Antigone. Sophocles. Robert Potter (Translator). London. 1820.
English (Robert Potter, 1788) (OCR draft) (English) (English (Robert Potter, 1788))
Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.
mvp-comment-621-1 οἱ Ζηνὸς αἰετοί 1
mvp-comment-622-1 οὐδ’ ὥς 2
mvp-comment-623-1 θεοὺς μιαίνειν 3
mvp-comment-623-2
This view seems to do some injustice to the poet's dramatic psychology. I read the words quite differently. The most orthodox Greek piety held that ‘no mortal could pollute the gods.’ See, for example,
H. F. 1232. Heracles, having recovered sanity after slaying his children, has covered his face, to hide it from the holy light of the sun. Theseus —who is a type of normal
εὐσέβεια— makes him uncover, saying,—
τί δ’; οὐ μιαίνεις θνητὸς ὢν τὰ τῶν θεῶν. The sungod cannot be polluted by a mortal. The idea of religious
μίασμα was that a mortal had contracted some impurity which disqualified him for communion with the gods. The tainting of an altar cut off such communion by bringing uncleanness to the very place where men sought to be cleansed. Creon excitedly imagines a seemingly worse profanation, and then excuses his apparent impiety by a general maxim which all would admit:—‘no man can pollute the gods.’
mvp-comment-623-3 ‘The sky-throne of Zeus is still more sacred than his altar on earth: if defilement cannot reach him there, much less here.’ The sophism is of the kind with which an honest but stubborn and wrongheaded man might seek to quiet his conscience. Creon reveres Zeus (304): he feels for the majesty of the gods, and refuses to believe that they can honour the wicked (284 ff.). But his religious sense is temporarily confused by his anger.
mvp-comment-624-1 πολλά 4
mvp-comment-625-1 καλῶς 5
mvp-comment-626-1 ἆρ’ οἶδεν 6
mvp-comment-627-1 τί χρῆμα 7
mvp-comment-627-2 πάγκοινον 8
mvp-comment-628-1 κτημάτων 9
mvp-comment-628-2 ὅσῳπερ 10 μὴ φρονεῖν 11
mvp-comment-629-1 νόσου 12 πλήρης 13
mvp-comment-630-1
In
ἀντειπεῖν κακῶς, ἀντί qualifies the whole phrase: i.e., it means, ‘to revile in return,’
ἀντιλοιδορεῖν, as
ἀντιδρᾶν κακῶς (
O. C. 1191
)=
ἀνταδικεῖν.
mvp-comment-631-1 καὶ μήν 14 λέγεις 15
mvp-comment-632-1 γένος 16
mvp-comment-633-1 τὸ δ’ ἐκ τυράννων 17 ἐκ 18
mvp-comment-633-2 αἰσχροκέρδειαν 19
mvp-comment-634-1 ἆρ’ οἶσθα 20 ἃ ἂν λέγῃς 21 ταγούς 22
mvp-comment-635-1 ἐξ ἐμοῦ 23
mvp-comment-635-2 ἔχεις σώσας 24
mvp-comment-636-1 τἀκίνητα διὰ φρενῶν 25
mvp-comment-637-1 κίνει 26
mvp-comment-637-2 μόνον δέ 27
mvp-comment-637-3 ἐπὶ κέρδεσιν 28
mvp-comment-638-1 οὕτω γὰρ ἤδη 29 τὸ σὸν μέρος 30 καί 31
mvp-comment-639-1 ἴσθι ὡς μὴ ἐμπ. 32 ὡς 33
mvp-comment-639-2 φρένα 34
1040. mvp-comment-602-1 βοράν He echoes the word of Teiresias supr. 1017.
1042-1043. mvp-comment-603-1 οὐ μὴ .. παρήσω The future indicative after οὐ μή, as in O. C. 177, οὗ τοι μήποτέ σ᾽ ἐκ τῶνδ᾽ ἑδράνων, ὦ γέρον, ἄκοντά τις ἄξει : Εl. 1052, οὗ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί ποτε. Cp. Phil. 612, οὐ μή ποτε | πέρσοιεν. In all these places there may be a slight confusion of two constructions. See Essay on Language § 36. p. 62, and for the slight redundancy of expression, which marks Creon's eagerness, ib. § 40. p. 75.
1044. mvp-comment-604-1 'There is no power in man to touch the gods with pollution.' Creon's scepticism (cp. Aesch. Ag. 369-372: Plat. Legg. B. 10) anticipates the Epicurean notion of the Divine Nature, which Nec bene promeritis capitur, neque tangitur ira. Cp. with this and with O. T. 964, foll., Hector's defiance of augury in Il. 12. 237, foll.
1048. mvp-comment-605-1 The sentence, interrupted by Creon's question, is continued in 1050.
1050. mvp-comment-606-1 Wherefore? What means this universal doubt?' πάγκοινον refers to ἀνθρώπων τις.
1052. mvp-comment-607-1 πλήρης Infected. Cp. supr. 1017.
1054. mvp-comment-608-1 λέγεις Sc. κακῶς τὸν μάντιν. Essay on Language § 39. p. 73, 6.
1056. mvp-comment-609-1 τὸ δ᾽ ἐκ τυράννων The mean- ing of the preposition is not to be pressed. It is merely an extension of the familiar metaphor of γένος, Kind for Class. Cobet conj. τὸ δέ γε τυράννων. But not to advert to the broken tribrach in the first place, so unlike the earlier manner of Sophocles, the expression is less forcible. It is like the difference between saying the class of tyrants and the breed of tyrants in English. Cp. Eur. Hec. 254-255, ἀχάριστον ὑμῶν σπέρμ᾽, ὅσοι δημηγόρους | ζηλοῦτε τιμάς. On the γένεσις of the tyrant, see Ο. Τ. 873, ὕβρις φυτεύει τύραννον.
1057. mvp-comment-610-1 The accusative ταγούς is in a double construction with λέγεις and λέγων. The construction of the participle is also twofold: i. e. οἶσθα ταγοὺς ὄντας οὓς λέγεις ἃ ἂν λέγῃς.
1058. mvp-comment-611-1 For you possess this city through saving it by my counsel. ἐξ ἐμοῦ depends partly on ἔχεις and partly on σώσας. The line has been supposed to refer to the self-immolation of the son of Creon by the advice of Teiresias. Eur. Phoen. 918, foll. Cp. supr. 933-935, infr. 1303. But it is not clear that Sophocles has any distinct incident in view. These things are ἔξω τοῦ μυθεύματος, Ar. Poet. 1460 a.
1060. mvp-comment-612-1 τἀκίνητα .. φράσαι Τo utter what ought not to be mooted even in thought.' 1062. (1) These words are generally interpreted as interrogative. Do I really seem in what I have already said to do so in regard to you? i. e. You at least are not likely to reward me for my prophecy. And this is on the whole the most pointed way of taking the words. Wecklein understands them to mean, (2) 'Methinks, so far as you are concerned, I do speak so; i. e. My speech will not bring you gain. In the former case (1) τὸ σὸν μέρος ίς τ. σ. μ. τῆς δοκήσεως: in the latter (2) it is τ. σ. μ. τῶν ἀποβησομένων ἐκ τοῦ λόγου.
1063. mvp-comment-613-1 'I tell thee thou shalt not make traffic of my purposes;' i. e. They shall not be changed so as to bring gain to you, whether it be from me or from others that you look for gain.