The Oedipus Coloneus 9004070346, 9789004070349

Citation preview

THE PLAYS OF SOPHOCLES BY

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

COMMENTARIES PART VII

THE OEDIPUS COLONEUS

LEIDEN E. J. BRILL 1984

PA !-)W

ΠΑΝ/MIO ΚΥΠΡΟΥ ΒΙΒΛΙΟΘΗΚΗ

V- 7

ISBN

90 04 07034 6

Copyright 1984 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 BY E. J. BRILL

To the memory of David Reid

PRAEFATIO Praeter libros quos hucusque consulere potui hune mihi praesto fuit tomus secundus editionis Teubnerianae quam curavit R. D. Dawe V. d.. Ut e tribus voluminibus quibus titulus Studies on the Text ofSophocles, ita ex hac editione doctrina et sagacitas auctoris clare patent. Itaque multa me docuit, multa ex apparatu critico in meum usum grato animo adhibui, multa inventa admiratus sum. Quodsi nonnulla nimis audacter coniecta mihi quidem videntur esse, libenter concedo nonnumquam illi­ quid esse audendum in rebus incertis. Plane alius est modus quo liber ille quem R. P. Winnington-Ingram v.cl. a° 1980 de Sophocle publici iuris fecit mihi profuit. In hoc libro interpretationem solidam et subtilem artis et ingenii poetae inventes qua vix meliorem ullam mente concipias. Cum in aliis rebus turn in iis quae pertinent ad compositionem (structuram quae dicitur) huius tragoediae vestigia viri vere Sophoclei saepe persecutus sum. Dolendum sane est quod non omnem fructum capere potui ex optimo libro, qui inscribitur The Syntax of Sophocles ab A. C. Moorhouse v.cl. scriptus eta“ 1982 publici iuris factus. Ad finem operis nunc perveni senex quod iuvenali ardore et audacia—ne dicam υβρει—impulsus abhinc annos triginta très susceperam. Complures me adiuverunt, imprimis uxor mea. Ceteros, amicos, collegas, discipulos discipulasque, nominare praetermitto sed unum nomen omittere nolo: Semper memoriam servabo magnae operae qua me obstrinxit David Alexander Stuart Reid qui 13.1.1982 decessit suis praemature fato crudeli ereptus. Is enim, his annis viginti quattuor, commentarios meos (sc. in Trach., Ο. T, El., Ant., Phil.) correxit, emendavit, polivit. Perdidi adiutorem praestantem et amicum carum. Officium autem difficile in locum eius succedendi suscepit Christina Crouwel-Bradshaw, quae diligenter et accurate multa vitia quibus textus meus laborabat sustulit (quae remanserunt mihi imputentur), multa in formam elegantiorem redegit. Pro quo labore ei ex animo magnas gratias ago.

Santpoort, mense Decembri MCMLXXXII

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

μικρού codd. plerique, Schn.-N.-R., Masqueray, D.M.: σμικροϋ QZnZoT, edd. plerique, Pearson, Dawe. 15 στέγουσιν codd., edd. multi: στέφουσιν Wakefield, alii, Pear­ son, Dawe. 45 γης codd., edd. plerique: γε Musgrave, Pearson. 47 ούδ’ έμόν toi LR, D.-M., ego dubitanter: ούδ’ έμοί toi Seidler, Wunder, Jebb, Schn.-N.-R., alii: ούδέ μέντοι AUY, Camp­ bell, Pearson, Dawe. 48 -πριν γάρ ένδείξω, τί δρω; RQ, interpunxi ego:, πρίν γ’άν ένδείξω ti δρώ. L, Campbell, Jebb, alii, Dawe: γ’αν om.A, γ’ om. U Y:, πρίν γ’άν ένδείξω τί δράς. Ζο, Pearson. 60 φέρουσι codd. Σ: φοροΰσι Nauck, Pearson. 76 δαίμονος·: δαίμονος, Pearson. 79 κρινοΰσί σοι L“A“RQ, Wunder, Jebb, alii: κρινοΰσί γε L^A^AU Y rell., Pearson, D.-M., alii: κρινοΰσί toi Wecklein, Campbell, Dawe. 96 νΰν Schn.-N.-R., Kuiper: νυν edd. plerique, Pearson. 110 τόδ’ codd. plerique, Schn.-N.-R., Kuiper, D.-M.: τό γ’ UY, Campbell, Jebb, Pearson, Dawe. 121 λεύσσετ’ αύ ■ προσδέρκου tentavi: λευσσετ’ ZnZoT λεύσσατ’ AUY λεύσατ’ L rell. αΰτόν codd.: προσδέρκου, λεΰσσέ νιν Schneidewin (νιν Hermann), Pearson: προσδέρκου, λεΰσσε δή, Jebb: λεϋσσ’αύτόν, προσδρακοΰ Meineke, Dawe. 150.1 έ έ (sive έή), vel· άλαών όμμάτων/άρα καί ήσθα φυτάλμιος; cum plerisque edd. sic interpunxi: έ ε, άλαών όμμάτων. άρα καί ήσθα φυτάλμιος δυσαίων; Pearson. 151.2 δυσαίων μακραίων θ’δσ’ έπεικάσαι. Bothe, edd. complures: τέ θ’ ώς LA alii, θ’ ώς RQ: μακραίων γάρ, έπεικάσαι Pearson. 164 έρατΰει codd., Campbell, Jebb, D.-M., alii: έρατύοι Musgrave, Pearson, Dawe. 174,5 ώ ξεΐνοι, μή δήτ’άδικηθώ/σοί πιστεύσας, καί μεταναστάς. ώ ξεΐνοι AUYT, edd. multi (ώ ξένοι codd. rell.): ξεΐνοι Reisig, Pearson, Dawe: άδικηθώ σοί/Pearson, alii: ώ ξένε,.,άδικηθώ σοί/Nauck, Kuiper: σοί codd. plerique (ύμϊν ZnZo), edd. multi: ooi om. Brunck, Dawe. 182-184 Lacunam trium versuum inter 181 et 182, unius versus inter 183 et 184 indicavit Nauck, quern secuti sunt, inter alios,

5

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

X

190 197 198,9

220

250 278

283 317,8 320

321

323 349 367

369

371

Jebb, Kuiper, Masqueray, Dawe: lacunam quattuor versuum inter 183 et 184 Hermann, Pearson, alii. εΐποιμεν ΕΚΤ.,.άχούσαιμεν LRQ“K, edd. plerique: είπωμεν RQAI> Γε11....άχούσωμεν Qp'IAA rell., Pearson. iv ήσΰχω Elmsley, Dawe: ίν άσυχαί/α βάσει Reisig, complures edd., Pearson: Iv ήσυχία codd., Radermacher, Masqueray. ΐώ μοί μοι./ βάσει βάσιν άρμοσαι (άρμόσαι) fere codd., Jebb, alii, Dawe: βάσει βάσιν άρμοσαι.../ ίώ μοί μοι Hermann, Pearson, alii. Oed. Λάιου ιστέ τιν’; ώ. Chor, ioù ίού. Wecklein, Jebb, Kuiper, Schni.-N.-Raderm.: Λαΐου ϊστε τιν’ άπόγονον codd. Σ , ώ ώ ίου vel ώ ώ ιού ίου vel similia codd.: Λαΐου ΐστε τιν’ εχγονον; Chor. ίου. Pearson, D.-M.: Λαΐου ΐστε τιν’ δντ’ (Dindorf); Chor, ίου ίου Masqueray. Λαΐου ΐστε τιν’ άπόγονον-JChor. ιού. Dawe. οΐχοθεν Elmsley, Dawe: έχ σεθεν codd. plerique, edd. plerique, Pearson: εχαθεν ZnZo. μώρους ποεΐσθε ■ μηδαμώς- Pearson in apparatu, Dawe (sine interpunctione post ποεΐσθε), μώρους KR (μωρούς Q), coniecerat Blaydes: μοίραις codd. plerique, μοίραν Zn Zo T: μηδαμώς codd.: μοίραις ποεΐσθ’ έν μηδαμαΐς Dettweiler, edd. complures: μοίραις ποεΐσθε μηδαμώς Campbell: Ιμοίραιςΐ ποεΐσθε μηδαμώς Jebb, Pearson. υπηρετών,: ύπηρετών. Pearson. τί φώ./τάλαινα.: τί φώ./τάλαινα, Pearson. σημαίνει δέ τι-J. Jackson (Marg. Scaen. 175,6), D.-M., Dawe: σημαίνει δ’δτι codd., edd. priores, Pearson. μόνης τόδ’ έστί, δήλον, ’Ισμήνης χάρα codd., nisi quod Jackson sic distinxit, D.-M., Dawe: μόνης φίλον τόδ’ έστΐν ’Ισμήνης χάρα Pearson (Sud. s.v. σημαίνει: τόδ’ έστιν ’Ισμήνης φίλον χάρα): alii aliter. εξεστιν codd., edd. plerique: εξεσται Dobree, Pearson. νηλίπους codd., edd. plerique: νήλιπος Wakefield, Pearson. ήν ερις codd., edd. complures, inter cruces Dawe: ήν ερως Tyrwhitt, Brunck, Hermann, Wunder, Jebb, Pearson: ήρεσεν Bergk, Winnington-Ingram Sophoclea B.I.C.S. 26 (1979), p. 11). λόγω codd., edd. plerique: λοίγω Pearson (in apparatu), Dawe. χάξ άλειτηροϋ correctum e χάξ άλιτηροϋ AUY Sud. Eustath., Campbell, Radt (Mnemos. 1966, p. 174), Dawe: χάξ άλιτηροϋ edd. complures: χάλιτηρίου Toup, Jebb, alii, Pearson (χάξ άλιτηρίου T).

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

380,1

445 450.1

459

475

487 502 509 516

521.2

525 534

541

XI

ώς αύτίχ’ ’Άργος ή τό Καδμείων πέδον/τιμή καθέξον, ή προς ουρανόν βιβών codd. nisi quod καθέξων tantum non omnes praebent, A solus καθέξον (i.e. sive o ex ω, sive ω ex o; sed Dawe nihil de ea re notavit; solam lectionem καθέξων videtur agnovisse), edd. complures: αύτίχ’ ”Αρεος.../πάλη (F.W. Schmidt) καθέξων J. Jackson (Marg. Scaen. 169, 170): ■Άργος.../πάλη καθέξον D.-M.: "Αργος.../τιμής καθέλξον Pear­ son (χαθέλξων Reiske, καθέλξον Madvig): |ΆργοςΪ·../ΐτιμήΪ καθέξων Dawe. ταινδε fere codd., edd. multi: τοΐνδε cum aliis Pearson, οϋ τι μή.../ουτε σφιν: codd., Campbell, D.-M., alii (cf. G-P.2 509): ούτε.../ούτε Elmsley, Wunder, Kuiper: οϋ τι.../ούδέ Hermann, Jebb, Pearson, Dawe. τήδε μέν RQZn Ζο T, edd. multi, D.-M., Dawe (τήδε μεν τή L): τήδε τή AUY, Wunder, Kuiper, Pearson, alii. οίός νεαρας Heath, edd. multi, D.-M., Dawe: οίός νεώρους Musgrave (νεωροϋς perperam), edd. complures, Pear­ son: οίός νεαρας Bellermann, Jebb. σωτήριον codd., edd. plurimi: σωτηρίους Bake, Hartung, Pear­ son, Dawe. Ϊοΰδ’ ύφηγητοΰ δ’άνευ (ύφ’ ήγητοϋ Ζο, γ’άνευ)Ϊ: ούδ’ ύφηγητοϋ δίχα Hermann, edd. multi, Pearson, Dawe: alii alia, πονή LA (πονή), Campbell: πονεϊrell., edd. plerique, Pearson, τάδ’ έργ’ α πέπονθ’ άναιδή tentavi, item West: τάς σάς· πέπονθ’ έργ’ άναιδή codd. τάς σάς (τάς σάς LK Zn) ‘glossema sapit’ Dawe, qui τάς σάς· πέπονθ’ inter cruces habet: τάς σάς ά πέπονθ’ άναιδή Reisig, edd. multi, Pearson: τάς σάς· γέγον’ έργ’ άναιδή J. Jackson, Marg. Scaen. pp. 83, 4, D.-M. ήνεγκ’, ώ, χακότατ’, ώ ξένοι, ήνεγκ’/άέκων μέν, θεός έστωDawe: ήνεγκον κ,, ώ ξ., ήνεγκον/άχων codd. (ήνεγκ’/άέκων Martin): ήνεγκ’ ούν κ,, ώ ξ., ήνεγκ’/άέκων Whitelaw, Jebb, Pearson: ήνεγκον κ,, ώ ξ., ήνεγκ’/άέκων Kuiper, Masqueray, D.-M.: ήνεγκον κ,, ώ. ξ., ήνεγκ/ον άγαν Pohlenz, Erl.2 140. ίδρις codd., Campbell, Kuiper, D.-M.: ’ίδριν (fortasse Ζο11) Mudge, edd. multi, Pearson, Dawe. σαί τάρ’ άπόγονοί τ’ είσί καί Bothe, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Mas­ queray, D.-M.: σαί τ’ άρ’ είσίν (εϊσ’ AUY) άπόγονοί τε καί LRQ αύτ’ άρ’ είσίν Zn Ζο, αύτάρ είσίν Τ: σαί τ’εϊσ’ άρ’ άπόγονοί τε καί Jebb, Kuiper, Pearson, Dawe. ΐέπωφέλησαΐ codd., inter cruces Dawe: έπωφέλησα Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper, D.-M., alii: έπωφελήσας Meineke, Jebb, Pearson: έπωφελήσας δφελον vocabulo πόλεως deleto Kuiper in apparatu.

χπ

562 563 570

583 587 588

603

632.3 639,40

655 680

692.3

702

703.4

716,7

726 735

755

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

γ’ αυτός codd., edd. complures: καυτός Doederlein, edd. complures, Pearson, Dawe. χώς τις (χώστις codd.) edd. plurimi: χώς εις Dobree, Jebb, Pearson, Dawe. βραχέ’ έμοί δεϊσθαι codd., edd. plerique: βραχέα μή αίδεΐσθαι Pearson, Dawe. τα λοίσθι’ αίτή fere codd., edd. plurimi, Dawe: λοΐσθ’ äp’ Ln? (λοϊσθ’Α), Campbell, Pearson. ούχ, άγών ούχ L“ άγών Elmsley, edd. multi, Dawe: ούκ, AUYK, άγών codd., Kuiper, Pearson. ή’μοΰ codd., Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe, ego dubitanter: κάμοΰ Schneidewin, Jebb, Kuiper, Pearson. εξαναγκάσει LAR, edd. multi, Dawe: έξαναγκάζει AUY, Kuiper, Pearson. τοιοϋδ’ έστία, : τοιοϋδ’ εστία; Pearson. ·εί δ’ έμοϋ στείχειν μέτα/τόδ’ ήδύ — AUY (είτ’ rell.), edd. multi: ,είτ’ έμοϋ στείχειν μέτα. τό δ’ήδύ Schn.-N.-Raderm., Pearson: εί δ’ έμοϋ στείχειν μέτα· τό ήδύ τούτων Wilamowitz. ανάγκη: άνάγκη. Pearson. θεαΐς Elmsley, Wunder, Jebb, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm,, Masqueray, Dawe: θείαις codd., Campbell, Pearson, D.-M. ούδ’ ά χρυσάνιος KRQ Zn Zo, Wunder, Jebb, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray: ούδ’ αύ χρυσάνιος L, Dawe: ούδ’ αΰ ά Τ, Pearson, D.-M.: ούδ’ âp’ à Campbell: ούδέ χρυσάνιος AUY. ούτε γήρα codd., edd. multi: ούδε γήρα Jebb, Pearson, Dawe. οημαίνων codd., Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M.: συνναίων Blaydes, Wecklein, Jebb, Kuiper, Pearson, Dawe. ό γάρ αίεν όρων Hermann, Jebb, Kuiper, Masqueray, D.-M.: ό γάρ είσαιέν όρων codd., Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Pear­ son: ό δ’ αίεν ορών Dawe. άλία χερσί παραπτομένα codd. plerique, edd. multi: παραπτομένα inter cruces Campbell, Pearson: άλΐ (Page) χέρσον παρα-πτομένα Dawe. έγώ LRQ, Campbell, Jebb, D.-M.: κυρώ cett., Pearson, Dawe. τηλικόνδ’ (vel τηλίκονδ’, τηλίκον, τηλίκων) codd., Wunder, Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper, Masqueray: τηλικόσδε Brunck, edd. multi, Pearson, Dawe. άλλ’, οΰ...κρύπτειν, sic interpunxi, item D.-M., (ού.,.κρύπτειν) Schn.-N.-Raderm.: άλλ’ ού.,.κρύπτειν, edd. multi, Pearson.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

792

808

813

(814 816

824,5 861,2

863

870 882 885 911 939

958,9 981

989 998 1007

1008

XIII

χάχ Doederlein, Jebb, D.-M., Dawe: êx LK Zn Ζο T, Camp­ bell, Masqueray: xai RQAUY, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper, Pearson. χαί τά χαίρια codd., Wunder, Campbell, Jebb, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper, Masqueray: χαί τό χαίρια Suda 4, 818, 17, Elmsley, Pearson, D.-M., Dawe. ού σέ’ (vel.) προς Sè τους φίλους (δε LKAUY) edd. plerique: τε RQ: γε Zn Ζο Τ, Pearson, Dawe. ρήματ’, ήν σ’ ελω ποτέ codd., edd. plerique, Pearson: ρήματ’· ήν 8’ έλω ποτέ Musgrave, Dawe). τώνδε fere codd., Campbell, Kuiper: τοΰδε Musgrave, edd. plurimi, Pearson, Dawe. τά νΰν / δίκαια πράσσεις codd., edd. plerique, Dawe: τανΰν / δίχαι’ α πράσσεις Meineke, Pearson. (Cr.), I ήν μή μ* codd. (εί RQ), Campbell, Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe: ./ Xo. ήν μή σ’ Piderit, Jebb, Schn.-N.Raderm., Kuiper, Pearson. ψαύεις LK AUY Zo, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper, Mas­ queray, D.-M.: ψαύσεις RQ Zn T, edd. multi, Pearson, Dawe. γηράναί ποτέ codd. plerique, edd. plerique: γηράναι ποτέ RQ Dindorf, Pearson. Pearson: alii alia, γαιάοχον, : γαιάοχον Pearson. ερδουσιν ή μέλλουσιν codd., Dawe: ερδουσ’ ή μελλουσιν Steinhart, edd. plurimi, Pearson. άντάσειν Bücheier, Jebb: Sv δώσειν vel αν δώσει (RQ), vel άνδώσεηι codd., )...) Dawe, alii: ένδώσειν Tumebus (lemma SR), edd. multi, Pearson: άνδώσειν Campbell: άνσώσειν Blaydes, D.-M. τον σκοπόν Elmsley, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Dawe: τώ σκοπώ codd., edd. plurimi, Pearson. κάναπαύσετον LRQAUY, Campbell1): κάναπαύσατον Zn Zo T, edd. multi, Pearson: κάναπνεύσατον Jebb, Dawe. ού χάστι τοϋργον τούμόν ώδ’ εσται βραχύ. Wex, Jebb, Schn.-Ν.-Radermacher, ego dubitanter: καί σοί τε τοϋργον τούμόν εσται βραχύ fere codd. τε om. RQ γε Κ, έσται νυν RQ, εσται δή Τ: καί σοί τε τοϋργον τοϋτ’ έμοί τ’ εσται βραχύ. Her­ mann, Wunder, Campbell, Kuiper, Pearson: alii alia: inter cruces καί...τούμόν Dawe.

’) Also in Paralip, Soph., p. 265.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

XV

θαύμαζε, πρός τό λιπαρές sic interpunxi cum muhis aliis: θαύμαζε πρός τό λιπαρές, Pearson, alii. 1120 μηκύνω codd., edd. multi: μηκύνω Elmsley, Pearson, Dawe. 1141 ούδ’ codd., Campbell, D.-M.: οΰτ’ Elmsley, Jebb, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, Pearson, Dawe. 1164,5 σοί φασίν αύτόν ές λόγους έλθεϊν μολόντ’ / αίτεΐν άπελθεϊν codd., nisi quod Heath inseruit τ’, Wunder, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M.; έλθεϊν μόνον / αίτεΐν άπελθεϊν Vauvilliers, Campbell, Jebb: μολόντα δή / αίτεΐν άπελθεϊν Pearson: έλθεϊν θέλοντ’ / αίτεΐν άπελθεϊν Nauck: Î έλθεϊν μόλοντ’ J Dawe. 1170 μή μου δεηθής — (vel...) ego: μή μου δεηθής. edd. 1209 κομπεϊν ούχί βούλομαι L“ Zo, Wecklein, Schn.-N.-Raderm.: κομπεΐν δ’ codd. rell., edd. plerique, Pearson, Dawe. 1209,10 σύ δ’ ών / σώς ϊσθ’ Dindorf (σώς Scaliger), Wunder, Jebb, Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe: σύ δέ / σών ϊσθ’ codd. (nisi quod L habet ·δέ σε· s.l.): σύ δέ / σώς ϊσθ’ Scaliger, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm. (sed vide commentarium): σέ δέ / σών ϊσθ’ Reisig, Pearson. 1226 κειθεν όθεν fere codd., edd. complures, inter cruces Jebb (in textu): κεϊσ’ όπόθεν Blaydes, Jebb (in commentario), Kuiper, Pearson, Dawe. 1231 πλάγχθη πολύμοχθος codd., Wunder, Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., di Benedetto: πλάγχθη πολύ μόχθος Her­ mann, Pearson, D.-M.: πλαγά πολύμοχθος v. Herw., Jebb, Kuiper: inter cruces Dawe. 1242 ώς καί codd., Campbell, Jebb, Kuiper: ώς καί Brunck, Wunder, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Pearson, D.-M., Dawe. 1250-1253 ordine quern praebent codd. edd. plerique: 1252, 3 ante 1250 Pearson Housmanno praeeunte: lacunam duorum versuum post 1249 indicavit Dawe. 1250 άνδρών γε codd.: άνδρών δέ Pearson. 1273 ούδέν, : ούδέν; Pearson. 1321,2 έπώνυμος τής πρόσθεν άδμήτης γόνος RQ verbis χρόνω / ... ’Αταλάντης omissis, A. Gratwick: έπώνυμος τής πρόσθεν άδμήτης χρόνω / μητρός λοχευθείς, πιστός ’Αταλάντης γόνος codd. rell., fere edd., Pearson: (χρόνω / μητρός t Dawe. 1333 πρός θεών RQAUYK, Brunck, Wunder, D.-M., Dawe: καί θεών L Zn Zo T, edd. plerique, Pearson. 1348 ανδρες τησδε δημοΰχοι χθονός, L“KRQ Jebb, Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe: άνδρες, τησδε δημοϋχος χθονός LpcAUY rell., Wunder, Campbell, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Pearson. 1119

I

XVI

1359

1370 1379 1394 1424

1426

1435

1436

1438 1454,5

1466 1494

1501 1523 1525

1541 1555 1559

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

χαχών έμοί codd., edd. plerique: “σων έμοί Housman, Pearson: αχών έμοί Tournier, D.-M.: tχαχών έμοίΐ Dawe (ίσων χαχών in apparatu). είσορά μέν —,: είσορά μέν Pearson. ■ (vel—) αιδε γάρ τάδ’ ούχ εδρών (vel—): .αΐδε γάρ τάδ’ ούχ εδρ­ ών. Pearson. καί πάσι codd., edd. plerique: τοϊς πάσι Nauck, Pearson, έχφέρει codd., Wunder, Campbell, Jebb (= έχφέρη, έχφέρη Kuiper), Schn.-N.-Raderm., Dawe: έκφέρεις Tyrwhitt, Brunck, Masqueray, Pearson: ές δρθόν έχφέρει D.-M. ήμΐν δ’ ούχί συγχωρητεα; tentavi: ήμΐν δ’ ούχί συγχωρητέα. codd., edd. σφών (σφώ G. Hermann) δ’ εύοδοίη codd., Campbell, Jebb (σφώ), Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm. (σφώ), Masqueray (σφώ), D.-M., Dawe (σφώ): σφών δ’ εύ διδοίη Burges, Dindorf, Wunder, Pearson. Î θανόντ’, έπεί οϋ μοι ζώντί γ’ αύθις έξετον t fere codd. (έπεί οϋ με Κ): τάδ’ εί θανόντι μοι ! τελεΐτ’, έπεί οϋ μοι ζώντί γ’ αύθις έξετον Lobeck, Jebb, Masqueray, D.-M.: θανόντ’ έπεί ούδέ ζώντά μ’ αύθις έξετον Pearson: θανόντ’ έπεί μ’ ού ζώντά γ’ αύθις έξετον Wecklein: deleverunt Dindorf, Schn.-Ν.-Radermacher, Kuiper, Wilamowitz, Dawe. ώ τάλαιν’ έγώ...: ώ τάλαιν’ έγώ. Pearson. χρόνος, τρέπων μέν έτερα, / τά δέ παρ’ ήμαρ αύθις αϋξων άνω. e.g. tentavi: χρόνος έπεί μέν έτερα / τάδε πήματ’ (τάδ’ έπ’ ήματ’ Zn Ζο) αύθις αϋξων ανω codd.: ρέπων Blaydes, στρέφων Hartung, Jebb, τά δέ παρ’ ήμαρ Canter (cf. Σ), edd. plerique, Pearson, Dawe. έπτηξα codd.: έπταξα Pearson. ΤΠοσειδωνίω (complures w.ll.)|: Ποσειδανίω Seidler, Pear­ son, alii: 1493 et 1494 pro graviter corruptis habeo. αύτών codd., Campbell, Kuiper, D.-M., Dawe: άστών Reiske, Jebb, Masqueray, Pearson. τόποις,: τόποις· Pearson, alii. γειτόνων codd. multi, Brunck, Wunder, Ellendt, Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M.: γειτονών codd. multi, Jebb, Kuiper, Pearson, Dawe. Vide commentarium de re incerta. έντρεπώμεθα codd., edd. plerique: έχτρεπώμεθα Pearson, μέμνησθέ μου codd., edd. plurimi: μέμνησθέ μου vel (melius) μεμνήσθέ μου Elmsley, Pearson, Dawe. Αίδωνεϋ Αίδωνεϋ Hermann, edd. plerique: Άϊδωνεΰ ’Αίδωνεϋ codd., Pearson.

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

1559,60

1563 1583 1584

1595

1600

1643,4

1662

1693-95

1698

1702

XVII

λίσσομαι codd., edd. plerique: δός pot Heath, Pearson (δίδοο pot Σ). [μήτ’] έπιπόνω Seidler, Wilamowitz, [μήτ’] έπί πόνω ego: ρήτ’ έπίπονα RQ, Pearson: μήποτ’ επίπονα Α: ρήποτ’ έπί πόνω Τ: ρήτ’ έπιπόνω L (i.e. έπί πόνω aut έπιπόνω), edd. nonnulli: alii alia: ΐ ρήτ’ έπίπονα ρηδ’ έπί βαρυαχεΐ | Dawe (unde ρηδ’, nec ρήτ’, nescio). νεκρών Τ, edd. multi, Dawe: νεκύων codd. rell., Pearson, λελογχότα Mudge, Meineke, Wilamowitz, D.-M., Dawe: λελοιπότα codd., Pearson, edd. plurimi. τόν αίεί vel αεί codd., edd. complures, Dawe: τόν f αεί t Jebb, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Pearson: | τόν άεί Î Kuiper: locus varie tentatus. έφ’ ού codd., Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm.: άφ’ ού Brunck, edd. plerique, Pearson. μέσος Musgrave, Brunck, edd. plerique, Pearson, ego dubitanter: μέσου codd. (μέσον Zo), Kuiper. προσόψιον LRV Sud. s.v. πρός όφιν, Campbell, Jebb, Kuiper, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M.: έπόψιον AUY rell., Brunck, Hermann, Wunder, Pearson, Dawe. ό κύριος, / Θησεύς, sic interpunxi: ό κύριος / Θησεύς Pearson, alii. άλύπητον codd. plerique, Campbell, Jebb, Kuiper, Mas­ queray: άλάμπετον Ltf Q Wunder, Schn.-N.-Raderm. (iam Nauck), Pearson, D.-M., Dawe. Î τό φέρον έκ θεοϋ καλώς φέρειν χρή, / ρηδ’ άγαν οϋτω ΐ codd., cruces posuit Dawe: φέρειν χρή del. Hermann, quem com­ plures secuti sunt: μηδέν άγαν Dindorf: οϋτω del. Burton: τό φέρον έκ θεοϋ καλώς / μηδέν άγαν φλέγεσθον Wunder, Kuiper, Pearson: τό θεοϋ καλώς φέρειν / χρή· τί δ’ αγαν φλέγεσθον; Wilamowitz, Masqueray: alii alia: τό φέρετ’ έκ θεοϋ, καλώς / μηδέν vel μηκέτ’ αγαν φλέγεσθον· tentaveram, sed frustra, καί γάρ δ μηδαμά δή τό φίλον, φίλον) codd. (nisi quod μηδαμά e μηδαμή correxit Brunck), Wunder, Campbell, Schn.-N.Raderm., Masqueray, D.-M.: φίλον ήν φίλον Brunck, Jebb, Kuiper, Pearson, Dawe. (1697 αρ’ ήν τις ήν LV; possis äp’ ήν τις, / 1698 ήν (pro καί) Ύ«Ρ)· ούδέ γερών Theander, West, ego: ούδέ γέρων codd., Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Masqueray: ούδέ γάρ ών Hermann, Wunder, Kuiper, D.-M.: ούδέ γ’ ένερθ’ Wecklein, Jebb: ούδέ γ’ άπών Pearson: ούδ’ Άχέρων ... / 1703 ... κυρήση Dawe: ούδέ γέρων ... / 1703 ... δή κυρήσας Wilamowitz.

XVIII

HISCE LOCIS TEXTUS AB OXONIENSI DIFFERT

έπραξεν ... vcl — Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe: έπραξεν; edd. complures: επραξεν. Pearson. 1715-1719 ώ τάλαινα, τίς άρα με πότμος / έπιμένει σέ τ’, ώ φίλα, / πατρός ώδ’ έρήμας / Tournier, Mas­ queray, D.-M., Dawe (cf. Wilamowitz, Gr. Vsk. p. 524 ώ τάλαινα ... πότμος / έπιμένει ... φίλα / πατρός ώδ’ έρήμας): ώ ταλαινα, τίς άρα με πότ­ μος / αύθις ώδ’ έρημος άπορος / επιμένει σέ τ’, ώ φίλα, πατρός ώδ’ έρήμας fere codd., αύθις ... άπορος ut e vs. 1735 interpolata, del. Lachmann, Reisig1): ώ τάλαινα ... πότμος, lacuna duorum versuum, έτ’ άμμένει σέ τ’, ώ φίλα, / πατρός ώδ’ έρήμας; Pearson (έτ’ άμμένει σέ τ’ Blaydes, έπαμμένει σέ τ’ Hermann, Hermann): alii alia haudquaquam meliora. 1725 Άν. ίμερος έχει με. Ίσ. τίς; codd. (nisi quod personarum notas correxit T), edd. plerique: Ίσ. τίς; Bergk, Pear­ son. 1733- 34 Inter hos versus lacunam septem syllabarum (cf. 1747) indicavit Meineke, quem secuti sunt Wilamowitz, Masqueray, D.-M., Dawe,------- v-o: contra 1747 delevit Dindorf, quem complures secuti sunt, inter quos Pearson. 1734- 1736 Melius ita dividas:----- v—ω Z------v>—uuu/—v-v,— Wilamowitz, D.-M., Dawe. 1739 Xo. καί πάρος άπέφογε ... ’Αν. τ£; Hermann, Wunder, Jebb, alii: Xo. χαί πάρος άπεφύγετον (Heath) ’Αν. (Bergk) Pearson: άπεφεύγετον codd.: (1740) Hermann, edd. multi, Pearson. 1741 ύπερνοεΐς codd., Wunder, Campbell, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Wilamowitz, D.-M.: δπερ νοείς Graser, Jebb, Kuiper, Pear­ son, Masqueray, Dawe. 1747 ναι ναί · ξύμφημι χαύτός codd.: vide ad 1733-34. 1752 ξυν’ άπόχειται Reisig, Wunder, edd. plerique, Dawe: ξυναπόχειται codd.: νύξ άπόχειται Martin, Pearson. Cf. Kirkwood, Sophoclean Drama, p. 244, n. 24. 1776 χάριν,: χάριν Pearson.

1704

') De choricis systematic, p. 237.

INTRODUCTION 1. Sources

and

Starting-points

On the treatment of the Oedipus saga and the story of Laïus’ house in epos and lyric poetry there is not much to be added to my discussion in the Introduction to Sophocles’ Oedipus Tyrannus. There is one exception: The Papyrus Lille 76a ( + 73), published by G. Ancher and C. Meillier in Cahiers de Recherches de l’Institut de Papyrologie et d‘Egyptologie de Lille IV (1976, pp. 287 sqq.)1), contains important fragments, very probably to be ascribed to Stesichorus, deeding with (a part of) the Oedipus legend. In the best preserved continuous text (vss. 201-234) Iocasta (Epicasta?) addresses first Teiresias and then her sons, trying to reconcile the two and proposing to them a partition of Oedipus’ inheritance, by which the one will be King and the other wdl have to go away κτεάνη καί χρυσόν εχοντα φίλου συμπαντα [πατρός], in order to prevent the disasters evidently predicted by Teiresias. It seems that the sons comply with her entreaty.2) The text, up to a point, confirms Mr. West’s comment on Hes. Erg. 163 (and mine, Ο. T. Introd. p. 3). ‘Stesichorus’ ’ poem may have followed the Thebaid, and in some respects what we read of it reminds us of Euripides’ Phoenissae (Iocasta’s rôle,—although Oedipus would appear to be dead). At any rate Sophocles’ version, in Ο. T. as well as in O.C.—and in Ant.—is very different. Generally speaking the presuppositions of the 0. C. are the same as of the Ο. T., and the dramatization of Oedipus’ fate in the latter is the starting-point of the action of the 0. C.. In contrast with the version of ‘Stesichorus’, Iocasta’s death in O.T. takes place immediately after the disclosure of the truth (cf. Od. XI 277 sqq.); in Euripides’ Phoenissae she is still alive at the time of the expedition of the Seven.3) So is Oedipus, whereas—although it is not absolutely sure—in ‘Stesichorus’ he would appear to be dead. Oedipus is driven in­ to exile by Creon after the war of the Seven in Euripides’ Phoenissae. At

') See Z.P.E., 26, 1977, 1-6, P. J. Parsons, Z.P.E., 26, 1977, 7-36, C. Meillier, La Succession d'Oedipe d’après le P. Lille 76a + 73, poème lyrique probablement de Stésichore, R.E.G. XCI, 1978, 12-43. !) That is not to say, of course, that the conflict will not arise again later; the passage presents us with a version of the conflict in its initial stage not unlike that known from Hellanicus (F.G.H., 4 F 98, Jacoby); cf. Apollod. Bibl. Ill 6.1. ’) Pearson’s verdict {Phoen. Introd. p. xxiii) ‘In making Iocasta survive the discovery Euripides stands alone; and this is probably his own invention’ is no longer valid.

2

INTRODUCTION

the end of Ο. T. Oedipus urges Creon to drive him into exile, and after the latter’s rather non-committal answer he is led into the palace (see my note ad 0. T. 1520; the passage is not entirely clear). Nowhere in our texts of Greek literature do we meet a version of the myth in which Oedipus is driven (or goes) into exile before the war of the Seven (as is presupposed in O.C.). Nowhere else (except in passages evidently based on O.C.) do we find mention of Oedipus’ end and heroization at Colonus in Attica with the sole apparent exception of the controversial passage Eur. Phoen. 1703-1707:

Οί. νΰν χρησμός, ώ παϊ, Λοξίου περαίνεται. Άν. ό ποιος; άλλ’ ή πρός κακοϊς έρεϊς κακά; Οί. έν ταϊς Άθήναις κατθανεϊν μ’ άλώμενον. ’Αν. πού; τίς σε πύργος Άτθίδος προσδέξεται; Οί. ιερός Κολωνός, δώμαθ’ ίππίου θεοϋ. (άλλ’ εϊα, τυφλω τώδ’ ύπηρέτει πατρί, έπεί πρόθυμη τησδε κοινοϋσθαι φυγής). Far from admitting with Wilamowitz1) that Sophocles was prompted by this passage to dramatize a legend of his native deme, I side with Ed. Fraenkel and others, who regard the lines 1703-1707 as an interpolation by someone else, ‘der wissen mochte dass sein Publikum gern immer wieder an den Sophokleischen Oedipus erinnert wurde’.* 2) (The whole transmitted text of the finale of the Phoenissae is scarcely comprehensible without the assumption of drastic interference at the hand of at least one interpolator; this hypothesis is surely more plausible than the supposition that Euripides could in some way have had some knowledge of Sophocles’ play, even should this have been written, though not pro­ duced, before 411-409—the probable date of Phoen.}. So we may safely state that for writing a drama dealing with Oedipus’ reception in Attica and his passing away from life into the state of patron-‘heros’ of his adoptive country, Sophocles had no predecessors. He doubtless borrowed this subject-matter from local legend connected with the shrine of the Erinyes at Colonus, his native deme, well-known to him τή ξυνουσία. It would be absurd to suppose that the poet himself was the originator of Oedipus’ connection with Colonus; a hero-cult existing in his time somewhere in the precinct of the Eumenides and its aetiological myth must have been at the bottom of the dramatized fiction for the latter to be at all credible to Sophocles’ audience, who were well’) Hermes 18, 1883, p. 239, Tycho’s book p. 318 and elsewhere. 2) Ed. Fraenkel, Zu den Phoenissen des Euripides, Sitz.ber., München, 1965,1 pp. 98-100, M. Pohlenz, Die Griechische Tragödie, Erl.2 p. 156.

INTRODUCTION

3

acquainted with the locality, its cults and legends.1) The intensity in the handling of locality and ‘ambiance’ is surely to be ascribed to the per­ sonal feelings and memories of the poet himself. Finally a word must be said on the future battle between Thebans and Athenians vaguely alluded to in 1. 411. It is true that in the year 407 Agis attempted a raid against Athens and that his cavalry consisting of Boeotians and others was beaten by the Athenian horsemen (Diod. Sic. XIII 72.3,4); Diodorus does not mention Colonus or Oedipus. It is, nevertheless, just possible that this event did give Sophocles the idea of Oedipus’ intervention (or gave rise to such a story). After the battle Agis έν Άκαδημεία κατεστρατοπέδευσε (Diod. XIII 73.1), and this is not far from Colonus. Σ Aristides p. 560 mentions Oedipus’ epiphany support­ ing the Athenians in a battle with the Thebans. 2. Presuppositions of the Play

In this respect, as in others, the Oedipus Coloneus is a special case: it is a sequel to the Oedipus Tyrannus, written about 20 years later and produced, after Sophocles’ death (406/5), by his grandson Sophocles the Younger in the archonship of Micon, Ol. 93.3, 401 B.C.*2) (Since we have no didascalia it is vain to speculate about the other plays then produced). For what went before in the story of Oedipus, the version constituted in the Ο. T. is the main source, and it is to be noted that at the end there are some allusions to the subject-matter of the Antigone, produced about 15 years before the Ο. T. and, in the chronology of the myth, dealing with the last phase of the Labdacidae saga. That is, of course, not to say that the interrelation between the three plays is that of a regular ‘trilogy’: nothing in the Ο. T. alludes to Oedipus’ ultimate heroization, and in the Antigone Antigone’s words 897-902 exclude the assumption that the poet, at the time, imagined such a passing-away of Oedipus as represented in the O. C.. Both Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus are conceived as dramatized actions containing a unity in themselves and resulting in a definite end (or, at least in the case of 0. T., experienced as such; and, again in Ο. T., the fact that the action has the aspect of a ‘discovery of the past’ is not contrary to its closed unity). Still, there is one thing, near the end of Ο. T., which may surely be regarded not as an allusion to Oedipus’ heroization, but as a hint at his wanderings as an exile, viz. his entreaty to Creon 1518: γης μ’ δπως *) For a contrary opinion cf. L. S. Colchester, Justice and Death in Sophocles, Cl. Qu. xxxvi, 1942, p. 23: ‘the survival of Oedipus was invented by the poet to express his belief in a complete retribution during a future life’. 2) Hypothesis II 1-3.

I

4

INTRODUCTION

πέμψεις άποικον. The interpretation of what follows is controversial, but at any rate the possibility of such an exile is left open, and the question of his willingness to be exiled at the time—in contrast with his unwillingness later when he was driven out—becomes important in the report of his past sufferings in the O.C.1) In Oedipus’ rhesis 421-460 we hear that at the time immediately after the catastrophe (the disclosure of his κακά, Iocasta’s death, his self-blinding) όπηνίκ’ έζει θυμός, hjs wish to be killed was frustrated (in O.T. 1411,2 he utters this wish and ib. 1436,7 and again in 1518 a wish to be driven out), whereas later, δ'τ’ ήδη πας ό μόχθος ήν πέπων, he was actually driven out βία by the πόλις (O.C. 437-441), without a word of protest from his sons. His sons did nothing to help their father, whereas his daughters did all they could; Antigone was his faithful guide and companion in his wanderings, Ismene served his interests at Thebes.* 2) At the opening of the play Oedipus, an old, blind beggar enters the stage, guided by Antigone. A member of the audience, who remembered the end of the Ο. T., could easily suppose that Oedipus has had his wish fulfilled to become an outcast. This, of course, would be a mistake, but the same spectator would not be mistaken in contrasting this opening scene and that of the Ο. T.. But only on hearing 437 sqq. : χρόνω δ’, δτ’ ήδη πας ό μόχθος ήν πέπων, / χάμάνθανον τον θυμόν έχδραμόντα μοι / μείζω χολαστήν τών πριν ήμαρτημένων, / τό τηνίχ’ ήδη τούτο μέν πόλις βία / ήλαυνέ μ’ έχ γης χρόνιον, οί δ’ έπωφελεϊν / οΐ τού πατρός, τώ πατρί δυνάμενοι, τά δράν / ούχ ήθέλησαν, άλλ’ έπους σμιχροΰ χάριν / φυγάς σφιν έξω πτωχός, ήλώμην άεί will he be aware (1) that this radical change in Oedipus’ condition does not derive from his own wish and that the rôle of his sons in the mat­ ter is for him a source of passionate and gnawing bitterness,3) (2) that Oedipus’ own feelings as regards his terrible deeds underwent a change after the day of their disclosure (cf. 438,9 and compare Ο. T. 1369 sqq.). To quote from a thoughtful paper by Kathleen Freeman {The dramatic Technique of the Oedipus Coloneus, Cl. Rev. 1923, pp. 50-54, see p. 50):

■) B. Seidensticker’s paper Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Oidipusdramen des Sophokles (Hermes C, 1972, pp. 255-274) is an interesting and intelligent attempt at tracing all the Connections between the two plays, but he goes too far in stressing the parallels and con­ trasts. The fact, for instance, that the opening rheseis of both tragedies (spoken by Oedipus) each consist of 13 trimeters is not very significant (cf. Athena’s opening speech in the Aiax: 13 trimeters). In his comparisons of the scenes between Creon and Oedipus he is inclined to forget that the Creon of 0. C. is quite a different dramatis persona from both the Creon and the Oedipus of 0. T., whereas Oedipus is fundamentally the same man in both tragedies. 2) How is not clear, no more than to what the μαντεία πάντα 354 refer; see note ad 353-356. ’) Cf. also 765-771.

INTRODUCTION

5

‘When first the knowledge of these acts was revealed to him, the horror of it blotted from his mind the distinction between ceremonial and moral guilt; he could see nothing but the pollution, past all cleansing, of the undeniable deed. But as years passed by, he grew to realise that these things were not the same, and that he was, and always had been, undefiled by moral guilt, because his deed was unconscious and not deliberate.’ Indeed, though it is not true that his terrible acts, in Ο. T., are presented as subjective crimes'), the emphasis laid on his moral innocence when he feels compelled to speak of them in the O. C. clearly seems to express a deep conviction of his innermost mind as the result of long pondering over these awful memories (though the sense of ‘pollution’ remains2)): cf. 266-274, 521-548, 969-1002. So Oedipus’ state of mind at the beginning of this play is different from that at the end of Ο. T. ; of this the spectator is made aware in his confron­ tations with the Chorus and in the scenes with Ismene and with Creon. But there is something still more important than this. When mention­ ing to Iocasta in Ο. T. 788-793 both the incident at Polybus’ court in Cor­ inth which caused him to doubt his parentage and his subsequent con­ sultation of the oracle at Delphi, Oedipus renders Apollo’s answer as follows: καί μ’ ό Φοίβος ών μέν ίχόμην / άτιμον έξέπεμψεν, άλλα δ’ άθλίω (vel άθλια) / και δεινά καί δύστηνα προϋφηνεν λέγων, / ώς μητρί μέν χρείη με μειχθήναι, γένος δ’ / άτλητον άνθρώποισι δηλώσοιμ’ όράν, / φονεύς δ’ έσοίμην τού φυτεύσαντος πατρός. When Oedipus, in the Prologue of O. C., having unwittingly sat down in the shrine of the Eumenides, is ordered to leave his seat by the ‘σκοπός’, and is informed that the place is sacred to these goddesses, he refuses to obey (36-45). The stranger is astonished: τί δ’ έστί τούτο; and Oedipus replies: ξυμφορδς ξύνθημ’ έμής (‘Meines Schicksals Losungswort’, Reinhardt). The full meaning of these cryptic words becomes clear in Oedipus’ prayer to the Erinyes, after the departure of the σκοπός (84 sqq.): ώ πότνιαι δεινώπες, εύτε νΰν έ'δρας / πρώτων έφ’ υμών τησδε γης έ'καμφ’ έγώ, / Φοίβω τε κάμοί μή γένησθ’ άγνώμονες, / δς μοι, τά πόλλ’ έκεΐν’ δτ’ έξέχρη κακά, / ταύτην έλ,εξε παύλαν έν χρόνω μακρώ, / έλθόντι χώραν τερμίαν, δπου θεών / σεμνών έ'δραν λάβοιμι καί ξενόστασιν / ένταΰθα κάμψειν τον ταλαίπωρον βίον, / κέρδη μέν οίκήσαντα τοΐς δεδεγμένοις, / άτην δέ τοΐς πέμφασιν, οϊ μ’ άπήλασαν. There can be little doubt that the same oracle is meant as in Ο. Τ. I. c., but there we hear nothing of the prophecy concerning his ultimate fate. That is to say, the poet, for the purpose of representing Oedipus as being aware of the destiny in store for him and of foreshadowing the very action of the play in hand, creates this new ad­ *) Cf. Winnington-Ingram, Tragedy and Greek Archaic Thought, in Classical Drama and its Influence, 1965, p. 41. !) Cf. 1132-1136.

6

INTRODUCTION

dition to the oracle that was central to the contents of the Oedipus Tyrannus. References to this ‘addition’ abound in the course of the tragedy1) (cf. 287-291, 453,4, 576-578, 626-628, 793, 1471, and in advance, at vs. 72). The significance of the site in relation to the play’s action is made ex­ plicit*2); χέρδη μέν οίχήσαντα τοϊς δεδεγμένοις, / «την δέ τοϊς πέμψασιν, οϊ μ’ απήλασαν foreshadows both the conflicts to arise in the play itself and the importance of the suppliant’s reception with regard to a future state of enmity between Thebes and Athens. (The theme of: ‘To help one’s Friends and harm one’s Enemies’ is surely important, though by no means so central as is argued by D. A. Hester, Anlichthon XI, 1977, pp. 22-41). At the end of the reported oracle the lines 94,5 (σημεία δ’ ήξειν τώνδέ μ has to be supplied with τινα. But the wording would be strained. 2) See Moorhouse, The Syntax of Sophocles, ch. XVII § 4 p. 287: the optative has its ‘cupitive force’.

PROLOGUE, VSS.

9-20

27

μανθάνειν ... ήχομεν: Jebb’s figurative interpretation: ‘we are in such a plight that we must learn’ is decidedly to be preferred to a more literal view of ήχομεν. äv άχούσωμεν: δ’, Elmsley’s conjecture, is accepted by many edd.; χάν (Zn T χ’ αν, see Dawe, Studies III p. 17) = καί ά αν does not seem impossible, but exact parallels of this double crasis are wanting; it is strongly opposed by Ellendt s.v. καί, p. 360. 14, 5. ταλαίπωρ’: not in Homer; Aesch. only in Prom., Soph., Eur.; ‘suffering distress’; on the second member of the compound see Frisk and Chantraine (πωρήσαι· λυπησαι Hesych. presupposes * πώρος· λύπη). πύργοι στέγουσιν: from where they stand the ramparts of Athens are understood to be visible in the distance. It is very improbable that this was somehow suggested by means of scenery, πόλιν: we can choose be­ tween ‘a city’ (or perhaps: ‘acropolis’) and ‘the city’, στέγουσιν: ‘protect’; there is no need to write στέφουσιν (Wakefield, Pearson and others), cf. Groeneboom ad Aesch. Sept. 216, p. 124 n. 300 (although there στέγειν with acc. means ‘ward off). ώς απ’ όμμάτων: ‘to judge by sight’; or the words amount to ‘we have but a distant view of them’ (Campbell). 16-18. χώρος δ’ οδ’ ίρός: the main sentence, whose statement is seem­ ingly restricted but in fact corroborated by ώς σάφ’ είκάσαι: σάφα amounts to ‘confidently’. ώς σάφ’ είκάσαι: this reading of AUY is indubitably superior to ώς άπεικάσαι (I?1—L“ has ώς άφειχάσαι—RQ, Sud.). βρύων / ... άμπέλου: the function of the participle amounts to the same as βρύει γάρ. βρύω ‘teem with’ takes the dative and, as a verbum abundandi, the genitive. δ’ /: see note on Ο. T. 29. πυκνόπτεροι ... / ... άηδόνες: many commentators interpret πυκναί καί πτεροϋσσαι (evidently also L. Bergson, L’épith'etc ornementale—1956—who does not discuss the phrase); this is possibly correct but not necessarily so (Ellendt impugns the idea contra G. Hermann). Cf. 670-73. εύστομοΰσ’: ‘sing sweetly’, (εύστομέω is also used = εύφημέω Aesch. Cho. 997 and cf. Phil. 201 ευστομ’ έχε). 19, 20. οΰ: referring to χώρος δδ’. τοϋδ’ ... πέτρου: the stone is to be thought of as being just within the en­ trance of the grove. μακράν ... ώς γέροντι: ‘long, at least for an old man’. For restrictive ώς with a datious iudicantis or a related type of dative cf. Ai. 395 έρεβος ώ φαεννότατον ώς έμοί, K.-G. I 421,2, Schw.-Debr. II 151,2. Cf. also Pl. Resp. Ill 389 d ώς πλήθει.

28

COMMENTARY

προυστάλης: ‘you have travelled on’. In this sense the compound is not found elsewhere, but στέλλομαι ‘travel’, ‘journey’ is common. 21, 2. με: Radermacher’s note: ‘τόν τυφλόν hat man mit με zu ver­ binden’ is to be questioned. χρόνου μέν ούνεκ’: on μέν solitarium cf. G.P.1 pp. 380,1. The phrase means: ‘as far as it is a question of time’ (Time has been long enough to teach me. Time has taught Antigone too). Cf. Pl. Resp. I 336 d 9 άλλ’ ένεκα αργυρίου, ώ Θρασύμαχε, λέγε·. 23, 4. Now he is seated, Oedipus repeats his question of 1,2. οποί καθέσταμεν: οποί because the idea άφικόμενοι is implied. τάς γοΰν ’Αθήνας: ‘that it is Athens ...’. τόν χώρον refers to Colonus, but see 37,8. 25, 6. γάρ: the words refer back to τάς ... ’Αθήνας οίδα. έμπορων: ‘wayfarers’, τών έν πόρω δντων. άλλ’ ... ή ‘Well (shall I) ...; cf. G.P.2 p. 28. 27-29. έξοικήσιμος: habitable > ‘inhabited’ (no instances of οικήσιμος), not different from οίκητός 28. έστί μήν οίκητός: she infers this, not from the approach of the Ξένος, but from what she is understood to see of the environment, οϊομαι δέ δεΐν / ούδέν: sc. μολεΐν ποι έμέ. 30-32. ή δεύρο ... κάξορμώμενον: on προστείχω see note ad Ο. Τ. 79. We learn from Dawe (Studies III p. 63) that here προσστείχοντα is in Zn T Kt*, the other mss have one σ. Now the case in our line is com­ plicated by the relation between the meaning of the two participles. If here we read προσστείχοντα (the majority of edd. since Dindorf), taking δεύρο with it (and not with the second participle), we have to assume a crude ύστερον πρότερον (as is done by Radermacher). Jebb impugns this assumption, taking δεύρο with both participles ‘which form a single ex­ pression’ = “coming to us from the abodes” implied by οίκητός’. But the ύστερον πρότερον remains, be it mitigated; it would be still more mitigated if we were to read προστείχοντα and interpret: ‘in this direction making his appearance and setting out’. Cf. Dawe’s judicious discussion of the problems involved (ib.). It is a somewhat awkward fact that excepting Sophocles προσστείχω occurs only in Hom. Od. XX 73, and προστείχω nowhere else. Cf. infra 320. μέν ούν: immo, belonging to καί δή ( - ήδη) παρόντα < όρώ > . εύκαιρον: ‘seasonable’, ‘appropriate’, only here in Tragedy; frequent in later Greek prose, just as εύκαιρέω, εύκαιρία. ώς άνήρ δδε: ‘for the man is here’ (Jebb). Second scene 33-80; Oedipus, Antigone, Ξένος. 33-35. ώ ξεΐν’: on the use of the Ionic form, without metrical necessity rare in Sophocles, see the discussion in Ellendt r.o..

PROLOGUE, vss.

21-40

29

άχουων: since Oedipus’ words are interrupted, there follows no main verb. The reading άχούω RQac is wrong. αίσιος / σκοπός ... φράσαι: Oedipus rightly supposes the man to be a σκοπός, a ‘scout’ who comes to make inquiries (‘a messenger who has been sent to learn tidings’ L.-Sc. s.v. 3, cf. Phil. 125). Hence it is unlikely that ών άδηλοΰμεν should be construed with σκοπός, as Jebb and Camp­ bell {Parai. Soph. p. 235—he wants to take σκοπός in the sense of ‘infor­ mant’—which would seem impossible) would have it. αίσιος expresses that his arrival is timely; φράσαι is epexegetic infinitive loosely depending on αίσιος σκοπός προσήχεις, and ών άδηλοΰμεν = ταΰτα ών άδηλοΰμεν is the object of φράσαι (cf. schol. 34 ό'τι αίσιος ήμΐν σκοπός άφϊξαι ώστε φράσαι περί ών άγνοοΰμεν). ών άδηλοΰμεν: ών is Elmsley’s correction for τών of the mss because Sophocles rarely admits τ-forms of the relative pronoun unless for metrical reasons, άδηλέω ‘to be in the dark about’ is a hapax in classical Greek. The genitive is used because άδηλοΰμεν amounts to άνεπιστήμονές έσμεν or the like (K.-G. I 369.8). 36, 7. νυν: mss have νΰν and perhaps it is better to follow them (cf. C. J. Ruijgh, L’Elément achéen dans la Langue épique, 1957, p. 66), the more so since here it may be either particle or temporal adverb. τά πλείον’ ίστορεϊν: ίστορειν instead of λέγειν because ών άδηλοΰμεν φράσαι implied his need of information. In itself τά πλείονα is no more than ‘das Weitere, was du sagen willst’; there is some pregnancy in the wording, χώρον: refers to the grove, probably in contradistinction to 24, unless we are to assume that τόπος 26 is to be distinguished from χώρον 24. ούχ άγνόν πατεΐν: quem calcare pedibus nejas est; cf. Groeneboom ad Aesch. Eum. 53-56 where κόσμος οϋ'(τε) ... φέρειν δίκαιος = κόσμον φέρειν ού δίκαιόν έστι. αγνός is used in the same way as βσιος (Jebb). 38-40. τοΰ θεών νομίζεται;: Ellendt is right in stating that here, as in El. 327 οια τοΐς θεοΐς νομίζεται the ‘antiquior verbi vis tamquam morem receptum agnoscendi et colendi’ is retained. Moreover, it is construed with a possessive genitive as in Ant. 738 ού τοΰ κρατοΰντος ή πόλις νομίζεται;. So Campbell’s rendering ‘To which of the Gods is it assigned by custom?’ is quite correct. We may as well say that τοΰ θεών νομίζεται; = τοΰ θεών ιερός είναι νομίζεται; (cf. Jebb). άθικτος ούδ’ οίκητός: these words answer Oedipus’ first question; so Jebb’s rendering of τίς δ’ έσθ’ ό χώρος; ‘And what is this ground’? is manifestly correct. έμφοβοι: ‘terrible’ (lit. ‘in which φόβος houses’, cf. ένθεος, ένθηρος, έμ­ ψυχος); the adjective, άπαξ in Tragedy, does not recur before Theophrastus. Γης τε καί Σκότου κόραι: in Hesiod they are the children of Earth and

30

COMMENTARY

the blood of Ouranos; in Aesch. Eum. 416 they call themselves Νυκτός αίανή τέκνα (no ‘father’ is mentioned). 41-43. τίνων ... κλύων;: lit. ‘whose august name having learned could I pray to them’, which amounts to: T want to learn their august name so that I can pray to them’. It is significant that Oedipus is made to use the phrase τό σεμνόν όνομα, even before the desired information is given; cf. infra 90, 458; El. 112, Ai. 837, and Σεμναί Aesch. Eum. 383, 1041, Eur. Or. 410. πάνθ’ όρώσας: cf. Λι. 835-37. Ευμενίδας: the goddesses of the grove are called by their euphemistic name, here and infra 486, nowhere ’Ερινυες; this is in keeping with their function here and also, as indeed is explicitly stated, with the νόμος of the inhabitants of Colonus. (It is generally assumed that the name Ευμενίδες, which does not occur in our text of Aeschylus’ Eumenides, did occur in the lacuna after ib. 1028; thus Jebb, Groeneboom a. I., Page in apparatu—the idea is G. Hermann’s). ένθάδ’ Sv: Sv, Vauvilliers’ correction of ών, adopted by Brunck and subsequent edd., is indispensable. So we have a case of corruption com­ mon to the whole transmission (also to Sud. and Eustath.). άλλα δ’ άλλαχοϋ καλά: άλλα όνόματα παρ’ άλλοις καλά νομίζονται Σ. But perhaps better is Campbell’s ‘Different customs are honoured in different places’. 44-46. άλλ’ ϊλεω μέν: άλλ’, introducing the optative, is transitional: ‘well’, μέν seems emphatic, without implied contrast (Elmsley wanted μήν). τόν ικέτην: ‘their suppliant’; τόνδ’ mss is a simple mistake (again com­ mon to the whole transmission). We had better not change μέν into με or ’μέ. ώς: Vauvilliers with Σ. ώστ’ codd. would yield a rather strange ‘confus­ ed thought’. He prays for the ‘grace’ of the goddesses because he intends not to leave the grove; ώς = ‘for’. έ'δρας γης τήσδε: Musgrave’s γε (Pearson) is not convincing1), έδρας ‘seat’, as in 36, γης τήσδ’ ‘in this country’; έδρας is to be construed with Sv έξέλθοιμι. For γης τήσδε cf. infra 85. τί δ’έστι τοΰτο;: ‘What is the meaning of this’?; sc. of the fact that he has expressed his firm resolve to remain where he is. (Dawe, Studies III 138, tentatively considers the conjecture τούπος; it is not in his text). ξυμφοράς ξύνθημ’ έμής. : this has to be interpreted in the light of 87-90 in­ fra. ξυμφορά amounts to ‘destiny’ as in Trach. 1145; ξύνθημα is rendered by *) Tournier’s γ’έχ is not better; whatever we read, the verse has ‘caesura media’, though not listed in the very full study on caesura media by G. Stephan, Die Ausdruckskraft der Caesura media im iambischen Trimeter der attischen Tragödie, 1981.

PROLOGUE, vss.

41-51

31

σύμβολου in the schol. a.I.. On hearing that the grove is sacred to the θεαί σεμναί, he regards his arrival there as the ‘Watchword’ of his destiny; Reinhardt’s translation: ‘Meines Schicksals Losungswort’ hits the mark. 47, 8. άλλ’ ούδ’ έμόν τοι ... / ... θάρσος: ούδέ μέντοι AUY adopted by Campbell, Pearson and Dawe (Studies III 63 and text). Many editors prefer Seidler’s ούδ’ έμοί τοι (for instance Wunder, Jebb, Schn.-N.-Raderm.), a correction of ούδ’ έμόν τοι, reading of LR, retained by Dain-Mazon (Zn Zo T Q have ούδ’ έμόν τε). άλλ’ ... μέντοι, more or less ‘assentient’ (‘well ... indeed’), may be parallelled by Phil. 524 (cf. G. P.2p. 411 (2)). With this reading of Α has to be mentally sup­ plied, which is somewhat awkward because of ούδέ, since we expect this to answer Oedipus’ resolve to stay where he is: nor have I the θάρσος to remove you etc. It remains to be seen whether L’s έμόν is really impossible; could it not be that this is more emphatic than έμοί would be: ‘not mine the θάρσος’ (Dutch: ‘niet aan mij de θάρσος’) instead of the common: ‘I have not the θάρσος’ (or: ‘no θάρσος’)? If this is to be re­ jected, I am inclined to prefer Seidler’s reading. πόλεως / δίχ’: ‘iniussu civitatis' (Ellendt), ‘without warrant from the ci­ ty’ (Jebb). τούξανιστάναι: ώστε έξανιστάναι. πριν γάρ ένδείξω, τί δρώ; : γάρ is the reading of RQ γ’ άν L, om. A, γ’ om. UY. ένδείξω: sc. τή πόλει ‘report’, πριν can very well be followed by the subjunctive without άν; but the need for its presence may have caused the corruption, after γάρ had been omitted by an oversight. ‘For what shall I do (I am at a loss), before having reported to the city’. This seems more satisfactory than either Jebb’s ‘ere I report what I am doing’ or Campbell’s: ‘Until I have first shown the matter, (so as to be advised) what I must do’1) (both reading γ’άν), nor does the reading δράς (Zo) seem to me helpful (cf. Dawe, Studies III 63) and even less δράν (Zn T). 49-51. νυν: see ad 34; but here, surely, it is particle. μή μ’ άτιμάσης, / ... ών ... φράσαι: ών = τούτων ά, the verb is construed as a verbum privandi, amounting to ‘deem me not unworthy the honour of answering the things’ (I beseech you to declare to me), cf. infra 1273, 1278, Ο. T. 788 ών μέν ίχόμην / άτιμον έξέπεμψεν; Aesch. Prom. 783 μηδ’ άτιμάσης λόγου. προστρέπω: with acc. c. inf. ‘supplicate to’, cf. Ai. 831. έκ γ’: the particle, it is true, is not indispensable, but έξ Zn Zo T strikes me as a vulgarization.

*) Thus also Wilamowitz (in Tycho’s book p. 338 n. 2): ‘bis ich Anzeige mache, (und erfahre) was ich tun soll’.

32

COMMENTARY

52, 3. τίς[δ’] έσθ’: δ’ is absent in RQ, probably rightly, because δήτα, belonging to τίς, follows (on its unusual place see G.P.2 pp. 270,1). δσ’ οιδα χάγώ πάντ’ έπιστήση κλύων: ‘All that I know, thou too shalt learn’ (Denniston, G.P.2 p. 295 III; on this ‘kind of inversion’ see ibidem). 54-56. χώρος ... πας οδ’: the hill of Colonus of which the ίερόν of the Eumenides was a part, οί πλησίοι γύαι formed the deme Colonus. έχει: Poseidon (Hippios) is the divine ruler of the place, cf. 888,9. His altar, mentioned by Paus. I 30.4, is not visible from the place of action. έν δ’: this may mean: ‘and within’ (the sacred precinct) ‘there is’ ..., or ‘and besides’ (Prometheus έχει τόν χώρον). Σ notes, from Apollodorus, that Prometheus had an altar in Athena’s sanctuary in the Academy, south of Colonus. But the words of our passage point rather to a cult of his on the hill of Colonus itself. 56-58. ov ... τόπον: the grove of the Eumenides. Construe ό τόπος ôv έπιστείβεις όδός χαλκόπους χθονός τήσδε καλείται (Antecedent incorporated in the relative clause). Indubitably a rift in the rock is meant (it is thought to have been actually discovered), supposed to be a descent to Hades. It was believed to have been provided with brazen steps (cf. 1591) in accor­ dance with the χάλκεος ουδός of epic tradition, and as a pars pro toto the whole place was called χαλκόπους όδός; moreover it was regarded as the ‘threshold’ of Athens (leading to the netherworld) and as a safeguard of the city (έρεισμ’ ’Αθηνών). όδός: the form as in Hyperid. V 22 (Colin). 58-61. οί δε πλησίοι γύαι: αί δέ πλησίον LrZn Zo Τ; αί is not to be ex­ cluded (γόη seems to be a variant form of γόης, see Dodds ad Eur. Bacch. 13, and Kannicht ad Eur. Hel. 89) nor is πλησίον, although the latter may be a vulgarization: poetry uses the adjective, prose the (attributive) adverb. τόνδ’ ιππότην Κολωνόν: the eponymous ‘héros’ of the deme Colonus ιππιος. τόνδ’ might suggest that his statue is visible on the stage; this re­ mains doubtful, the more so since it would have to be a horseman’s. Hence Reiske’s τόν, adopted by Brunck, Elmsley, Wilamowitz (in Tycho’s book, p. 320 n. 1), and Dawe. But τόνδ’ does not necessarily refer to something visible on the stage; it may point to something presum­ ed to be visible from the stage, cf. e.g. El. 7,8. αρχηγόν: the word is used of a tutelary hero, the founder of a family, of a ‘chief either human or divine, of a πρώτος εΰρετής etc.. φέρουσι: there is little to be said in favour of Nauck’s φοροϋσι, adopted by Pearson. ώνομασμένοι: Radermacher strongly defends the much better attested ώνομασμένον, paraphrasing καί πάντες φέρουσι τού'νομα τό τοΰδε κοινόν ον ( = ώνομασμένον). Possible, but hardly convincing.

PROLOGUE, VSS.

52-71

33

62, 3. ού λόγοις / τιμώμεν’, άλλά τή ξυνουσία πλέον: τώ έργω καί τή πείρα πλέον τιμώμενα, ού τοϊς λόγοις Σ. ‘Honoured, not in story, but more highly, by loving resort’ (Campbell). Not celebrated in poetry but held in high esteem by our (daily) conversance with them (and theirs with us), ξυνουσία expresses the mutual intimacy between ‘these things’ (i.e. the lore of the place), and its inhabitants. A fine expression of the poet’s fond attachment to his birthplace. A Thomas Hardy could not have bettered it. 64, 5. ή ... τόπους; : he wants corroboration of Antigone’s statement 28. καί κάρτα: ‘yes verily’, cf. infra 301; not different ή κάρτα El. 312. 66, 7. άρχει τις αυτών: between τις and τίς (Elmsley, Pearson) the choice is not so easy, as Campbell, Jebb and others seem to think; τις, it is true, yields a smooth alternative, whereas τίς presupposes in the second member of the question something like ‘or ...’. With τίς the word order is unusual but not at all impossible. ’πί τώ πλήθει λόγος: λόγος probably ‘power of discussion’ (so Jebb; L.-Sc. s.v. VI 3 b; λόγος does not seem to be used in the sense of dictio, ‘control’ but in this context it is not far away from it). Σ has ή έν τώ πλήθει έστιν ή ισχύς; : hence Bonitz’ κράτος (cf. Eur. Cycl. 119 τίνος κλύοντες; ή δεδήμευται κράτος;). Perhaps the fact that the text has λόγος points to τις rather than τίς. έκ τού κατ’ άστυ βασιλέως: this in accordance with the tradition that Theseus brought about the συνοικισμός of Attica (Plut. Thes. 24). 68, 9. οΰτος δε τίς : τίς έστιν ούτος δς ... . λόγω τε καί σθένει: in a sense λόγω picks up λόγος 66. 70, 1. πομπός: ‘envoy’. Its function amounts to μεταπεμψόμενος in the mind of Oedipus, cf. Ο. T. 289; to the ξένος Oedipus’ intention is not quite clear, as appears from his answer. ώς πρός τί; : sc. αν μόλοι ό πομπός. For ώς pleonastically stressing the idea of purpose cf. Ο. T. 1174 and Trach. 1182 (with the notes). This, of course, implies rejecting L’s reading μόλοι at the end of the line, and I do not subscribe to Jebb’s reading of the line either (with μολεΐν and without punctuation after τί, approved by Campbell, Parai. Soph. p. 236). λέξων: ‘in order to report’. καταρτύσων μολεΐν: καταρτύω used of the taming of horses (Ant. 478)') is sometimes found in the sense of (παρα)σκευάζω. Perhaps ‘put pressure on’ is the best rendering in this context. Subject of μολεΐν, of course, is Theseus. *) This seems to be a special, ‘technical’ usage: ‘break in’. Cf. the meaning ‘train’ in Sol. 19.11 D., the oldest occurrence of the word . Homer, of course, has άρτύω and άρτυνω, ‘arrange’, ‘prepare’, ‘make ready’.

I

34

11

COMMENTARY

72, 3. ώς ... μέγα: the final clause, with Theseus as subject, is above all dependent on (καταρτύσων) μολεΐν, but may also be regarded as refer­ ring to ώς πρός τί;. προσαρκών: ‘aiding’, ‘doing a service’. αρκεσις: picks up the idea ‘service’ in προσαρκών, because κερδάνη μέγα suggests the service received in return, χαριζόμενος Theseus will receive μεγάλην χάριν.—αρκεσις here only in literary texts. άνδρός μή βλέποντος: a man if he is blind. 74. όρώντα: his words will show the clear vision of his mind. Aesch. Cho. 844 is not a good parallel; better is Aesch. Suppl. 467 ξυνήκας· ώμμάτωσα γάρ σαφέστερον (sc. λόγον). 75-80. οίσθ’, ώ ξέν’, ώς νΰν μή σφαλής; : the prohibitive μή σφαλής has exactly the same function as a negative imperative; so οίσθ’ ώς μή σφαλής has to be interpreted on the same lines as οίσθ’ ώς ποίησον Ο. Τ. 543, where see my note. Radermacher’s idea of taking ώς νΰν ... δαίμονος together as a parenthesis is unfortunate (see Schn.-N.-R., repeated in Rh. Mus. 1950 p. 158 sqq.). But έπείπερ ... / ... δαίμονος can better be taken as a parenthesis than as the protasis of αύτοϋ μέν’; the words express the reason why the ξένος would not have Oedipus come to harm; so semi­ colon after δαίμονος. ώς ίδόντι: ώς limitative, ίδόντι dativus iudicantis. πλήν του δαίμονος: ‘leaving aside (‘but for’) your fate’, (i.e. his blind­ ness)1). έως ... / ... / λέξω: λέξω is aorist subjunctive; άν is sometimes omitted with έως. τοΐς ένθάδ’ αύτοϋ, μή κατ’ άστυ, δημόταις:, μή κατ’ άστυ, is best taken as a ‘comforting parenthesis’ as is well argued by Jebb, who adds that μή lends to the phrase the character of a ‘reassuring injunction’: ‘do not sup­ pose that I mean’: he will not be long, τοΐς ένθάδ’ αύτοϋ ... δημόταις: ‘the demesmen here on the spot’. κρινοΰσί σοι: reading of LacA“, better than the ‘emphatic’ γε of the rest. Wecklein, Campbell and Dawe prefer to read τοι. χρή: oportet, ‘are allowed to’ with the first, ‘have to’ with the second member. εί: Turnebus, ή mss.; cf. Groeneboom ad Aesch. Cho. 890, p. 251 n. 2; Jebb Appendix, p. 275. πορεύεσθαι πάλιν: ‘rebrousser chemin’ (Mazon). Exit ξένος. Third scene 81-116; Oedipus, Antigone. --------------') There is a good discussion of Sophocles’ use of δαίμων in Kirkwood, A Study of Sophoclean Drama, 1958, pp. 283-286. See further Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational, p. 42; Winnington-Ingram, Tragedy and Greek archaic Thought in Classical Drama and its Influence, 1965, pp. 32,3.

PROLOGUE, VSS.

72-90

35

81-83. ήμίν: ethic dative, βέβηκεν ήμΐν amounts to λέλοιπεν ήμάς, but the shade of meaning is different, as is well brought out by Antigone’s answer. έν ήσΰχω: almost = ήσύχως. Cf. the phrases with έν in L.-Sc. i. ». II 3. ώς έμοϋ μόνης πέλας: on the rare ellipse of οϋ'σης cf. K.-G. II 102. I do not agree at all with Dawe’s suggestion: ‘v. 83 ought possibly to be deleted’ {Studies III p. 138). 84, 5. ώ πότνιαι δεινώπες: πότνια with ’Eptvuç Aesch. Sept. 887 and Eum. 951. Perhaps we had better write Πότνιαι, for here it is a noun; infra 1050 Demeter and Kore are meant, δεινώπες: either ‘with fierce eyes’ (cf. supra 42 τάς πάνθ’ όρώσας) or ‘of dread aspect’ (Jebb). έδρας / πρώτων έφ’ ύμών τήσδε γής: έφ’ έδρας (genit.) (τήσδε γής) ύμών πρώτων. ‘Yours first is the seat in this country on which’. For έδρας τήσδε γής cf. supra 45. έκαμψ’: γόνο κάμπτειν amounting to ‘rest’ is well known from Homer and Tragedy (Aesch. Prom. 32, 396, Eur. Hec. 1150, κάμπτειν κώλα supra 19), without expressed object Eur. Hec. 1080. 86-90. άγνώμονες: ‘unfeeling’. The best illustration of this is in Hyllus’ words Trach. 1266,7 μεγαλην δέ θεών άγνωμοσόνην / είδότες έργων τών πρασσομένων. δς μοι ... / ... / ... / ... / ένταϋθα ... βίον: of this addition to the oracle rendered by Oedipus Ο. T. 789-793, nothing is said in the earlier play. By means of this combination it is suggested that Oedipus’ destiny forms a coherent whole1). τά πόλλ’ έκεΐν’ δτ’ έξέχρη κακά: cf. Ο. T. I.C.. παύλαν: as in Trach. 1255,6 παΰλά τοι κακών / αυτή, τελεοτή τοΰδε τάνδρός ύστάτη. Comparable also Phil. 1329 sq.. ταύτην: instead of τοΰτο by assimilation to the predicate παΰλαν. τερμίαν: ‘marking the end of the journey’ (in a double sense). Cf. τερμίαν άγων άμέραν Ant. 1330: the last day of life. Though τέρμα is com­ mon both in Aesch. and Eur., τέρμιος does not occur elsewhere. καί ξενόστασιν: it is of course easy to take ξενόστασιν on a par with έδραν (as Campbell notes, θεών is then possessive genitive with έδραν and sub­ jective with ξενόστασιν2)); so all the commentators. With a comma after λάβοιμι we might also consider the possibility of taking it on a par with παΰλαν. ξενόστασις (only here and fr. 274), apparently coined by Sophocles3), means ‘quarters for strangers’ (Jebb), ‘hospice’4), and in the context: place where as a stranger or (better) ‘guest’ I may stay. Against *) 2) ’) ♦)

Cf. Kirkwood, A Study of Sophoclean Drama, p. 77. We might also take θεών with έ'δραν alone. See A. A. Long, Language and Thought in Sophocles (1968) pp. 34 and 89 n. 97. ξινών, Eur. Ale. 543, 547.

36

COMMENTARY

taking παύλαν and ξενόστασιν together the distance separating them is an objection, but the sentence has anyhow an over-elaborate structure sug­ gestive of Oedipus’ emotional state of mind. (A υ.Ι. χατάστασιν—Σ—‘fix­ ed condition’ has to be noted). 91-93. ενταύθα χάμψειν τόν ταλαίπωρον βίον: the contents of the oracle are continued in accusativi cum infinitivo. χάμψειν τόν βίον extends the metaphor inherent in τερμίαν (τέρμα in its oldest occurrences means ‘goal’ around which chariots had to turn; χάμπτειν ‘to turn round’ is ex­ actly the word used in such contexts). So χάμψειν τόν βίον amounts to κάμψειν βίου τέρμα ‘finish the race of life’, ‘close my life’ (with a subtle reference to εκαμψ’ 85). Cf. χάμπτειν βίου τέλος Eur. Hipp. 87, id. El. 956 and similarly Hel. 1666. κέρδη μέν οίχήσαντα ... / άτην δέ: ‘his living there will have meant ad­ vantage to his hosts, calamity to those who sent him’ (Barrett ad Eur. Hipp. 752-7 in an excellent discussion of the appositional internal ac­ cusative)1). The accusatives seem to belong to οίχήσαντα rather than to χάμψειν βίον2), but they may be regarded as standing άπό κοινού. Add to the instances of this accusative given by Barrett Eur. Ercchth. 65.88,9 Austin: εΐργειν τε μή τις πολεμίων θύση λαθών / νίκην μέν αύτοϊς γή δέ τήδε πημονήν. 94, 5. σημεία ... παρηγγύα: παρεγγυάω is often used as a military term: ‘pass on’ (the watchword or the like, σύνθημα 46 has the same associa­ tions). So Radermacher’s comment ‘Der Infinitiv ήξειν steht epexegetisch’ has something in it; nevertheless the result is an acc. c. fut. inf. construction which makes παρηγγύα a verbum declarandi, in sense coming near to ‘promise’ (pace Jebb, who, however, reminds us of the use of παρεγγυάω = ‘entrust’). ή ... ή ... ή: cf. Aesch. Cho. 756 ή3) λιμός ή δίψη τις ή λιψουρία, with Groeneboom’s note. There, just as here, the second item is qualified by τις, functioning as που (cf. again Groeneboom l.c. and ad Ag. 55). Jebb rightly remarks that this τιν’ suggests ‘that the god spoke merely of “signs” ’: the verse contains Oedipus’ interpretation of σημεία, sup­ posedly the god’s term. So an interpretation which would regard σημεία as predicate is out of the question. ’) L. Moulinier’s rendering (Trois Leçons sur TOedipe à Colone, Annales de la Faculté des Lettres ... d’Aix, 39, 1965, p. 134) ‘Il serait cause de biens pour ceux qui l’auraient reçu et de mal pour ceux qui l’auraient chassé’, is misleading, bui cf. id. ib. p. 168. Wilamowitz’ adoption of the reading οίχήσοντα (Paris. 2886, F in Pearson)—‘das Tempus (sc. οίχήσαντα) ist falsch, denn Vorteil und Schade liegen in der Zukunft’ (in Tycho’s book p. 323 n. 2)—is not at all convincing: the quoted words are beside the point. 2) Thus Campbell; Jebb, however, puts οίχήσαντα between comma’s but his rendering of οίχήσαντα ‘through my having dwelt therein’ is excellent. s) Not to be altered into el, as Stanley and many edd. do.

PROLOGUE, VSS.

91-105

37

96-98. μεν: answered by άλλά 101. νΰν: with G. Hermann, Schn.-N.-Raderm., Kuiper. See note ad 36,7. τήνδε την οδόν: internal accusative with έξήγαγ’. ούκ έσθ’ όπως ού: amounts to a strong ‘indubitably’. έξ ύμών πτερόν: Campbell’s rendering ‘intimation’ is attractive and probably right, πτερόν = πτέρυξ = οϊωνος = ό'ρνις (cf. Ar. Αν. 719) might be thought to refer to a previous omen extra drama, but it seems much bet­ ter to assume an inner influence exerted by the goddesses1). Σ: οιον κατά διάνοιαν έξ ύμών τών θεών εις τόν τόπον άφϊγμαι; further: πτερόν οιωνός, τήν πτέρωσιν τής διανοίας (charming, but somewhat fanciful). There is a thoroughgoing discussion of πτερόν in Pearson’s note ad fr. 941.11 νωμά δ’ έν οίωνοϊσι τούκείνης πτερόν. 98-101. ύμΐν: certain reading from Sud. and probably known to Σ; ύμών codd. caused by άντ- or by 85. πρώταισιν ύμΐν: cf. 85. (Σ seems to read the impossible οδοιπόρων instead of the participle). άοίνοις: goes with ύμΐν. The Erinyes receive νηφαλίας θυσίας, cf. 481 and the learned scholion 100. νήφων refers to Oedipus’ poor and austere vic­ tuals. έπί σεμνόν ... / βάθρον τόδ’ άσκέπαρνον: cf. 19. άσκέπαρνον ‘unhewn’ (σκέπαρνον or- ος ‘axe’, ‘adze’), only here. 101-105. όμφάς: ‘prophetic words’. In Homer όμφή always means ‘divine voice’, but in later poetry also ‘voice’, even ‘message’, cf. infra 550, 1351. βίου ... / πέρασιν ... καί καταστροφήν τινα: roughly speaking this amounts to βίου τέλος. Much is to be said for Ellendt’s explanation: 'πέρασις transitus. Sud. s.v. πέρασις βίου explicat ή τελευτή. Transitum ille qualem optet, ex addito καί καταστροφήν efficitur, cum έν διά δυοΐν dicto, quasi πέρασιν βίου τελευταίαν. ’ But we have to bear in mind that πέρασις, though properly meaning transitus (περάω transire, ‘pass’) may be influenc­ ed by the meaning of περαίνω (cf. Chantraine r. v. πέρα), and that in Ο. T. 1530 we read the words πριν αν τέρμα τοΰ βίου πέραση. Further, καταστροφή can mean ‘end’, ‘close’, ‘conclusion’, cf. Aesch. Suppl. 442 ανευ δέ λύπης ούδαμοΰ καταστροφή; Men. Circumt. 12 (132 Sandbach) has προορωμένη τοΰ ζήν καταστροφήν τινα (!), Thue. II 42.2 has καταστροφή (without βίου) = ‘death’, whereas καταστρέφω can be used in the sense of ‘turning round towards an end’: Aesch. Pers 787,8 ποΐ καταστρέφεις / λόγων τελευτήν and occurs in later Greek often, with βίον, = ‘to die’. Campbell seeks in βίου ... καταστροφήν ‘ending of life’ a metaphor ‘from turning down the end of a thread in weaving’ and compares Hdt. IV 205 τήν ζόην *) See Winnington-Ingram’s subtle comment on the ‘kinship’ between Oedipus and the Erinyes, Sophocles, pp. 267,8.

38

COMMENTARY

κατέπλεξε. (Perhaps rather a metaphor from ‘spinning’, cf. L.-Sc. s.v. στρέφω IV and ήλάκατα στρωφώσα Od. VI 53). εί μή δοκώ τι μειόνως έχειν: Jebb explains μειόνως έχειν as meaning: ‘to be beneath such grace’. Campbell follows the scholion: εί μή δοκώ ύμΐν έλαττόνως έχειν τά κακά καί δεϊσθαι προσθήκης κακών, ‘μειόνως έχειν is naturally opposed to αρκούντως έχειν, and is to be taken in close connec­ tion with what follows’. In Parai. Soph., p. 237 he maintains this inter­ pretation (against Jebb’s objections): ‘I do not see why μειόνως έχειν may not mean “to be deficient”, nor why the participle may not be added in explanation, to show the respect in which one falls short’. ‘It would be a personal construction = αρκούντως έχει μοι ή ταλαιπωρία’ (cf. Ant. 547 άρκέσω θνήσκουσ’ έγώ). Mazon seems to agree: ‘à moins que vous n’estimiez que je n’ai pas mon compte encore’, but the Budé text retains the comma after έχει which we had better leave out, if we follow Camp­ bell—as I am inclined to do. μειόνως: for the form cf. K.-B. I 557 Anm. 1. λατρεύων: the μόχθοι are more or less personified. For λατρεύω cf. Trach. 35. 106-110. γλυκεϊαι: ‘sweet’, ‘dear’, an almost shocking epithet for the Erinyes, εύφήμως τάς Έρινύας γλυκείας φησίν 'ινα μή πικραι αύτώ γένωνται (Σ). παϊδες αρχαίου Σκότου: cf. 40. ώ μεγίστης ... καλούμεναι / ... Άθήναι ... πόλις: μεγίστης Παλλάδος is possessive genitive (thus Jebb, and cf. C. J. Ruijgh, L’emploi onomastique de κεκλήσθαι {Miscellanea Tragica, 1976, p. 381 with n. 74), who observes that Mazon’s translation ‘toi qui tires ton nom de la grande Pallas’ is not correct: one would then have expected κεκλημέναι). (κεκλημένος with genit. ‘called from’ or ‘after’, for that matter, is rare). είδωλον: cf. Phil. 947; ‘fantôme’. ού γάρ ... δέμας: τόδ’ is the reading of most mss, τό γ’ is in UY, prefer­ red by Campbell, Jebb, Pearson and Dawe. But is it really so awkward to have τόδ’ after τόδ’ 109? We might also feel an effect of pathos in the repetition. Schn.-N.-R.’s brief comment τόδε (τό δέμας έστίν) άρχαΐον (έμόν) δέμας seems to the point.—It would appear fanciful to assume (with Bowra, Sophoclean Tragedy, p. 318) that the words imply: ‘The old polluted flesh has gone, and its defilement with it’. Ill, 2. Visible to Antigone, the old men of the Chorus, inhabitants of Colonus, enter from the right. χρόνω παλαιοί: I side with Campbell {contra Jebb) who feels in χρόνω a reinforcement of the idea ‘old’ (see Parai. Soph., p. 237). σης έδρας έπίσκοποι: both nouns function as expressions of verbal no­ tions: ‘qui viennent voir où tu t’es installé’ (Mazon). They form, of

PROLOGUE, VSS.

106-116

39

course, not a body of inspectors but do arrive in order to inspect, and έδρας is not, foremost, ‘concrete’, but rather ‘abstract’ (‘your sitting’ rather than ‘your seat’). 113-116. μ’ ... πόδα / κρύψον: καθ’ δλον καί κατά μέρος, cf. Phil. 1301 μέθες με χεΐρα. See the very excellent remarks by Wilamowitz ad Eur. Her. 162. Keck’s conjecture έκποδών όδοΰ, favoured by Jebb, is quite wrong. έξ όδοΰ: either simply ‘away’ (not: ‘hors de la route’—Mazon—for he is not sitting on the path) or = ‘so that I cannot be seen from the way’ (leading into the άλσος, or the way along which the Chorus is ap­ proaching). τώνδ’ ... έκμάθω: ‘about’ rather than ‘from’ these men, and τώνδ’ has a more or less ‘proleptic’ character, anticipating the subject of the indirect question. Comparable is the personal genitive with πυνθάνομαι, when not meaning ‘from’ but ‘concerning’ (as fairly frequent in Homer). On the other hand he is to hear what he will hear from them personally. So Campbell’s ‘genitive of perception and also of respect’ is perhaps correct. έν γάρ ... / ... τών ποωυμένων: ‘for what we can do with caution depends on what we may hear’. Cf. 12-14. ‘De l’information depend la prudence dans faction’ (Mazon). The function of the genitive with εύλάβεια is different in El. 1334, the same in Antiph. Ill 3.11 πολλή εύλάβεια ύμίν τούτων (‘in these matters’) ποιητέα έστί.

Parodos 117-253

Chorus, Oedipus, Antigone. Str. 117-137, antistr. 149-169 sung by Chorus, both followed by anapaestic systems, of unequal length, the first divided between Oedipus and Chorus (Coryphaeus), the second between Oedipus and Antigone. In the following long ‘kommatic’ part many editors assume responsion between 176-187 and 192-206, following G. Hermann. But then a lacuna of three or four lines between 183 and 184 has to be conjectured and some minor changes have to be made. For the sense the assumption of a lacuna seems hardly necessary. It would seem better to speak not of strict responsion between strophe and antistrophe but of two parts that have much in common, metrically and with regard to their division between Chorus and actors, and to consider the whole passage from 176 to 206, with its anapaestic interlude 188-191 (Oedipus), as a transition from the formally stricter structure 117-176 to the entirely astrophic part 207-253. The latter is divided into two sections: 208-227, a lyric stichomythia, so to speak, even with άντιλαβαί; 229-236 and 237-253, songs of the Chorus and Antigone respectively. For the whole structure the Kommos in Philoctetcs 1081-1217 offers many points of com­ parison.

40

COMMENTARY

117. δρα: for δρα in directing a search cf. Aesch. Eum. 254 δρα, δρα μάλ’ αύ. It is taken up in 121. For the contrast between the excitement and vehement emotions of the Parodos and the serenity of the Prologue see Kirkwood, Sophoclean Drama, p. 204. τίς άρ’ ήν: ό χορός έκ τών έπιχωρίων άνδρών πεπυσμένος δτι προσκαθέζεταί τις τώ ίερώ τόπω τούτω τά πρώτα ύποχαλεπαίνοντές φησι, τίς άρα έστιν ή ποΰ διατρίβει; Σ1). ήν because the words amount to τίς άρα έστίν (or the like); so the use of the imperfect tense is comparable to that in cases like τοΰτ’ άρα αληθές ήν = αληθές άρ’ έστίν τοΰθ’ δ ήδη ύπωπτεύομεν. In modern languages we are inclined to use the present tense, but cp. e.g. ‘Das war des Pudels Kern’. ποΰ ναίει: ναίει = διατρίβει (Σ correctly, cf. Trach. 99). I do not believe that the first syllable of ναίει has to be regarded as shortened (because of όμμάτων 150): the line is an aeolo-choriambic dimeter2) with dragged close; dragged close may stand in responsion to '-by birth’. Thus already Σ: άπό γενέσεως καί έξ άρχής τυφλός πέφυκας;. Schn.-N.-Raderm. go astray in their interpretation: ‘Wehe, hast du etwa deine Blindheit auch selbst verschuldet’, for ‘self-blinding’ cannot be denoted by an adjective in which the concept φύσις prevails. δυσαίων / μακραίων θ’ δσ’ έπεικάσαι: this (Bothe) or θ’ δσα γ’ είκάσαι (γ’ δσ’ έπεικάσαι Dindorf) seems the best way of correcting τε θ’ ώς LA, θ’ώς RQ. For δσα cf. Ar. Pax 856 sqq. : εύδαιμονικώς γ’ ό πρε/σβύτης, δσα γ’ ώδ’ ΐδεΐν, / τά νΰν τάδε πράττει. 153, 4. άλλ’ ού μάν: strongly adversative, cf. El. 817. έν γ’ έμοί: ‘as far as lies in me’; cf. infra 1443,4 ταΰτα δ’ έν τώ δαίμονι / καί τήδε φϋναι χάτέρα. προσθήσεις τάσδ’ άρας: the αραι which will result from his impious en­ croachment (πέρας γάρ περάς follows as a warning explanation of their meaning). If we retain προσθήσεις, the easiest interpretation runs as follows: ‘you will not add the αραι < provoked by> this ’. If we prefer to attribute to προσθήσεις the meaning ‘impose upon’ we can still retain the active form: ‘you will not impose upon your miserable state (i.e. yourself in your misery) the misery resulting from these αραι’. But it is true that Blaydes’ προσθήσει ( = προσθήση), adopted by Jebb and Dawe, would, then, be easier: ‘you will not bring upon yourself. (See some instances of προστίθεμαι—‘of evils’—L.-Sc. s.v. προστίθημι B II 2). The least probable interpretation seems to me to retain προσθήσεις and mentally supply Κολωνώ or ήμϊν1). The coherence with the preceding lines would be seriously impaired. 155, 6. περψς γάρ πέρας: combines the literal ‘you are transgressing’ (βαδίζεις γάρ είς δ ού προσήκει χωρίον έπιβαίνειν) and the more figurative ‘you go too far’. 156-162. άλλ’ ϊνα ... άπόβαθι: It would not be impossible to regard ϊνα μή προπέσης as elliptical = δπως μή προπεσή. άλλ’ ... συντρέχει would, then, form one main sentence, asyndetically followed by the three im*) Though the not very clear scholion seems to amount to something like this.

parodos,

vss. 153-165

45

peratives φύλαξαι, μετάσταθ’, άπόβαθι. But there are no instances of this elliptical use of ϊνα before Hellenistic times1). So it would seem better to take άλλ’ ϊνα ... συντρέχει as a protasis, τών ... φύλαξαι as a parenthesis and μετάσταθ’, άπόβαθι as the main sentence. προπέσης: ‘rush on’, ‘run on precipitately’. G. Hermann’s correction (mss have προσπέσης) is metrically necessary and, as to the sense, more satisfactory. τώδ’ έν ά/φθέγκτω ... νάπει/ποιάεντι: he is warned against rushing on in the glade where he already finds himself; έν ... νάπει does not closely de­ pend on προπέσης, it denotes the place where the ‘rushing on’ would oc­ cur. άφθέγκτω: ‘where silence is required’ (cf. 131 sqq.). ού: (μή προπέσης) οΰ, i.e. into the innermost recess of the sacred grove, where the libations are offered. κάθυδρος ... κρατήρ: ‘the bowl full of water’, συντρέχει: amounts to ‘is mingled with’. μειλιχίων ποτών / ρευματι: ‘the flow of honeyed drinks’, hydromel, μειλίχιος ‘propitiatory’ was certainly, by popular etymology, connected with μέλι, see Frisk s.v. μείλιχος. Hydromel was the libation to the Erinyes. It does not seem probable that the κρατήρ is the same as the one mentioned in 1593, as is assumed by Dain (p. 84 n. 2). A full description of the rites is found infra 466-492. τών ... φύλαξαι: although τόν is found in Zn Zo T’1 and τό (Heath) is adopted by Jebb and many others because φυλάσσομαι ‘be ware of is not found with the genitive, I think that τών, conveying the notion ‘removing from’, can very well be defended. If we take τών ... φύλαξαι as a paren­ thesis τών may be taken as relative as well as demonstrative; it refers, somewhat vaguely, to the sacred objects mentioned in the preceding clause. The main sentence can also begin at τών (demonstrative); we could, then, regard εύ φύλαξαι alone as a parenthesis, τών directly depen­ ding on μετάσταθ’, άπόβαθι. The intricate syntactic structure of 156-162 resembles that of Ar. Ran. 108-115. (Cf. Wilamowitz in Tycho’s book p. 340 n. 2). πάμμορ’: ώ περί πάντα δυστυχές (Σ) ; hapax. 163-165. πολλά κέλευθος έρατύει (mss): οιον πολλή έστιν όδός ή διαχωρίζουσά σε ήμών δει γάρ νοεΐν ώς ό'τι (έτι Elmsley) πόρρωθεν προσφωνοΰσιν αυτόν μή δυνάμενοι έπιβήναι τώ τόπω· καί ταΰτα είπόντων κατά μικρόν ό Οίδίπους προσέρχεται καί ϊσταται ώσπερ έν τώ ούδώ τοϋ χωρίου (thus, cor­ rectly I think, Σ). Musgrave’s έρατύοι makes the words insist on the preceding injunctions (supply < τούτων >, picking up τών). But Jebb’s ’) It is, nonetheless, defended by J. Humbert, Une anticipation linguistique de Sophocle (?) (O. C. V. 155-164), Mélanges Chantraine, 1972, pp. 51-54.

46

COMMENTARY

objections against the conjecture are valid. The words give the reason for asking κλύεις ...;. The asyndetic wording (πολλά ... έρατύει, κλύεις ... άλατα, λόγον εϊ τιν’ ... φώνει) is suggestive of the Chorus’ emotion. πολύμοχθ’ άλατα: see V. di Benedetto, Da Odisseo a Edipo: O.C. 1231, Riv. di Filol. 107, 1979, p. 16. 166-169. οϊσεις (sive έχεις): οϊσεις RQL’1 if we retain άζονθ’ in 134; έχ­ εις L“A, if we prefer άγονθ’ T in 134. πρός έμάν λέσχαν: ‘for the purpose of discussing with me’. άβατων άποβάς: echoing άπόβαθι; cf. 126 άστιβές άλσος. ϊνα πάσι νόμος: ϊνα πάσι νόμος (Α.Ζ. = θέμις) έστί ; cf. 131 άφώνως. άπερύκου: i.e. πρότερον δέ μή διαλέγου (Σ), ‘abstain from speech’ (L.-Sc). I do not share Dain’s objection; he says (p. 83 n. 4): ‘litt, écartetoi du danger. Le scholiaste n’a pas vu le sens’. 170. ποϊ ... έλθη: deliberative subjunctive. ‘What counsel are we to take’ (Campbell). But έλθοι LRQ would be possible, cf. Groeneboom’s note ad Aesch. Cho. 171-5. 171,2. μελετάν: = άσκεϊν. The verb is rare in Tragedy (not in Aesch., άπαξ in Soph., twice in Eur.). Jebb quotes Eur. Bacch. 890-2 ού / γάρ κρεΐσσόν ποτέ τών νόμων / γιγνώσκειν χρή καί μελετάν. εϊκοντας α δει κάκούοντας: Musgrave’s correction of κούκ ακούοντας LR QA; κούκ άκοντας Zn Zo Τ yields a passable sense and is preferred by Campbell, interpreting ‘and not under compulsion’ (also in Paralip. Soph. p. 240). But, it seems to me that Antigone’s words echo Oedipus’ own of 12,3. For εϊκειν and the circumstances that render it necessary cf. Aesch. Suppl. 202 (Danaüs to the Chorus): μέμνησο δ’ εϊκειν χρεϊος εϊ ξένη φύγας. 173. Oedipus decides to leave the place within the grove. καί δή: = ήδη, as supra 31. Dawe (Studies III p. 138) wants us to read καί δή ψαύω and adopts this in his text. But the uncommon word order ψαύω καί δή conveys more ‘ethos’. 174, 5. ώ ξεΐνοι ... / ... μεταναστάς: see for the variae lectiones the list of critical notes. I follow Jebb and others in reading: ώ ξεΐνοι, μή δήτ’ αδικηθώ / σοί πιστεύσας καί μεταναστάς. σοί is the reading of the majority of mss, ύμΐν of Zn Zo, probably a ‘correction’ because of the plural ώ ξεΐνοι; but Σ has the correct comment κατά τινα συνήθειαν ποιητικήν πληθυντικόν προειπών ενικόν έπέζευξεν. Cf. my note ad 121,2 and compare 208-210,11. It seems to me quite needless to leave out ώ, taking σοί with the first dimeter, in order to obtain a paroemiac in 175 (Pearson), or to leave out ώ and σοί (Dawe) (result: two paroemiacs). μή δήτ’ άδικηθώ: prohibitive (K.-G. I 220) ‘let me not ...’ rather than = φοβούμαι μή (preferred by Schn.-N.-Raderm.). πιστεύσας: both ‘trust’ and ‘obey’ can be felt in it.

parodos,

vss. 166-183

47

μεταναστάς: cf. μετάσταθι 163. The verb, known from Hdt. and Thue., is a άπαξ in Tragedy, (μετανα-compounds are rare; the only other in­ stance in Soph, is μεταναγιγνώσκω Λι. 717). 176. (or 178) sqq.: Since G. Hermann many editors have regarded 176 (or 178)-187 and 192 (or 194)-206 as an antistrophic pair (so Jebb, Pearson, D.-M., Dawe). Then a lacuna of four lines has to be assumed between 183 and 184 or, perhaps better, one of three lines between 181 and 182 and one of one line between 183 and 184 (Jebb, Kuiper, Dawe: for 182-183 are metrically equivalent to 200-201); moreover, some altera­ tions have to be made in order to achieve complete responsion. It is not to be denied that the two passages have much in common; but, on the other hand, 184 sqq. fit in well with 183 and the preceding lines. So I am in­ clined to draw the conclusion formulated supra in the introductory note to the Parodos. It has to be noted that there is no (exact) responsion between the anapaestic systems 138-148 and 170-175 (or 177), nor between 170-175 (or 177) and 188-191 (or 193). (But, generally speaking, such a responsion between anapaestic interludes is not to be expected). 176, 7. These lines, and 192,3, may be scanned as anapaestic dimeter + anapaestic dimeter catalectic; then they probably belong to the anapaestic systems. But they can also be analyzed as either ionic trimeter + ionic dimeter or as aeolo-ionic (expansion of a greater asclepiad). Then they belong to the following structures and will support the idea that we have to do with an antistrophic whole, either to be regarded as deliberately imperfect, or to be corrected and supplied in order to achieve perfect responsion. 178, 9. If we retain the transmitted text, the lines run as follows: Oed. έτ’ ούν έτι προβώ; (dochm.). Chor, έπίβαινε πρόσω (‘step onwards’, but Reiske’s έτι βαίνε is probably to Be preferred) (anap. monom.). Many edd. follow Bothe in reading: Oed. έτ’ ούν; Chor, έτι βαίνε πόρσω. (‘chor. enoplian A’ or acephalous hipponactean). There is, then, responsion between 178,9 and 194. 180, 1. προβίβαζε: sc. αυτόν, προ- AacRQ, not προσ-, is the correct reading. γάρ: ‘ for’. άίεις: οίον αίσθάνη ποϋ έσμεν Σ. ‘Tu te rends compte, toi’ (Mazon), πρόσω: Dindorf s correction πόρσω is not necessary, whether or not we try to achieve responsion. 182, 3. έπεο μάν: ARQ, doubtless the correct reading. On emphatic μάν with imperatives see G.P.2 p. 331 (2). έπεο: the present imperative conveys the idea that he is to continue following her1). ■) Cf. W. F. Bakker, The Greek Imperative, thesis Utrecht 1966, pp. 35 sqq..

48

COMMENTARY

ώδ’: indicates place and is taken up by ά σ’ άγω. άμαυρώ: refers to his blindness; ‘pas d’aveugle’ (Mazon), αμαυρός properly means ‘indistinct’, ‘dim’, ‘faint’, ‘obscure’, or by a natural transfer from what is seen to sight: ‘blind’. Cf. infra 1018 and 1639 άμαυραϊς χερσΐν and see Wilamowitz ad Eur. Her. 124; excellent discus­ sion of the word in Chantraine, Diet. El. s.v.. 184-187. These lines have been attributed to the Chorus since G. Hermann; this attribution, of course, though plausible, is not quite cer­ tain: Antigone can very well expand what she has said in 171,2. But ώ τλάμων, cf. 203, suits the Chorus better, and whether we assume com­ plete responsion or whether not, there seems to be a better division be­ tween Chorus and actors, if the lines are sung by the Chorus, just as 203-206. ξεΐνος έπί ξένας: cf. Phil. 135 έν ξένα ξένον. δ τι χαί πόλις / τέτροφεν άφιλον: logically χαί implies χαί συ τόλμα άποστυγεϊν δ τι πόλις τέτροφεν άφιλον. On this ‘kind of inversion’ cf. G.P.2 p. 295 (III); see note ad 53 supra. τέτροφεν: only instance of transitive use of this perfect of τρέφω in prehellenistic Greek1). Sophocles’ use of τρέφω as a sort of dynamic έχω is well-known: cf. Trach. 28 άεί τιν’ έχ φόβου φόβον τρέφω, Ο. Τ. 356 τάληθές γάρ ίσχΰον τρέφω, Ant. 897 χάρτ’ έν έλπίσιν τρέφω. Campbell’s rendering of τέτροφεν άφιλον ‘hath habitually chosen for dislike, i.e. ‘is wont to dislike’, is strikingly correct. (The other ‘classical’ instances of τέτροφα, e.g. Hom. Od. XXIII 237 πολλή δέ περί χροΐ τέτροφεν άλμη, are intranstive; hence Nauck’s conjecture πόλει—still in Schn.-N.-Raderm.—; τέτροφεν, then, amounts to πέφυχεν). τό φίλον: on a par with δ τι ... πόλις τέτροφεν άφιλον. 188-191. ϊν’ αν ... / ... / ... πολεμώμεν.: εΐποιμεν L, ειπωμεν ARQ, άκούσαιμεν LRQ, άχούσωμεν A. Final ί'να with subjunctive with άν or*optative with άν is downright impossible. Local ϊνα with futural-general sub­ junctive with άν is rare, but see infra 405s) (there, however, the subjunc­ tive with άν has a much more convincingly prospective—futuralgeneral—character than would be the case here). Local ϊνα with potential optative with άν, though not common3), is the most reasonable option. The subjunctives in a part of the transmission have to be attributed in the first place to the influence of πολεμώμεν, (which does not belong to the clause introduced by ϊνα) and perhaps also to a misunderstood ϊνα. (But they are not absolutely indefensible).

*) Cf. P. Chantraine, Histoire du Parfait grec, 1927, p. 76. 2) Cf. Ai. 657, Ant. 773, where ένθα with subjunctive with άν is so used. ’) Jebb quotes Theocr. XXV 61; there Gow quotes O.C. 188.

parodos,

vss. 184-196

49

'ίν’: ϊνα, where (we are likely to...), εύσεβίας έπιβαίνοντες: for the figurative use of επιβαίνω cf. Hom. Od. XXII 424 άναιδείης έπέβησαν, Hymn. Merc. 173 τής όσίης έπιβήσομαι; Phil. 1463 δόξης ού' ποτέ τήσδ’ έπιβάντες. But here the literal meaning of έπιβαίνω ‘set foot on’ is clearly to be perceived; εύσεβίας, moreover, picks up σέβεσθαι 187. εϊποιμεν ... άκούσαιμεν: cf. Eur. Heracl. 182 είπεϊν άκοΰσαί τ’ έν μέρει πάρεστί μοι (and Pearson’s note a./.); infra 1288. μή χρεία πολεμώμεν: second member of the main sentence, χρεία amounts to nécessitas. Cf. χρεία διδάσκει, καν βραδύς τις ή, σοφόν Eur. fr. 715 Ns. It is perhaps noteworthy that Σ offers another interpretation1). 192, 3. αύτοϋ·: amounts to ‘stop’. μηκετι ... / ... κλίνης: The interpretation of these words is full of uncer­ tainties: (1) κλίνης mss would mean that he should not turn away from the βήμα at which he has arrived; this is perhaps somewhat awkward in view of λέχριος 195 ‘bending sideways’. The reading κινήσης (Lrrp) would lessen the difficulty, but the responsion with 177 would be disturbed; should we read κίνει (Meineke)? (2) άντιπέτρου is the mss reading; if this can simply mean ‘rocky’ it may be retained, but can it? The second scholion: βήματος τοΰ ούδοΰ, άντιπέτρου δέ δτι αντί πέτρας χαλκοΰν (referring to 57) does not seem likely. Musgrave’s αύτοπέτρου ‘of native rock’ (many edd.) has much to recommend it. (3) Do we have to regard βήμα as a ‘seat’, or as a ‘ledge’ at the limit of the άβατος τόπος that may serve as a seat for Oedipus? (4) Or are the βήμα of 192 and the λάας of 196 not iden­ tical? (Thus the Weidmann commentary). The difficulty (1) is perhaps not important if we render (with Campbell): ‘Stir not again from this rocky platform’, whereas in λέχριος the ‘bending’ would belong to the description of his sitting down (without the notion of turning or moving away from the βήμα). It remains a moot point whether or not exact responsion is needed. As to (2) αύτοπέτρου seems necessary. (3) The sec­ ond alternative seems much more likely. (4) Hence we have to assume that βήμα and λάας are identical. 194-196. άλις, ώς άκούεις: ‘pas plus loin, je te le dis’ (Mazon), ή έσθώ: Brunck, to be read with synizesis; this is better than ή 'σθώ AUY or ήσθώ Zn Zo Τ. ή στώ R (cf. ήστώ L’tp) seems a corruption, έσθώ aor. subj. of έ'ζομαι seems excellent, although this aor. is only known of καθέζομαι in later authors. Its rareness and the combination with the par­ ticle ή were a cause for confusion in the transmission. λέχριος γ’: ‘yes, bending sideways’ (or simply: ‘bending’), λέχριος com-

') καί μή τή αυτών ένδείμ (‘their request’) έναντιώμεβα.

50

COMMENTARY

bines the notions ‘inclined’ and ‘oblique’. (The epic λικριφίς, perhaps, derives from *λεχρι-φίς). έπ’ άκρου / λάου (or λάος): ‘on the edge (not: the top) of the stony ledge’ (assuming that λάου refers to the same as αύτοπέτρου βήματος). For άκρος ‘outermost’ (not ‘topmost’) cf. L.-Sc. s.v. I 2. λάου mss. presupposes a variant form λάος as nominative (approved by Herodianus and occurring in non-Attic inscriptions; see moreover Hes. fr. 115 Rz. = 234.3 Merkelb.-West). Dindorf, followed by others, wrote the usual genitive λάος. βραχύς όκλάσας: lit. ‘crouching down low’; βραχύς is predicative ad­ junct denoting the result of όκλάσας, just as, probably, διπλούς in διπλούς όκλάζω[ν lehn. 90. 197-201. Reisig’s conjecture έν άσυχαί/ςι βάσει (in order to achieve responsion with 182,3) combined with G. Hermann’s placing of ίώ μοί μοι between άρμοσαι and γεραόν is not satisfactory: (1) though έναρμόζω is a common verb, there are no instances of αρμόζω έν and a tmesis seems unlikely; (2) προκλίνας has to be taken with άρμοσαι; this is less clear if ίώ μοί μοι is inserted after άρμοσαι; (3) the clash between Antigone’s έν ήσυχία or έν ήσύχω and Oedipus’ ίώ μοί μοι is much less striking if the lat­ ter does not directly follow the former. έμόν τόδ’: ‘this is mine’, ‘this is up to me’. Cf. El. 1470 ούκ έμόν τόδ’, άλλά σόν. έν ήσύχω: = ήσύχως. Elmsley’s correction accepted by Dawe; cf. 82 supra. If we retain έν ήσυχίςι, -ία has to be regarded as one syllable (thus Radermacher). βάσει βάσιν άρμοσαι: ‘join step to step’. Thus Jebb and Radermacher. Not: ‘règle tes pas sur mes pas’ (Mazon). Note that άρμόσαι (mss) would have the effect of making Antigone the subject of άρμόσαι: ‘my task it is quietly to fit my step to yours’ (or perhaps ‘yours to mine’), but this would oblige us to adopt Triclinius’ reading πρόσκλινον in 201, evidently a conjecture. Σ, reading άρμόσαι, explains: έμόν έστι τό άρμόσαι σου έφ’ ήσυχίας τήν βάσιν τή καθέδρα. Campbell, though reading άρμοσαι and άσυχαία, accepts the strange interpretation of βάσει = καθέδρα. 200, 1. προκλίνας; inclino pronus is Ellendt’s rendering of the verb; we should remember that Oedipus has to stoop in order to sit down on the low seat. 202. ώμοι δύσφρονος άτας: ‘malignant doom’ rather than ‘doom of a dark soul’ (i.e. ‘as the work of a mind clouded by the gods’), as Jebb would have it. 203, 4. ό'τε νυν χαλάς: ‘puisque voici pour toi un moment de détente’ (Mazon), similarly Jebb and Radermacher. The intransitive use of χαλάν ‘have a remission of, ‘relax’ with genit. rei (or with the genit. to be

parodos, vss. 197-213

51

understood: here e.g. πόνων, καμάτου) is fairly common. But it can also amount to ‘give way (to)’ with or without the dative personae. So L’s inter­ pretation δτε νΰν εΐ'κεις καί ούκ άντιτείνεις τό έξελθεϊν (τώ έξελθεϊν Hermann), λέγει δέ έκ τοϋ ίεροϋ is not to be rejected as impossible. The gloss in L ad χαλάς, viz. θαυμάζη, is unintelligible, (θαυμάζη is in the text of RQ after χαλάς; at a pinch we could understand θαυμάζη τίς έφυς βροτών—θαυμάζη υ.Ι. instead of αϋδασον—. But it is perhaps no more than a hopelessly corrupted gloss on χαλάς: Dindorf thought of καθέζη and άζη, Bekker of σχολάζεις). 205, 6. τίς ό πολύπονος άγη;: i.e. τίς ει σύ, ό πολύπονος, δς άγη; ό L’ff’ is certainly right against ών mss (also Σ). τίν’ Sv / σοϋ πατρίδ’ έκπυθοίμαν; : i.e. τίνος πατρίδος ει; ή άν έκπυθοίμαν; The three questions form an expanded variation on the epic τίς πόθεν εις άνδρών; πόθι τοι πόλις ήδέ τοκήες;. (Σ τίς ών άγη άπό τής σής πόλεως; is caus­ ed by Oedipus’ answer to the second question—the idea does not seem quite correct). 207, 8. άπόπτολις: sc. είμί, but the omission gives the word the character of ‘almost an exclamation’ (Jebb): Exsul\ In this form also Trach. 647, Ο. T. 1000; Eur. Hypsip. fr. 70.1 (p. 24 Bond). But Aesch. Ag. 1410 άπόπολις is Casaubonus’ certain correction of άπολις. Here Wilamowitz, for metrical reasons, wants to correct into άπόπολις (-w Gr. Vsk. p. 342, approved by Ed. Fraenkel ad Ag. l.c. and ac­ cepted by Dawe). But Schroeder (Cantica) and Kraus, Strophengestaltung p. 172 n. 2, retain άπόπτολις (-w w- ww-w- ‘2 ia mit Doppel-senkung’). άλλα μή, : he is interrupted by the Chorus anticipating his refusal. Note that he answered only the Chorus’ second question and that but vaguely. άπεννέπεις: ‘forbid’, only here in Sophocles; other instances exclusively in Aeschylus and Euripides. 210, 1. μή ... / ... ματεύων,: his refusal is worded with a maximum of emphasis: thrice-repeated μή1), and a cumulation of synonyms: άνέρη, έξετάσης, ματεύων. I should prefer to scan μή μή μή μ’ άνέρη τίς είμτ (hippon.) μηδ’ έξετάσης πέρα ματεύων (teles. + bacch.). 212, 3. τίτόδ’’; : cf. 46.

αίνά φύσις: as short and exclamative as άπόπτολις 208, and more or less elusively answering the first question τίς έφυς βροτών; 204. αϋδα: the present imperative insists on further elucidation (cf. αυδασον 204); similarly φώνει 215.

■) Though many edd. leave out one μή (μή με, μή μ’ Hermann, μή, μή μ’ Hartung, Dawe).

52

COMMENTARY

γεγώνω: deliberative subjunctive; the form probably belongs to the present γεγώνω, just as the imperative γέγωνε Phil. 238. 214, 5. τίνος ... / ... πατρόθεν: in order to continue the ionics of 212,3 Heath’s and Triclinius’ ξένε are accepted by edd.; another device is v. Blumenthal’s (Hermes 78, 1943, pp. 276-79), which strikes me as cacophonic. (If we adopt the conjecture we should write έξ,; the construction would be έκ τίνος σπέρματος πατρόθεν, cf. the epic πατρόθεν έκ γενεής). 216-223. After the ionics 212-215 there follows a string of lines in which the form —ww—