Antigone. Sophocles. Berlin. 1806.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by Tufts University.
Latin (F. H. Bothe, 1806) (OCR draft) (Latin) (Latin (F. H. Bothe, 1806))
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
223-330. mvp-comment-136-1 The half-comic or rustic character of the watchman in this play is an extension of the common character of the messenger, whose natural rudeness of speech and thought brings into greater prominence the horror or pathos of the events he describes. The grotesqueness disappears when he speaks of the action of Antigone in 407-440. The employment of this artifice by Sophocles arises from the same motive to which Shakespeare gave a far wider range in such creations as the gravediggers in Hamlet, and the rural fellow in Antony and Cleopatra. The Messenger in the Trachiniae, the Corinthian in the Oedipus Tyrannus, Menelaus in the Ajax, the pretended Shipmaster in the Philoctetes, afford the same sort of contrast to the more tragic personages: and the superstition of the Coloniatae may be compared with the cowardice of the Phrygian slave in the Orestes of Euripides.
223-330.
mvp-comment-136-2
The vulgarity of the common-place Athenian of the fifth century в.с. takes the form of misplaced subtlety of wit. Cp.
Shak. Hamlet, 5. 1
,
We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. The age is grown so picked, that the toe of the peasant comes so near the heel of the courtier, he galls his kibe.
262-263. mvp-comment-163-1 The subtlety of the Φύλαξ deserts him in attempting to express his meaning. The perpetrator was every one and no one of us all every one in vague suspicion, and no one evidently: he escaped being known.' τις gives the indefiniteness required by the sense, = πως.
263.
mvp-comment-164-1
ἀλλ᾽ ἔφευγε *μὴ εἰδέναι (1) But he (the perpetrator) always escaped, so that we could not know him. Böckh and Donaldson read as in the text, interpreting (2) Every man' (πᾶς implied in οὐδείς, the affirmative elicited from the negative)
defended himself by pleading ignorance of the matter. For φεύγειν, * to urge a defensive plea,' cp. Aesch. Suppl. 390, and for the plea, μὴ εἰδέναι, Plat. Legg. 11. 936 E. But the plea of ignorance, although suitable in l. 266, is too special for this place, wherethe non-appearance of the criminal alone is in question. The meaning given above (1) is the same as that required by Hermann (see below), but is more simply expressed by the epexegesis, and the imperfect tense expresses the frustration of continued search. This interpretation involves a rare use of φεύγω, which is, however, analogous to a meaning of ἐκφεύγω that is not uncommon. Cp. Ο. Τ. 111, ἐκφεύγει δὲ τἀμελούμενον : Plat. Phil. 17, τὰ δὲ μέσα αὐτοὺς ἐκφεύγει. Other emendations are ἔφυγε τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι (Porson), explained by Erfurdt to mean
amoliens a se accusationem scire sese negaverat ; ἔφυγε τῷ μὴ εἰδέναι (Herm. 1839),
effugit, eo quod nesciebamus; ἔφευγε πᾶς τὸ μή,
every man pled Not guilty. (Dind.). 264-265. There are few traces of anything corresponding to the trial by ordeal in ancient times. Brunck quotes Virg. Aen. 11. 787,
Et medium freti pietate per ignem | Cultores multa premimus vestigia prima. It seems to have existed in different places as a popular belief, but nowhere to have received positive legal sanction. For a trace of trial by combat' (in Scythia), see Hdt. 4. 180. Cp. also Ar. Lys. 133.