming at the end of 1123 is improbable; if we follow Pearson's colometry it is even impossible (Dain inserts after ύγρόν, but his next line is metrically very odd). *) Cf. Turyn, Manuscript Tradition, p. 64; there evidently a printing error gives άμβρότφ as the reading of LR: the reading is άμβρότων.

FIFTH STASIMON, VSS. II24-II47

189

relative clause—τάν refers κατά σύνεσιν to Θηβαίος άγυίας—and by this device the invocation is brought to the focal point of the Chorus’ intention: Thebes and its distress. καί νϋν: referring to 1135, 6. 1140, 1. ώς: 'when’, implying ‘because’. βιαίας έχεται . . . έπί νόσου: although the general sense is clear, it is difficult exactly to define έπί νόσου, έπί τούτου, τούτων is used Dem. for: 'under these circumstances’, at Emp. 112.10 έπί νούσων παντοίων έπί seems to mean: ‘in the case of’. Jebb compares έπ’ ειρήνης and έπί σχολής. Since the local meaning of έπί + genit, is very common it may be maintained that έ'χεσθαι έπί νόσου means the same as έ'χεσθαι έν νόσω (cf. έχεσθαι έν άπόρω Thue. I 25.1, έν συμφοραϊς Pl. Resp. 395e)· We may venture the idea that the πάνδημος πόλις = πάντες πολΐται, far from πλέοντες έπί πάτρας όρθής, are in danger of being destroyed, because there is no escape from the νόσος on which they find themselves bound (as on a ‘ship of fools’). Or if this is going too far, we can say that at least έπί νόσου as a stronger phrase instead of έν νόσφ was suggested by έπί νεώς, έφ’ ίππου and the like.—The words, of course, echo Teiresias’ 1015. 1142. μολεϊν: inf. pro imperativo (but possibly inf. dependent on the non-expressed idea: λίσσομαι) a construction not commonly used when addressing gods. 1144. καθαρσίω ποδί: the νόσος is an imminent blight by defile­ ment. To Dionysus, renewer of life and by his Delphian connection associated with Apollo, is attributed a purifying force. With Zeus, Apollo and Artemis he is also invoked by the Chorus O.T. 209-215 έπί τόν άπότιμον έν θεοΐς θεόν. 1145. ή στονόεντα πορθμόν: cf. note ad 1119. The Euripus, of course, can also be meant (cf. 1131) but Dionysus’ approach or return from overseas is a traditional notion. 1146. πνειόντων: thus Brunck and many editors, for metrical reasons. But the metre is problematic. See Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 105, p. 62 n. 4. 1147. χοράγ’ άστρων: Ar. Ran. 342 Iacchus-Dionysus is called φωσφόρος άστηρ. Σ notes: κατά γάρ τινα μυστικόν λόγον των αστέρων έστί χορηγός. But about this we do not know anything. It is however relevant to our passage that at Eur. Ion where the torch-bearing procession from Athens to Eleusis on the 20th day of Boedromion is evoked, in which Iacchus-Dionysus takes part, it is said δτε καί

I

I90

COMMENTARY

Δώς άστερωπός άνέχορευσεν αιθήρ κτλ. (Ιοη 1077 sqq.) ‘The elements take part in the ritual’ (Owen a.l.\de Vries, Misc. Trag., pp. 471-4). 1147, 8. νυχίων . . . έπίσκοπε: he is witness and overseer of the nocturnal procession with its torches and ritual cries. 1150. περιπόλοις: may be regarded as adjective as well as noun ('attendants’). 1151, 2. Θυιάσιν: it is perhaps not necessary to change into Θυίαισιν (Boeckh), -w- can correspond to w-v-. σε . . . χορεύουσι: cf. K.-G. I 299 sq. and cf. O.T. 1093. ταμίαν: cf. Pind. Isthm. VI 57 ταμίας . . . κώμων and ib. IX 7 ταμίαι . . . Μοισαν .... Exodos, first part

First and second scene 1135-1182; 1183-1245, 1246-1256 1155. Κάδμου . . . Άμφίονος: ώ πάροικοι δόμων Κάδμου καί Άμφίονος 1). The Messenger is made to start his address with some όγκος. What follows is reflection on the story he has to tell: ‘the fact that the speech . . . contains nothing which falls outside the sphere of reflection cannot but emphasize considerably the para­ digmatic importance of Creon’s fate . . .’ (H. Friis Johansen, General Reflection in tragic Rhesis, 1959, p. 68). 1156,7. ούκ .../... ποτέ: οΰκ έστιν άνθρώπου βίος τοιοΰτος καταστάς, οΐον ή αίνέσαιμι άν ή μεμψαίμην ποτέ (Bruhn, correctly; not στάντα ‘as fixed’ (Jebb); see Friis Johansen o.l. p. 68 n. 49). στάντ’ = καταστάντ’, cp. τών καθεστώτων Il6o. ούτ’ . . . ούτε: on the redundant negatives see K.-G. II 206 Anm. 6. There is some resemblance to Sim. 16 P. 1158, 9. τύχη .../... άεί: cp. Ai. 131 sq.. 1160. μάντις . . . τών καθεστώτων: τών καθεστώτων must mean 'respecting their present state’ (the result of the βίος (καθ)ιστάμενος at a given moment). The above cited Simonides fragment ends: ώκεΐα γάρ ούδέ τανυπτερύγου μυίας ούτως ά μετάστασις. τά καθεστώτα cannot mean the same as τά πεπρωμένα or τά είμαρμένα. 1161. ώς έμοί: for this restrictive and subjective ώς with the dativus iudicantis cf. K.-G. I 421 b. See Ai. 396, O.C. 20, 76. ποτέ: its place in the verse and the sentence lends the word a pathetic force. (For a comical application cf. Ar. Av. 114-116). *) Campbell’s idea (Par. Soph., p. 40): 'It seems more natural to construe Κάδμου with πάροικοι, δόμων being introduced by an afterthought. Amphion was the builder’ strikes me as too ingenious.

FIFTH STASIMON, II47-II52—EXODOS, FIRST PART, II55-II7I

191

1162-64. σώσας μέν . . . / λαβών τε . . . / ηδθυνε: the sentence is somehow an anacoluthon, because of the change both from the participial construction to the indicative and from μέν . .. δέ to τε (thus Campbell). 1162, 3. The lines have a certain importance for gauging the position of Creon as meant by the poet. For παντελή cf. Ichn. 13. 1164. θάλλων . . . σπορά: we have to think of Megareus (see 1303) and Haemon. Cf. 626. But it is unclear which period of Creon’s life he is supposed to have in mind. 1165. άφεΐται: ‘has been lost’, άφίημι lit.: ‘let fall from one's grasp’. 1165-67. Line 1167 is lacking in the mss but was evidently read by Σ; it occurs in the two quotations by Athenaeus of 11651171 (VII 280 c, XII 547 c) and was known to Eustathius (957.17). In 1166 mss have άνδρός, Eustath. άνδρα, Athen. άνδρες [bis). άνδρός may have been written when 1167 was lost, in order to elicit some sense from the words (there is a point at προδώσιν in L). (It is not certain that Σ has read ήδοναί—hence καί γάρ ήδοναΐ . . . άνδρός Seyffert: δν αν προδώσιν αί ήδοναί may be interpretation). Jebb rightly observes that the text, with άνδρες, makes good sense if we take προδίδωμι to mean ‘forfeit’, ‘lose by one’s own fault’. Up to a point the words may remind us of Pl. Phaed. 65 a, but the fundamental difference lies in the notion ό μηδέν φροντίζων των ηδονών as contrasting with προδώσιν. 1167. τούτον: referring to άνδρες. On the interchange of singular and plural see Campbell, Essay on Language p. 31. έμψυχον . . . νεκρόν: cf. Pl. Gorg. 492 e 5 οί λίθοι γάρ άν οδτω γε και οΐ νεκροί εύδαιμονέστατοι ειεν and cp. for ού τίθημ’ εγώ ζην τούτον Pl. Resp. I 329 a τότε μέν εύ ζώντες, νϋν δέ ούδέ ζώντες. 1168, 9. πλούτει. . . / καί ζή: on the imperative functioning as a concessive or hypothetical protasis, see K.-G. I p. 236. 1037 supra is another example. (Campbellx) is mistaken in wanting to read πλουτεϊ and ζή). τύραννον σχήμ’: ‘kingly pomp’. For adjectival τύραννος cf. Eur. Andr. 3. 1170. καπνού σκιάς: cf. Phil. 946 καπνού σκιάν. 1171. άνδρί: ‘a man’, τινί. πρός την ηδονήν: in comparison with ήδονή (if I could buy the latter without wealth etc.). q Both in his edition and in Par. Soph., p. 41.

I

192

COMMENTARY

1172. βασιλέων: the royal house, the members of the royal house (and not Creon in particular is meant, as the next line proves). 1173. τεθνασιν: Haemon in the first place, but the general plural allows us to understand: Haemon and Antigone. We should not forget that the Chorus and the spectator are in the dark as to the identity of the subject of τεθνασιν, whereas the Messenger knows all and not unnaturally, when asked τί άχθος βασιλέων, unburdens his heart by crying out the essence of his message. The cryptic wording heightens the suspense. αίτιοι θανεϊν: t.e. τούς τεθνεώτας θανεϊν, that is to say αίτιοι is construed with an acc. cum inf.. Cf. Hdt. II 20.2, 26.1. It is not correct to aver that τοϋ has been omitted. 1174. καί: ‘why’. See Denniston G.P.2 p. 310 (b). τις φονεύει: ‘who is the murderer’. 1175. αύτόχειρ: ambiguous, denoting 'murdered by his own hand’ as well as ‘by a kinsman’s hand’. Hence the relevance of the next question. 1176. πρύς: άπο κοινού, with the second member of the sentence. 1177. φόνου: of Antigone. Cf. 751. 1178. τούπος: refers to 1064-1067. όρθον: cf. O.T. 853. The phrase amounts to: ‘how your prophecy has come true’, or 'borne out by the event’ (Dutch: ‘bewaarheid’). ‘Early language supposes a causal connection between the prophecy and the event’ (Campbell). 1179. πάρα: πάρα (thus Ellendt) ‘deflectitur ad id cuius faciendi causa idonea et manifesta adest’·, ‘the thing is to . . .’ (Dutch: ‘het is zaak om te’). 1180. καί μην: cf. 526. όμοϋ: εγγύς (Σ). 1182. παιδος: λείπει ή περί (Σ). πάρα: πέρα Brunck. If πάρα is a mistake, it may have originated from πάρα 1179. But G. Muller’s argument ('Auf eine auftretende Person wird nicht mit der Erklarung hingewiesen dass sie da sei, sondern dass sie kommt’) does not stand, for πάρειμι (with εις e.g.) is often used for: ‘to have arrived’. Bruhn and Pearson follow Brunck, Campbell, Jebb, Dain-Mazon retain πάρα. 1184. πρύς έξοδον στείχουσα: we cannot be sure whether έξοδον means egressio or fores. 1184,5. Παλλάδος θεάς / . . . εύγμάτων προσηγορος: = Παλλάδα θεάν εύγματα προσαγορεύουσα. In ίκοίμην is implied: 'approach

EXODOS, FIRST PART, VSS. II72-II97

I93

as suppliant' and ίκοίμην προσήγορος is to be taken closely to­ gether. 1186, 7. . . . τε. . . / . . . καί: for τε . . . καί amounting to ‘when . . . then’ cf. Denniston G.P.2 p. 515. 1186, κλήθρα: 'the bolts’. I do not think that πύλης is appos. gen. (See Barrett as Eur. Hipp. 808-810). άνασπαστοϋ: proleptic; the door opens inwards. 1187, 8. φθόγγος ... I βάλλει δι’ ώτων: the message of woe for her and her family is more or less personified and implicitly imagined as a deadly shot or as its archer. In my opinion we have to suppose that her swooning occurs on hearing τεθνασιν 11731188, 9. ύπτια .../... δμωαΐσι: she was of course accompanied by two attendants. άποπλήσσομαι: ‘I lost my sense’. Jebb is right in stating that the verb is used = λιποψυχέω. Cf. Pearson’s note fr. 248, Handley ad Men. Dysc. 312 sq.. 1190. ό μϋθος: the message. είπατε: she had addressed the Chorus and the Messenger to­ gether (1183). 1191. κακών γάρ ούκ άπειρος: allusion to the death of Megareus, cf. 1303. 1192. έγώ, φίλη δέσποινα: cf. Track. 472. καί: probably not in correlation with καί in the next line but emphasizing παρών (Ί will speak as one who was present', Denniston, G.P.2, p. 321). παρών: functions as imperf. partic. and amounts to: ‘as an eye­ witness’. 1194. μαλθάσσοιμ’: ‘soothe’, ών: ών. 1195. ορθόν άλήθει’ άεί: like other messengers, the man tends to use proverbial expressions. όρθόν: ‘the right thing’. One is always safe when speaking the truth. 1196. ποδαγός έσπόμην: Ί attended as his guide’. 1197. πεδίον έπ* άκρον: cf. Ilio. νηλεές: Jebb takes together έκειτο νηλεές £τι ‘still lay unpitied’, commenting: 'νηλεές passive: O.T. 180’. And this seems better than G. J. Pettit’s idea, which is to take νηλεές adverbially with κυνοσπάρακτον (Cl. Rev. N.S. XXI I—1971—, pp. io, II), herein fore­ stalled by Mazon: ‘impitoyablement dichiri’.

L

194

COMMENTARY

1199. μέν: this is, irregularly, continued by αύθις 1204. ένοδίαν θεόν: Hecate, a chthonic deity, often identified with Persephone: (this) ‘beruht darauf, dass auch sie Herrin der Toten ist. Die Leute, welche den von Hunden zerfleischten Korper des Polyneikes waschen, rufen daher Pluton und Enodia an’ (Μ. P. Nilsson, G.G.R.* I p. 724, cf. v. Wilamowitz G.d.H. I p. 173). 1200. εύμενεΐς: goes with ένοδίαν θεόν Πλούτωνά τ’. 1201. αγνόν λουτρόν: 'cognate' and internal accusative, νεοσπάσιν: νεοσπάς ‘freshly plucked’ only here and fr. 502. Cf. άποσπάς Nonn.; νεοσπαδής is a variant form. 1202. δ δή ’λέλειπτο: takes up τόν μέν. The Messenger is not sparing of gruesome details. Among the last things we hear of Polynices is this phrase so awfully suggestive of Creon’s cruelty. This is reinforced by συγ-, referring to the collecting of the scattered fragments. 1203. τύμβον όρθόκρανον οικείας χθονός: this burial mound ‘of his native earth’ conspicuous by its ‘high head’ symbolizes Antig­ one’s final triumph. 1204. 5. αύθις: not 'again' (so Bruhn) but ‘afterwards’. πρός ... I νυμφεϊον . . . είσεβαίνομεν: the two notions ‘were on our way to’ and ‘enter’ are conflated. λιθόστρωτον ... I νυμφεϊον ’Άιδου: cf. 816, 891. λιθόστρωτον: where λίθοι are the στρώματα of the bridal couch. κοϊλον: conveying the idea of ‘cavern’. 1206. φωνής . . . όρθιων κωκυμώτων: ‘the voice of shrill lament ings' (Campbell) but ‘shrill lamentings of voice' is also possible. 1207. άμφΐ: ‘near (i.e. from the quarter of)’ (Jebb). It seems best to take the vague indication of place άκτέριστον άμφ'ι παστάδα both with the subject and the object. From 1208 it appears that the τις had gone ahead of the others. παστάδα: cf. J. Roux, R.fi.G. 1961, pp. 25-51, Chantraine Did. i.t. s.v.. The word properly means: ‘portico’, ‘colonnade’ ^♦παρ­ ατάς), ‘gallery’ 'cloister', ‘peristyle’. In Hellenistic times often part of the bridal room > bridal room itself and synonym of θάλαμος (also confused with παστός properly ‘veil deployed over the bride’, in Byzantine Greek 'bridal couch’). Eur. Or. 1371 and, on the other hand, Theocr. 24.46 make it probable that Jebb is right in taking it here = θάλαμος. But άκτέριστον 'unhallowed by funeral rites’ implies that this παστάς — νυμφεϊον ‘Άιδου.

EXODOS, FIRST PART, VSS, II99-I217

I95

1208. σημαίνει μολών: see note ad 1207. 1209. 10. τφ S’... περιβαίνει: sc. τά ώτα. The poet could have

written τον δ’ (cf. Hom. Od. VI 122, Ar. Ran. 144 αύλών σέ περίεισιν πνοή) but it was more important to denote by the dative the person interested. άθλιας άσημα . . . βοής: expresses more than άθλια άσημος βοή. 1210. μάλλον άσσον: all the commentators regard μάλλον as ‘pleonastic’ and quote some parallels. Would it not be possible to connect μάλλον with περιβαίνει and άσσον with έρποντι ? 1212, 3. δυστυχεστάτην / . . . τών παρελθουσών οδών: cf. supra 100-102. 1214. παιδός με σαίνει φθόγγος: he recognizes his son’s voice in wailing cries 'and the sound fills him with apprehension; yet it σαίνει because it is the voice of one he loves’ (thus Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 863; his comment on σαίνειν is outstanding, cf. also Ichn. 291 and Pearson’s note a.l.). The acc. with σαίνειν already Hes. Theog. yyo, where see West. 1216. αρμόν λιθοσπαδή: αρμόν is properly a joint in masonry; λιθοσπαδή: ‘where a stone (or stones) has (or can) been (or be) torn away’. ‘A joint where a stone has been tom away’ amounts to a ‘cleft’, or ‘gap’ or ‘aperture’ in the stones (which form the closure or enclosure at the outside of the tomb). We may assume that a δρόμος or corridor led from it to the στόμιον of the tomb proper. I think that G. Muller is right in rejecting Lloyd-Jones’ conjecture άγμόν (Cl. Qu. 1957, p. 26) and in following Campbell (and Jebb). We can easily suppose that the cleft had already been made by Haemon, but the words also admit of the other inter­ pretation J). I do not believe it possible exactly to reconstruct Antigone’s tomb as conceived by Sophocles, but that there is a comparatively close similarity with such Mycenaean tombs as the ‘Treasury of Atreus’ (already perceived by Mure, Rhein. Mus. VI (1839) 264 sqq.) does not seem entirely illusory. (Bruhn’s discussion of the matter, Einleitung pp. 35-37, is still worth reading), χώμα: probably refers to the earth thrown up as ‘sepulchral mound’; it is often thought to refer to the heaped up stones enclosing the outward entrance, but χώμα is not used of stones. 1217. πρός αύτό στόμιον: the entrance of the τύμβευμα proper. 1) ώς λίθου άποσπασθέντος όπως είσέλθη ό Αΐμων ή ύμεϊς άποσπάσαντες άθρήσατε (Σ).

ι

ig6

COMMENTARY

1218. συνίημι: 'hear’, 'perceive’ (the common meaning in Homer, sometimes also in Attic, where ‘understand’ is normal). Here ‘hearing’ implying 'recognizing’ is meant. For the acc. cf. Schw.Debr. II 107. θεοϊσι: an instance of the datims auctoris with pres, passive. (Strictly: I am the object of delusion for the gods > I am deluded by the gods). 1219. τά S’: τάδ’ (mss and edd., if they do not alter the text) yields an unusual asyndeton and although the form τά as a pro­ noun is uncommon, I do not see a serious objection against its use, followed by continuative δέ (The only objection to be made is δε Ι22θ). το δ’ is so used Track. 1172. Whether we read τάδ’ or τά δ’, it refers backwards to άΘρήσαθ’ . . . εί. . . κλέπτομαι ('this search’ J.). G. Hermann’s τοΐσδ’ eliminates the difficultly of the next words but the asyndeton remains. έξ άθύμου δεσπότου κελεύσμασιν: either έξ άθύμου δεσπότου means ‘ by our despairing master' and κελεύσμασιν is epexegetic or the words together mean: ‘at the command, the urging of (lit. ‘coming from’) our despairing master' but τοΐς would be desirable before έξ. κελευσμάτων, of course, is an easy way out but then the alteration in the transmitted text is not easily accounted for. 1220, 1. ήθροϋμεν: note the contrast in ‘aspect’ with κατείδομεν 1221. έν δέ λοισθίφ τυμβεύματι: the best explanation is: 'in the last i.e. the furthest part of the tomb’. 1221, 2. την μεν .../.. . καθημμένην: the natural interpretation of these words is that they saw Antigone hanging from the roof. Cf. O.T. 1263, 4 ού δή κρεμαστήν την γυναΐκ’ είσείδομεν, / πλεκταϊς έώραις έμπεπλεγμένην. ‘But—thus Jebb—verses 1236-1240 require us to suppose that Antigone’s body is then stretched on the ground. We are left to understand that Haemon, while uttering his lament (1224 f.), has lifted the corpse, so as to extricate it from the noose, and has laid it down. Cp. O.T. 1266 . . .’.This is far from satisfactory and so I. M. Linforth {o.l. pp. 242, 3) and independently of him G. Muller (p. 255) have argued that the men at their entrance could not have seen her hanging. According to Linforth κρεμαστήν amounts to ‘dead as a result of hanging’: Haemon must have done what Oedipus did, but before he is discovered. This, it is true, accounts better for 1223 (though in itself προσκείμενον can very well mean ‘clinging to’ without implying that he is lying on the ground)

EXODOS, FIRST PART, VSS. I2l8-I227

I97

and for what one would expect Haemon to have done immediately on finding Antigone hanged, but it strains the meaning we have to attribute to 1221, 2. There exists a 'Thoman’ reading καθειμένην in­ stead of καθημμένην (Turyn, Manuscript Tradition p. 64, in Zf with the glossa Thomana άπηωρημένην). Should καθειμένην represent an authentic reading, meaning not άπηωρημένην but ‘lowered’ (cf. Hom. Od. IX 72, Eur. Troad. ion), then we might consider taking βρόχω . . . σινδόνος with κρεμαστήν and κρεμαστήν as adjunct of καθειμένην: ‘we saw Antigone lowered down from hanging etc.'. But I cannot regard this as probable. So we have to fall back on Jebb’s interpretationx) or to assume that Haemon when said to cling to her, embracing her around her waist, is κατά τό σιωπώμενον understood to be in the act of lowering her. 1222. βρόχω μιτώδει σινδόνος: a halter of threads of fine linen. The v.l. μιτρώδει does not yield nonsense: ‘made of her μίτρα’, either girdle (Σ) or headband. Instrumental dative. καθημμένην: ‘fastened’ (sc. to the roof). (Campbell, correctly). 1223. περιπετη: in active sense. 1224. εϋνής ... της κάτω: ‘une dpouse desormais aux enfers’ (Mazon). 1225. τό δύστηνον λόχος: 'ses noces douloureuses’ (Mazon). 1226. σφε: Haemon, but Haemon and Antigone is not to be excluded. στυγνόν: ‘with a dread cry’ (Jebb). 1227. Even if we take σφε as acc. plur. there is no need to alter αύτόν. This is proposed by Broadhead, Tragica p. 80, who argues that in 1228, 29 Creon addresses the dead Antigone. He makes as strong a case for such an assumption as seems possible but it does not carry conviction. It is true that Antigone’s death is a fatal blow to Creon’s hope of redemption. But it is also true that, at this moment, he must first and foremost be deeply distressed about the life of his son (cf. 751, 766, 1064-1067). Far from believing Haemon to have killed Antigone (even that has been supposed—by S. M. Adams in Sophocles the Playwright—) it is the fear of Haemon’s impending suicide which causes Creon’s passionate words. It would be ridiculous to assume that Creon addresses the hanged Antigone with the words εν τω συμφοράς διεφθάρης. It is the dawning *) Broadhead, Tragica, p. 77, n. 4 rightly protests against κρεμαστήν ‘dead from hanging’, also assumed by W. M. Calder, On Ant. 1219 sqq., Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, vol. 3, 1, i960, pp. 31-35.

k

I98

COMMENTARY

upon. Creon’s mind of the real meaning of Haemon’s 1. 751 which is made manifest. So I am convinced that Mazon’s translation of the passage is entirely correct: 'Malheureux, qu’as-tu fait? quelle idde t’a done pris ? dans quel ddsastre a sombrd ta raison ?' διεφθάρης: mentally as in λύπη σάς διέφθαρσαι φρένας Eur. Hei. 1192. For έν τω συμφοράς cf. Eur. Hei. 1195· Αι. 3*4 κάνήρετ’ έν τω πράγματος κυροϊ ποτέ. Haemon’s entrance into Antigone’s tomb is terrible because it is suggestive of Haemon’s μανία caused by Eros. Cf. supra 790. 1230. έξελθε . . . λίσσομαι: the full pathos of the words is under­ stood if we bear in mind that Haemon’s clinging to the dead in this bridal tomb implies his clinging to death, and that ίκέσιός σε λίσσομαι are spoken by the man who had commented on Haemon’s exit by the words δράτω, φρονείτω μεΐζον ή κατ’ άνδρ’ ιών 768. 1231. άγρίοις δσσοισι: this is in line with έν τφ συμφοράς διεφθάρης as interpreted above. 1232, 3. πτύσας προσώπω: dative of direction (‘direktiv-final’). I do not follow Σ and Mazon (among others) who take πτύσας προσώπω figuratively (‘Son visage dit son digout’), cf. Mazon p. 118 n. I and Rev. de Phil. XXV (1951) p. 14. ξίφους / . . . διπλούς κνώδοντας: αντί τοϋ διπλας άκμάς· άμφηκες γάρ τό ξίφος (Σ) and this is probably better than Jebb’s ‘crosshilted sword’. Ai. 1025 is not in favour of Jebb’s interpretation. I agree with G. Muller’s remarks. 1233, 4. έκ: with όρμωμένου. φυγαΐσιν is a modal dative. 1235. ώσπερ εΐχ’: cf. II08. έπενταθείς: reflexive: ‘stretching himself over it’ sc. εγχει. 1236. ήρεισε πλευραϊς: though we can agree with Jebb's note: 'used as though ήρεισε were έπήρεισε’, we may as well state that here again we have a case of ‘direktiv-final’. μέσσον εγχος: i.e. ‘la moitii de son ipie’ (Mazon). μέσσον is predica­ tive. For εγχος = ξίφος cf. Ai. 95, 286, 7, 907. The epic form μέσσος as at 1223, not common in Tragedy; cf. Pearson’s note fr. 235.5. 1236, 7. ύγρόν: languescentem, languidum, cf. Eur. Phoen. 1439. άγκών’: ‘the crook of the arm within the elbow’ (Ed. Fraenkel ad Aesch. Ag. 3). ές υγρόν / άγκών’: as if something like λαμβάνει were to follow, ές ύγρον άγκώνα παρθένω προσπτύσσεται amounts to ές υγρόν άγκώνα παρθένον λαμβάνει προσπτύσσομενος. No need to write παρθένον (Zf (?), Brunck, G. Muller).

EXODOS, FIRST PART, VSS.

I23O-I249

199

1238, 9. όξεϊαν . . . ροήν: ‘brusque flot’ (Mazon), πνοήν (LZA) is certainly not a ‘bad variant' (Jebb) as is well argued by Campbell and G. Muller. For this passage Soph, got his inspiration from Aesch. Ag. 1389 sqq.. λευκή παρειά: indubitably Antigone’s, not Haemon’s (as in Mazon’s translation). The dative as 1232 προσώπω x). 1240, 1. τά νυμφικά / τέλη: see in general H. Bolkestein, Τέλος ό γάμος, Med. Ned. Ak. v. W. aid. Letterk. 1933. Cf. Aesch. Eum. 835 γαμήλιον τέλος, Eur. I.A. 718 προτέλεια 8’ ήδη παιδός έσφαξας θεά; είν ‘Άιδου may refer both to νυμφεϊον ‘Άιδου and to ‘the halls of Death’. είν ‘Άιδου δόμοις: είν would be an epicism, not to be excluded in a Messenger’s story, έν γ’ Heath, Jebb is perhaps to be preferred. 1242, 3. δείξας .../... κακόν: the reference is to Creon: cf. 1026, 1050-52, 1098; 1269. πρόσκειται: ‘is assigned to’. The relation between man and αβουλία as greatest evil can be expressed both by man and άβουλία in dative and nominative resp. or inversely: ή άβουλία άνδρί μέγιστον κακόν πρόσκειται means the same as άβουλία άνήρ μεγίστω κακω πρόσκειται (for the latter construction cf. El. 240 and 1040). Towards the end of the speech Eurydice silently returns into the palace (cp. the exits of Deianeira Track. 813, of Iocasta O.T. 1075). 1245. έσθλόν ή κακόν λόγον: again a polar expression, meaning ‘any word at all’. 1246. έλπίσιν . . . βόσκομαι: the wording discreetly suggests that these 'expectations’ may well prove illusory. 1247-49. άχη τέκνου: ‘the grievous tidings of her son’. Object of κλύουσαν. It is not recommendable to read with Pearson γόου instead of γόους; for άχη τέκνου ές πάλιν γόου ούκ άξιώσειν, although impeccable as a construction, just will not yield the required meaning. You cannot say of a heavy personal loss that you do not deem it worthy of a lament coram publico. We have to accept γόους άξιώσειν, borrowing from the next words the infinitive re­ quired by άξιώσειν (στένειν > γοασθαι): ‘She will not deign to make public lamentation’ (Campbell). (It is true that ούκ άξιώσειν γόους can hardly mean 'she will not think public lamentation proper’, unless an infinitive is mentally supplied). άλλ’ στένειν: ύπό στέγης έσω emphatically contrasted with ές πόλιν. προθήσειν: on a par with άξιώσειν and meaning q J. H. Kells’ proposal viz. to write κάκφυσιών and εμβάλλει deserves serious consideration (Cl. Rev. N.S. XI 3, 1961, 193).

13

L

200

COMMENTARY

‘appoint as a task’ (cf. supra 216), στένειν, with πένθος οίκεϊον as object, to be construed with προθήσειν. (Or πένθος οίκεϊον is ob­ ject both of προθήσειν and στένειν, and στένειν is epexegetic infinitive, but in substance this amounts to the same thing). Σ has the same interpretation: νομίζω αύτήν μή βούλεσθαι δημοσία θρηνεΐν άλλ’ έν τω οίκήματι μετά των θεραπαινιδίων. For the sentiment cf. fr. 653 P. μή σπείρε πολλοϊς τον παρόντα δαίμονα’ σιγώμενος γάρ έστι θρηνεϊσθαι πρέπων. 1250. γνώμης . . . ούκ άπειρος: άπειρος expers rather than in­ expertus, cf. C. W. Vollgraff, LOraison funebre de Gorgias (1952) pp. 65-67. ώσθ’ άμαρτάνειν: 'so dass sie sich vergehen konnte, was moglich sein wiirde, wenn sie γνώμης άπειρος ware’ (Bruhn). άμαρτάνειν is euphemistic. 1251, 2. ή τ’ άγαν σιγή .../... χή μάτην πολλή βοή: for adjectival άγαν (also 1256) cf. Eur. Ale. 794 τήν άγαν λύπην, possibly Soph. Tyro fr. 3.3 των] άγαν όδυρμά[των (Pearson’s suggestion); similarly Aesch. Prom. 123 ή λίαν φιλότης βροτών. For μάτην Aesch. Ag. 165 τό μάταν . . . άχθος ('fruitless’). Note that μάτην does not qualify πολλή but ή . . . πολλή βοή. τ’ . . . καί (in χή) amounts to ‘as much as’. βαρύ: predicative adjunct. The word, as often, implies 'pregnant of imminent evil’; it suggests the fear of an expected danger. Bdelycleon’s words Ar. Vesp. 741, 2 άλλ’ ότι σιγά κούδέν γρύζει, / τοϋτ’ οό δύναταί με προσέσθαι, although perhaps not exactly a parody of a silence scene in a tragedy (cf. MacDowell a.I.), may well serve as an illustration in comic vein of our passage. προσεΐναι: not τινί, but e.g. κακφ τινι. 1253, 4. άλλ’ είσόμεσθα: ‘but we will know’ (Denniston G.P.2 p. 7). The Coryphaeus has said ούκ οϊδ’ · . . .. μή τι καί .../... καλύπτει: on μή . . . καλύπτει cf. El. 898 μή . . . έγχρίμπτει (with my note). On καί ‘actually’ cf. Denniston G.P.2 p. 298. κατάσχετον: ‘repressed’. καρδία θυμουμένη: this reading seems the most probable, although καρδία θυμουμένη and even καρδία θυμουμένη would make sense, θυμουμένη: in passionate commotion, passionately disturbed. 1255. δόμους παραστείχοντες: ‘when we {i.e. I) . . .’. 1256. On entering the palace the Messenger virtually repeats the tenor of the Coryphaeus’ words.

EXODOS, FIRST AND SECOND PART, VSS. I250-I260

201

Exodos, second part

First and second scene 1257-1276,1277-1353 Apart from the introductory anapaests of the Coryphaeus (1257-1260) and the anapaestic finale (1347-1353) this part presents a commatic structure in which Creon’s lyrical laments alternate with trimeters spoken by the Coryphaeus, the Messenger and Creon. 1257. καί μην: cf. 526, 1180. έφήκει: amounting to praesens adest, Ai. 34, El. 304. Not in Aesch., Eur., Ar.. 1258. μνήμ’ έπίσημον: 'a monument with evident tokens' (Camp­ bell). διά χειρός έχων: Creon is himself carrying Haemon’s corpse. G. Muller is right, I think, in rejecting Jebb’s ‘attendants, carrying the shrouded body of Haemon on a bier’. Attendants there have to be and they may be supposed to help Creon and to carry the corpse at the close of the tragedy, Creon having put it down after his arrival. Perhaps we should imagine him kneeling beside his son during the first strophe and antistrophe. For διά χειρός έχων it is useless to refer the reader to 1. 916. 1259. 60. εΐ Θέμις είπεΐν: even now their loyalty finds expression in this reverent formula. ούκ . . . άμαρτών: Jebb takes άλλοτρίαν άτην as in apposition with μνήμ’ and άμαρτών as causal: 'not through the fault of others, but because he himself has erred’. He compares the construction with 381 sq.. If in apposition, it would perhaps be better to take άτην as in apposition with the phrase μνήμ’ . . . έχων. But it would seem still better (1) to take άμαρτών as closely dependent on μνήμ’ . . . έχων (on the analogy with δήλός εΐμι with participle and the like); (2) to regard άλλοτρίαν άτην as internal accus. dependent on άμαρτών. Thus J. M. Bremer, Hamartia, thesis Amsterdam 1969 p. 143: ‘But look, here comes the king himself carrying himself in his arms significant proof that—if we may presume to say so­ rt was his own action that was wrong: he and no one else blindly worked this disaster’. Musgrave’s conjecture άλλοτρίας άτης, ac­ cepted by Bruhn and G. Muller among others, is not necessary’. It goes without saying that the passage is of the utmost im­ portance for the meaning of the tragedy as a whole. Here, at the highly dramatic last entrance of the King, with the corpse of his

I

202

COMMENTARY

son. in his arms, it is stated by the most loyal elders, that this shattering spectacle of ruin is imputable to the King’s folly alone. The άτη-theme of the second stasimon is illustrated by what is seen on the stage and briefly summarized by these words. 1261, 2. φρένων . . . αμαρτήματα: αμαρτήματα picks up άμαρτών 1200. δυσφρόνων: not different from άφρόνων; the meanings ‘sorrowful’, and ‘ill-disposed’ are more common. But it is used with άτα O.C. 202, and cf. Aesch. Sept. 875 and Pers. 552 (δυσφρόνως ‘foolishly’). στερεά: the best illustration is Ai. 926 στερεόφρων. The αμαρτήματα derive from his stubbornness. θανατόεντ’: mortifera, cf. Eur. I.A. 1287 έπΐ μόρω θανατόεντι. θανάσιμος often has the same meaning: Ai. 1033, Trach. 758, O.T. 560. 1263-65. κτανόντας . . . / θανόντας: cf. supra 1173. Creon and Haemon are meant. For the plural cp. the passages in Bruhn's Anhang § 3 III (not all of them relevant). εμφυλίους: ‘kinsfolk’. Cf. O.T. 1406 αΐμ’ εμφύλιον, O.C. 407 τούμφυλον αϊμα, έμφυλος Ρ. Oxy. 2452 fr. 27. 4 (Carden p. 131). ώμοι. . . βουλευμάτων: more forceful than έμά άνολβα βουλεύματα, άνολβα ‘wretched’ is as strong as Dutch ‘onzalig’. The wording is reminiscent of Teiresias’ άβουλος ούδ’ άνολβος 1026 and may be regarded as a contamination or 'confusion' of ώμοι έμών βουλευμάτων ώς άνολβα and ώμοι εγώ άνολβος των έμών βουλευμάτων (thus Camp­ bell), but as the words stand the genitive is partitive. 1266-69. νέος νέφ ξύν μόρω: νέα ηλικία καί καινοπρεπεϊ θανάτω τετελεύτηκας (Σ). The words can bear this interpretation and the playing on the two meanings of νέος would not be alien to that element of κατάτεχνον (artificiality) Sophocles is reported to have eliminated in his third manner. But Jebb’s ‘untimely death’, although pleonastic, is perhaps preferable, if we bear in mind that in μύρος may be implied the life-time regarded as a being that grows older with the individual (see Bruhn’s note). Of Telamon is said παλαιά μέν έντροφος άμέρα Ai. 624; cf. also O.T. 1082 οΐ δέ συγγενείς μήνές με μικρόν καί μέγαν διόρισαν. άπελύθης: άπολύομαι 'depart', ‘decease’, cf. 1314. not to be found elsewhere before Hellenistic times. Probably not to be connected with the Platonic use of άπολύω (separation of body and soul, e.g. Phaed. 65 a). έμαϊς . . . δυσβουλίαις: cf. 1259, 60, but also 95, 1025, 6.

EXODOS, SECOND PART, VSS. I261-I275

203

1270. όψέ την δίκην ίδεΐν: ή δίκη surely 'the right', not ‘le chhtiment’ (Mazon), ίδεΐν amounts to μαθεΐν. The v.l. mentioned by Σ έχειν is perhaps a conjecture deriving from Creon’s answer έχω μαθών, meaning 'know'. It would be a stupid uttering on the Chorus’ part to exclaim: ‘how late you seem to have your punish­ ment’ and: 'how late you have seen your punishment’ would not do either. For όψέ in a context of 'late learning’ cf. O.C. 1264 δψ’ άγαν εκμανθάνω, Track. 934 δψ’ έκδιδαχθείς; Eur. Bacch. 1345 δψ’ έμάθεθ’ ήμας, δτε δέ χρήν, ούκ εΐδετε (so Ρ; in the light of our passage it is better not to alter into ήδετε Musgrave), Or. 99 όψέ γε φρονείς εδ, El. mi όψέ στενάζεις, ήνίκ’ ούκ έχεις άκη; Aesch. Ag. 1425 γνώση διδαχθείς όψέ γοϋν τό σωφρονεΐν. Cf. the curious passage in Pl. Resp. Ill 409 b 4 sq. γέροντα δει τόν άγαθόν δικαστήν είναι, οψιμαθή γεγονότα της άδικίας οΐόν έστιν. 1272. έχω μαθών: in itself έχω expresses his ‘grasp’ of δίκη; with μαθών the meaning amounts to a very emphatic μεμάθηκα. W. J. Aerts’ remark (Periphrastica, thesis Amsterdam 1965, p. 134): 'Periphrasis is used here because of the metre’ is beside the mark. (Sophocles could have written μεμάθηκ’ έγώ δείλαιος’). 1272-75. έν δ’ έμω κάρα / θεός . . . έχων / έπαισεν: construe θεός μέγα βάρος έχων μ’ έπαισεν έν έμώ κάρα. Campbell’s construction (μ’ with έχων, μέγα βάρος adverbial accusative with έπαισεν) is not convincing. The place of μ’ is not where we would expect it, but the difficulty of taking it with έπαισεν is not great, the less so since an enclitic tends to move to a place earlier than it logically belongs. The image which lies at the bottom of the whole sentence (έν δ’ . . . χαράν) is that of a charioteer whose chariot is overturned as the result of his wildly misguided driving caused by a blow from άτη. The pointers to this somewhat ‘sunken’ imagery are έν δ” έσεισεν άγρίαις όδοΐς, λακπάτητον and άντρέπων. λακπάτητον άντρέπων χαράν is to be compared with Eur. Her. 779, 80 έθραυσεν δλβου κελαινόν άρμα (ν. Wilamowitz’ comment on this passage is still very much worth reading, ever if one does not accept his conjecture ρόπαλον in 777); cp. also Aesch. Pers. 163, 4 μη μέγας πλούτος κονίσας οδδας άντρέψη ποδί / όλβον. έν δ’ έσεισεν: tmesis. άγρίαις όδοΐς: implying 'furious driving’ (Campbell) rather than meaning ‘ways of cruelty’ (Jebb).

L

204

COMMENTARY

λακπάτητον: proleptic. No more than G. Muller can I accept the superiority of A's reading λεωπάτητον ('utterly trampled’) adopted by Dain-Mazon (on λεω- cp. P. Chantraine, Glotta 1954, pp. 25-36 and the same, Dictionnaire fctymologique s.v. λείος). χαράν: plays the role of όλβου άρμα in Eur., of όλβον in Aesch.. We are reminded of the Messenger’s words supra 1165 sqq.. 1277-80. The Messenger who had entered the palace after 1256 now returns and functions as an εξάγγελος (‘Messenger who told what was doing in the house’ L.-Sc.). Mss call him οίκέτης here and 1282, άγγελος 1301; since Brunck edd. designate him by εξάγγελος. The matter is of small importance but it is perhaps not superfluous to state that not only will the same actor perform the function of άγγελος and έξάγγελος but also that we have to do with the same dramatis persona. ώς εχων . . . / τά μέν ... τα 8’ έν δόμοις / έοικας . . . κακά: the words, if correctly transmitted, offer a number of difficulties. Campbell, Jebb, Dain-Mazon retain the mss text, others adopt one or more corrections; Bruhn regards 1279 as an interpolation: this is too easy to be convincing, nor do φέρειν and ήκων (Blaydes, Pearson) or φέρειν alone (Hartung, G. Muller) or ήκων alone (Brunck) strike me as excellent or necessary corrections. ώς: not qualifying the participles (‘as one . . .’ Jebb) but exclamative (just as in 1270 and frequently elsewhere in Soph.) belonging to the whole sentence whose character comes under the category of σχετλιασμός (cf. Ellendt2 p. 802 sub 6 2) ). έχων τε καί κεκτημένος: εχων refers to Haemon, κεκτημένος to the κακά indoors, of which he is as yet unaware. The common object of έχων and κεκτημένος is κακά, τά μέν . . . τάδε is the particular object of έχων, τά δ’ έν δόμοις of κεκτημένος. τά μέν πρό χειρών τάδε φέρων: φέρων is as it were epexegetic. πρδ χειρών means ‘visible in your hands’ (or better ‘arms’) (thus in substance Jebb). έοικας ήκειν καί τάχ* όψεσθαι: the particular object of κεκτημένος is the object of όψεσθαι too. καϊ όψεσθαι takes the place of what more logically would be expressed by καί όψόμενος, in which όψόμενος would have been on a par with έχων τε καί κεκτημένος, whereas now όψεσθαι is on a par with ήκειν. So the construction runs as follows: *) In this Campbell has followed Ellendt. See also Campbell Par. Soph. (1907). P- 44·

EXODOS, SECOND PART, VSS.

I277-I285

205

ώ δέσποθ’, ώς έοικας ήκειν έχων τε καί κεκτημενος , τά μέν πρό χειρών τάδε, φέρων, τά δ’ έν δόμοις, καί έοικας τάχ’ δψεσθαι κακά. Perhaps we should interchange 1279 and 1280:

& δέσποθ’, ώς, εχων τε καί κεκτημένος εοικας ήκειν καί τάχ’ δψεσθαι κακά, τά μέν πρό χειρών τάδε, φέρων, τά δ’ έν δόμοις. 1281. τι δ* . . . έτι: the mss reading τί δ’ έστιν αύ κάκιον ή κακών έ'τι; is impossible; τί δ’; έστιν αυ κάκιον ή κακών έτι (Pearson following Heidel’s punctuation and Reiske’s ή) produces a position of ή contrary to Sophoclean usage. Canter’s conjecture (no punctuation) έκ κακών instead of ή κακών seems palmary (accepted by Jebb, Dain-Mazon, G. Muller). 1282. παμμήτωρ: quae optimo iure mater vocatur (E.). On Sopho­ cles’ numerous compounds with παν(τ)οί. J. C. F. Nuchelmans, Die Nomina des sophokleischen Wortschatzes, thesis Nijmegen, 1949, §§93 and 95. The word occurs at Aesch. Prom. 90 but there, as elsewhere, it means 'mother of all’. Its absolute opposite is άμήτωρ in μήτηρ άμήτωρ El. 1154· ή κατά πάντα μήτηρ (Σ). 1283. άρτι νεοτόμοισι πλήγμασιν: cf. Track. 1130 (Deianeira) τέθνηκεν άρτίως νεοσφαγής. 1284. ΐώ δυσκάθαρτος "Αιδου λιμήν: the paratragic line Ar. Pax 1250 ώ δυσκάθαρτε δαϊμον, ώς μ’ άπώλεσας would seem to support the interpretation of "Αιδου λιμήν as a vocative and as the subject of όλέκεις. But this is far from certain. The words could be an exclamation and the Messenger already be addressed by τί μ’ άρα τί μ’ όλέκεις (thus Dindorf and others). If I understand his translation this is the line followed by Mazon. On δυσκάθαρτος the passage in Ar. does not teach us anything, for there δυσκάθαρτος, as often άκάθαρτος, functions as a strong term of abuse. Jebb (followed by L.-Sc. and G. Muller, but the interpretation is to be found in Wunder and Ellendt) translates: 'whom no sacrifice can appease' ('as if one could say καθαιρώ—for ίλάσκομαι—θεόν’ and he compares O.C. 466 καθαρμόν . . . δαιμόνων). I am very much in doubt about this. Campbell’s view ‘0 harbour of Hades, hard to cleanse’ i.e. ‘Choked with the dead’ seems to me preferable. (Thus also Bruhn —in contradistinction to Schneidewin—and Mazon). 1285. όλέκεις: epicism; the active only here in Tragedy, passive Track. 1013, Aesch. Prom. 563.

k

2o6

COMMENTARY

1286, 7. κακάγγελτα .../... άχη: 'the sorrow of ill tidings’ (L.-Sc.). κακάγγελος Aesch. Ag. 636, Call./r. 260.48 Pf., κακάγγελτος only here. προπέμψας: Jehb is right in deriving the use of προπέμψας from its sense of ‘escorting’ and in comparing Phil. 1265. Not ‘cause’ (L.-Sc.). This word may he paraphrased thus: ‘oh you who have come to me bearing the sorrow of ill tidings’. 1288. αίαϊ: -αΐ is shortened before ό- just as -01 before έ- in 1265. έπεξειργάσω: έπ- as in έπικτανεΐν swpra 1030; ‘y>eniZ«s confecisti’. 1289. τί φής . . . νέον: λόγον (after νέον mss) is probably an in­ trusion caused by somebody who had failed to see that νέον belongs with μόρον (or a semi-mechanical mistake caused by λόγον 1287). It is perhaps best to leave the text as transmitted (but without λόγον) as is done by Jebb and Pearson, although we cannot be sure. But τί φής, ώ παΐ, τίνα νέον μοι νέω (Donaldson, approved by G. Muller) is no improvement (νέω to be taken with όλέθρω comes awkwardly after μοι and the supposed corruption νέον > λέγεις has little probability). ώ παΐ: Creon can very well be supposed to address his servant thus at this moment of crisis. 1289-92. νέον / . . . σφάγιον ... I γυναικεϊον . . . μόρον: these be­ long together: ‘a new bloody death, the death of my wife’. έπ’ όλέθρω: ‘upon’ or ‘after’, ‘in addition to the ruin’ (Haemon’s death), a πημα έπί πήματι (the notion of ‘addition’ is also present in έπεξειργάσω). άμφικεϊσθαι: though logically strange with γυναικεϊον μόρον as subject, it is understandable if we bear in mind that the doom lies as it were on both sides of Creon; there is something of a prolepsis in the wording. I think it best to connect μοι with άμφικεϊσθαι. 1293. This line is given to the Chorus (Coryphaeus) by many editors since Erfurdt, to the Messenger by Campbell, Dain-Mazon, G. Muller, as in the mss. The fact that 1270 is spoken by the Coryphaeus does not sufficiently warrant Erfurdt’s attribution and the words seem to come naturally as the Messenger’s answer. We cannot but suppose that the eccyclema was used at this moment of the action, but we cannot help feeling that by these words the scenic illusion of this device serving as a means to disclose the interior of the palace is somewhat disturbed. Clearly visible, on the eccyclema must have been Eurydice’s corpse at the housealtar where she stabbed herself.

EXODOS, SECOND PART, VSS.

I286-I303

2Ογ

ού γάρ έν μυχοϊς έτι: μυχοί refers to the interior of the palace but έν μυχοϊς amounts to: 'hidden'. I think Jebb is right in taking not Eurydice but what up till now was hidden (the implied object of όράν) as the subject of these words. 1297. χείρεσσιν: the form is exceptional in a trimeter, but easily accounted for in a lyric composition. 1299. έναντα: epicism; A has the right reading (also τόνδ’). 1301. ήδ’ όξύθηκτος ήδε βωμία πέριξ: at least one, perhaps more errors have to be assumed in the transmitted text. First the two ήδε’ε (or ή δέ . . . ήδε); one of these has to go. Many years ago I thought that G. Hermann had been right in seeking the form οϊδ’ in one of them (the second) but I preferred then to propose οϊδ’ όξύθηκτος ήδε (sc. μάχαιρα or the like)’ βωμία πέριξ. Now I reject this conjecture and am inclined to follow Seyffert in reading ίδ’ and Hartung (and many others) in conjecturing όξύπληκτος (όξεΐαν λαβοϋσα πληγήν Σ, όξύθηκτος caused by άμφιθήκτω infra 1308), thus: ίδ’, όξύπληκτος ήδε βωμία πέριξ. For ίδ’ introducing a sentence in a similar way, cf. O.C. 1462. όξύπληκτος, it is true, does not occur elsewhere, but Soph, used όξυπλήξ (fr. 523). πέριξ is άπαξ in Soph, but fairly common in Vth century Greek and βωμία πέριξ seems to be correctly paraphrased by Σ: ώς ίερεΐον περί τον βωμόν έσφάγη, παρά τόν βωμόν προπετής ’). (Should anybody be inclined to follow Hermann’s idea, he could point to Ai. 907 and to Eur. I.A. 970 for the ‘personification’ of a sword or the like). 1302. λύει κελαινά βλέφαρα: ‘elle laisse aller ses yeux aux tinebres’ (Mazon), λύει = ‘relaxes’ (Jebb) and κελαινά is more or less a prolepsis (cf. Eur. Ale. 385 καί μην σκοτεινόν δμμα μου βαρύνεται). βλέφαρα means ‘eyes’, not ‘eyelids’; cf. Ai. 85 έγώ σκοτώσω βλέφαρα καί δεδορκότα. 1303. Μεγαρέως: see note ad 995· κλεινόν λέχος: if we accept the possibility of λέχος = ‘grave’ > death and assume the notion ‘death’ (without κλεινόν) to be taken with τοϋδε (Haemon) in the next line, the words may stand as transmitted, λέχος is used of ‘bier’ or ‘death bed’ in Homer (plur. II. XXI 124 and elsewhere) (but ‘marriage-bed’ is much more common) and εύνή is used as ‘one’s last bed’, ‘grave’ Aesch. Clio. 3x8, Soph. El. 436; λέσχη occurs as ‘tomb’ I.G. XII 1.709 Camirus). ’) In βωμία πέριξ Σ is right in understanding the implied idea of πεσοϋσα. If we bear this in mind, the use of the predicative adjective is comparable with the instances listed by K.-G. I, p. 273 sq..

k

2o8

COMMENTARY

Bothe’s conjecture λάχος (fate, destiny) is often accepted; if a change is wanted κενόν λέχος (Seyffert) is more attractive. 1304, 5. δέ . . . Se: the second δέ seems the correlative proper of μεν 1302. αδθις δέ: secunda autem vice. έφυμνήσασα: cf. O.T. 1275 τοιαϋτ’ έφυμνών, of Oedipus’ impreca­ tions against himself. κακάς I πράξεις: i.e. that he might πράσσειν κακώς, τώ παιδοκτόνω: evidently meant as quoting Eurydice’s own word. 1306. αΐαϊ αϊαϊ: if not extra metrum, perhaps to be scanned (or «-«-) (ϊτω ίτω in the antistr. ^-«-). But see note ad 1310. 1307. άνέπταν φόβφ: for άναπέτομαι and the like in expressions of violent emotions cf. Ai. 693 έφριξ’ έρωτι περιχαρής τ’ άνεπτόμαν, Eur. Suppi. 89 φόβος μ’ άναπτεροϊ, cf. Or. 876, Soph./r. 355 Ρ· δ’ ώ γεραιέ; τις σ’ άναπτεροϊ φόβος; Cp. also Pearson’s thorough note ad fr. 941.IX νωμα δ’ έν οΐωνοΐσι τούκείνης πτερόν. 1308. 9. άνταίαν / έπαισεν: sc. πληγήν, άνταία πληγή ‘a wound right in the breast’ El. 195. (Cf. Aesch. Sept. 895 διανταίαν λέγεις [πλαγάν] where πλαγάν is an intrusive glossema). The καιρίαν (Σ) is an explanation rather than another reading. On the ellipse of the noun see K.-G. I 267. 1310. The scansion of this dochmiac and of 1331 probably has to run as follows: -αι- in δείλαιος and αΐ- in the conjectural αΐαϊ short­ ened -ώ in εγώ shortened -ω in the first ϊτω shortened (These remarkable shortenings raise the question whether 1306 and 1328 could be scanned a paeon introducing dochmiacs would not be unnatural), αΐαϊ (Erfurdt) is of course far from certain; Bruhn’s ΐώ would do as well. We might even consider retaining one of the two transmitted φεϋ’β; then the scansion would run: —(I3I0) or even (without shortening) (1331). 1311. δειλαία: if here we take the second syllable as long (where­ as it is short in 1310) we have an instance of quantity variation within a brief compass: cf. W. J. W. Koster, Traite de metrique grecque2 p. 40 n. 1, who quotes from Sophocles, beside this passage, Ant. 1240, El. 148, Phil. 296.

EXODOS, SECOND PART, VSS. I3O4-I327

209

συγκέκραμαι δύα: cf. Ai. 895 οίκτω τώδε συγκεκραμενην and my note. For a paratragic use cf. Ar. Plut. 853 (Taillardat, Les Images d’Aristophane, § 556). Inversely Pind. Pyth. X 42, 3 νόσοι δ’ οδτε γήρας ούλόμενον κέκραται ίερα γενεά. For δύα (and the meaning of the phrase) cf. Ai. 938. 1312, 3. έπεσκήπτου: έπισκήπτομαι 'to denounce’ > ‘to accuse’. (As an Attic law term especially ‘to denounce’ in order to begin a prosecution for perjury). The form has passive meaning (Bruhn’s note is a mistake). ώς . . . γε: ‘When ώς is first word in an answer, γε does double duty, both assenting and qualifying ώς' (Denniston G.P.2p. 143 (3)). ώς αιτίαν . . . εχων: ‘as one who bears the responsibility for’; cf. Men. Sam. 51. τώνδε κάκείνων .../... μόρων: Haemon's and Megareus’. On the plural we may note that the notion utriusque caedis lies at the bottom of the phrase. 1314. κάπελύσατ’: cf. 1268. There is no difference in meaning; Pearson’s κάπελύετ’ introduces an improbable imperfect. καί: stressing τρόπω, cf. siipra yj2 (Denniston G.P.2 p. 312 (a) ). έν φοναΐς: i.e. committing her bloody act, her suicide. Cf. 696. The explanation of Σ έφέρετο εις φονάς is impossible. 1315. αύτόχειρ: cf. 172, 306, 1173. 1316. όξυκώκυτον: cf. 1248, 9. Campbell ('She heard not only the words of the Messenger (1. 1183), but the cry which was raised in the house, after they had been spoken. This must be supposed to have followed 1. 1175’·) is wrong, cf. 1183-1189. 1317. 8. τάδ’ .../... αίτιας: ‘hoc a mea culpa nunquam in alium conveniet’ (E). αρμόσει intr.. έμας έξ αιτίας: i.e. ‘so as to exonerate me’ (Campbell). 1319. έγώ γάρ σ’ έγώ έκανον, ώ μέλεος: I feel a slight preference for this reading (G. Hermann’s, adopted by DainMazon) to other possibilities. I do not accept the hiatus of the transmitted text, as is done by Jebb. 1322, 3. There is little to choose between άγετε μ’ ότι τάχος (Schone, Pearson, Dain-Mazon) and άγετε μ’ ότι τάχιστ’ (Erfurdt, Jebb). 1325. μηδένα: i.e. a dead man. 1327. βράχιστα ... κακά: Personal construction = κράτιστόν έστι τάν ποσίν κακά βράχιστα είναι (cf. Ai. 635 κρείσσων γάρ ‘Άιδα κεύθων ό νοσών μάταν). τάν ποσίν (= τά παρόντα) seems to have been

k

210

COMMENTARY

used with a view to εκποδών 1323. The v.l. κράτιστα γάρ τάχιστα (Σ) is very much inferior. It is perhaps a reminiscence of Euryp. fr. 5. 42 άλλ’ ώς τάχιστ’ άριστα. Both phrases have a proverbial ring. 1329-31. φάνητω .../.../ ΰπατος: if no corruption is assumed, these words have to be construed as follows: φανήτω έμών μόρων μόρος δς κάλλιστα έμοί τερμίαν άγει άμέραν, ΰπατος. κάλλιστα does not qualify άγων but the whole phrase ό τερμίαν έμοί άγων άμέραν (perhaps έμάν . . . άμεράν would be an improve­ ment). As Campbell puts it, κάλλιστα 'has the force of a predicate’ (μόρων is partitive genitive): 'when that fate of all possible fates for me which brings me my last day, it will be best’. Then, at the end of the sentence, this desired fate is called ΰπατος, which in classical Greek cannot mean 'last’, but means ‘supreme’, 'the very best’; but contextually the meaning ‘last’ (cp. Latin supremus) seems to be implied. (The conjecture ύστατος would be easy and metrically possible but is to be rejected). Neither έχων nor ιών (in­ stead of έμών) are convincing conjectures. It remains a difficulty that logically μόρος here does not mean ‘death’ but ‘fate’ (cf. on μόρος Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. 1146); the explication must be that the notion of 'death’ is to be supposed to reign uppermost in the mind of the speaker. 1330. τερμίαν: 'last’, cf. O.C. 89 χώραν τερμίαν: the place of the 'end of the journey’. Cf. Hesych. έπιτέρμιον έπΐ τοϋ τέρματος, οΐον έπί τοϋ τέλους. Aesch. Niobe, fr. 273-5 Μ. (p. 561, Appendix, LloydJones) . . . .] δ’ όράτε τούπιτέρμιον γάμου, τέρμα (τοϋ) βίου Aesch. fr. 362 N.a, Ο.Τ. 1530 etc.. 1334, 5. These lines and 1337, 8 have to be attributed to the Coryphaeus. μέλλοντα ταϋτα: ‘dieser Wunsch gehort der Zukunft an’ (Bruhn). των προκειμένων: in contrast with μέλλοντα: 'the tasks now before us’, referring to the funeral ritual, τώνδε: refers to ταϋτα, Creon’s wishes, δτοισι χρή μέλειν: the gods. 1336. έρώ μέν: in my opinion έρώμεν . . . συγκατηυξάμην referring to one and the same person is more objectionable than the assump­ tion of emphatic μέν (we may even state that here we have a rare instance of άλλά ... μέν so common in Xenophon), έρώ, of course, expresses a strong desire (cf. supra go). συγκατηυξάμην: συγ- either has merely strengthening force or causes the verbal form to mean συνελών κατηυξάμην.

EXODOS, SECOND PART, VSS.

I329-1347

211

The reading έρώμεν has led to a strange misunderstanding of the passage in N.-Schn.-Bruhn: “ ‘Ich habe ja nur miterbeten, was wir wiinschen’ erwidert er bitter; er zweifelt nicht, dass alle seinen Tod wiinschen”. 1337, 8. The words render more explicit the intention of μέλει . , . μέλειν. Creon is reminded of his duty towards the gods. 1339. άγοιτ’ αν: on the use of the optative with iv cf. supra 444, El. 637; Goodwin G.M.T. § 237. μάταιοj: combining the notions ‘rash folly’ and ‘uselessness’. We should remember the proud and self-assured King of the first epeisodion. έκποδών: see 1323. 1340. κατέκανον: plausible correction of κατέκτανον (perhaps not absolutely necessary). 1341. σέ τ’: G. Hermann instead of δς σέ τ’; to be regarded as certain. αδ τάνδ’: Seidler, an improvement of αϋτάν (retained by Campbell). 1343, 4. πρός πδτερον: the deletion of δπα before πρός (Seidler; δπα may have been an intrusive gloss on πα) restores metre and sense. πα κλιθώ: Musgrave’s correction of καί θώ. When the gloss δπα had ousted πα and been put in the wrong place, ΚΛΙΘΩ was cor­ rupted into ΚΑΙΘΩ. This is a reasonable but by no means certain supposition. Campbell and Dain-Mazon prefer to follow G. Her­ mann, reading: δπα πρός πότερον ϊδω’ πάντα γάρ. This leaves πα καί θώ unaccounted for. If πα κλιθώ is right, the words must mean ‘where I should seek support’ (Jebb). The next words (γάρ !) make much more sense with the texts of Jebb and Pearson than with those of Campbell and Dain-Mazon. 1345-47. τάν χεροϊν: Brunck's convincing correction of τάδ’ έν χεροϊν. λέχρια: ‘inclini, penchi, oblique' (Chantraine, Diet. £t. s.v.); ‘oblique’, ‘slanting, declining’, ‘awry > amiss’. ‘All the matters in hand have gone awry’. AU the things he undertook have gone amiss. We may regard the corpse in his arms as a symbol of this statement. τα δ’: adverbial: ‘on the other hand’. Campbell shrewdly re­ marks : 'The opposition is not between Haemon and Eurydice, nor between present and future, but between the visible circumstances and the invisible hand of fate’.

212

COMMENTARY

In έπί κρατί. . . είσήλατο an imagery similar to that in 1272-74 is present. Cf. O.T. 263 νϋν 8’ ές τό κείνου κρατ’ ένήλαθ’ ή τύχη, 1311 ίώ δαΐμον, ίν’ έξήλου (cp. I3oosq.). δυσκόμιστος: ‘unendurable’. 1348-1353. Creon is led into the palace; the Coryphaeus recites the closing anapaests, a striking summing up of Creon's fate and its meaning in relation to religion and human behaviour. 1348, 9. τό φρονεϊν: marked as the main idea of the passage by its occurrence at the beginning and the end. Combining the notions of ‘moderation’ and ‘wisdom’. εύδαιμονίας / πρώτον ύπάρχει: ‘is given as the first element (or condition) of happiness’, ύπάρχει is much more than έστι. τά γ’ ές θεούς: since a corresponsion τε.. . δε, in this case (for other, acceptable cases cf. Denniston G.P.2 p. 513 sq.; he does not discuss our passage), is difficult to imagine, we have to accept Triclinius’ γ’, with misgivings. For τά γ’ ές θεούς Jebb refers to O.T. 706 τό γ’ εις εαυτόν. We have to understand ‘in his dealings with or utterings towards the gods’. The sentence implies a strong condemnation of Creon and at the same time a vindication of Antigone’s stand. 1350, 1. μεγάλοι λόγοι / μεγάλας πληγάς: the remarkable wordorder (for των ύπεραύχων depends on μεγάλοι λόγοι, although it is true that the ύπέραυχοι will ‘pay’ the μεγάλαι πληγαί) in order to drive home that the μεγάλας πληγάς are the direct result of the μεγάλοι λόγοι: ‘Great words, great blows of the overproud have to pay’. The μεγάλας πληγάς fit in with 1272 sq., 1345 sq.. γήρα: 'in old age’. Cf. W. Peek, Grab-Epigramme 766.2: ΐητρόν βιοτάν γήραϊ λειπόμενον. (But here the dative may be instrumental). τό φρονεϊν έδίδαξαν: Creon said οΐ τηλικοίδε καί διδαξόμεσθα δή / φρονεϊν . . . 726. Aesch. Ag. xyt) τόν φρονεϊν βρότους όδώσαντα, τω πάθει μάθος θέντα κυρίως έχειν. The aorist. is of course gnomic. For ‘late learning’ see ad 1270.