Sophocles Electra 1491

mvp-comment-823-1 ἁγών ¹

mvp-comment-824-1 πρόχειρος … κτανεῖν ²

mvp-comment-825-1 μὴ τάσσε ³

mvp-comment-825-2 ἔνθαπερ ⁴

mvp-comment-826-1 πᾶσ’ ἀνάγκη ⁵ τά τ’ ὄντα καὶ μέλλοντα ⁶

mvp-comment-826-2 Aegisthus means: ‘Must this house witness, not only those sorrows of our family which exist already, but those others which are to come, if I am slain?’ He speaks of his impending doom as if it were due, not to his own crimes, but to the working of the hereditary

, and implies that it will be followed by other deeds of bloodshed. In saying Πελοπιδῶν ⁷

mvp-comment-827-1 τὰ γοῦν ς’ ⁸

mvp-comment-827-2 ἄκρος ⁹

mvp-comment-828-1 τὴν τέχνην ¹⁰

mvp-comment-828-2 1501 Cp. O. C. 1628

.

mvp-comment-828-3 1502 The double change of person within the verse ( Or.—Aeg.— Or.) is rare. As G. Wolff observes, there is no instance of it in Aesch. ; in Soph. the only other examples occur in the two latest plays, Soph. O. C. 832 , Soph. Ph. 810 , Soph. Ph. 814 , Soph. Ph. 816 , at moments of high excitement. A triple change within the verse occurs only once, in Soph. Ph. 753. This is another point which bcars on the date of the Electra: cp. 1160 n.

mvp-comment-828-4 ἕρφ’ ¹¹

mvp-comment-829-1 ἦ μὴ φύγω σε ¹²

mvp-comment-829-2 μὲν οὖν ¹³

mvp-comment-829-3 καθ’ ἡδονὴν θάνῃς ¹⁴

mvp-comment-830-1 The imperf. χρῆν ¹⁵ εἶναι ¹⁶

mvp-comment-830-2 εὐθὺς ¹⁷

mvp-comment-830-3 θέλει ¹⁸ θέλοι ¹⁹ τοῖς πᾶσιν … ὅστις ²⁰

mvp-comment-830-4 πράσσειν γε ²¹

mvp-comment-830-5 κτείνειν ²²

mvp-comment-830-6 τὸ πανοῦργον ²³

mvp-comment-830-7 Nicephorus Vasilákes (

), a professor of rhetoric at Constantinople in the latter part of the twelfth century, places these three verses of Sophocles at the head of a short piece in his rhetorical ‘Exercises’ ( ), and makes them the text of a discourse evidently prompted by the evils of his own time. The verses remind us, he says, how well Sophocles understood the function of Tragedy as a , or vehicle of moral teaching. After setting forth in action the warning example of Aegisthus, the poet here , i.e., generalises the lesson. From a literary and aesthetic point of view the remark deserves the notice of those who, like Dindorf, think the verses spurious. If the speech of Orestes ended with v. 1504, the effect would manifestly be too abrupt.

1493-1494. mvp-comment-704-1 πῶς.. οὐ πρόχειρος εἶ κτανεῖν] Why not slay me out of hand?' More lit. Why not put forth your hand at once to slay me?' For this use of πρόχειρος, cp. πρόθυμος, πρόφρων, πρόγλωσσος.

1495-1496. mvp-comment-705-1 The retributive justice of slaying Aegisthus by the hearth, where he slew Agamemnon, is made a reason for not despatching him in sight of the spectators. Cp. supr. 195 foll. and notes, 269, 70.

1497-1498. mvp-comment-706-1 These words of Aegisthus, when about to die, are calculated to strike awe into the spectator, who reflects with himself, And is this the final consummation after all, even though it appear so to the Chorus (ll. 1508-10)?' So much is allowed to remain of the impression produced by the Choëphori, 1075, 6, ποῖ δῆτα κρανεῖ, ποῖ καταλήξει μετακοιμισθὲν μένος ἄτης;

1500. mvp-comment-707-1 πατρώαν] See Essay on L. § 23. p. 38, δ 1.

1501. mvp-comment-708-1 ἡ δ᾽ ὁδὸς βραδύνεται] Cp. Ο. C. 1628, πάλαι δὴ τἀπὸ σοῦ βραδύνεται.

1505-1507. mvp-comment-709-1 These lines appear commonplace to modern readers. But so do many other γνῶμαι in Greek tragedy. And Orestes' speech ends too abruptly if they are omitted.

1506. mvp-comment-710-1 γε may be explained as confirmatory of the preceding sentence, 'Ay, -whosoever chooses to transgress the law, to slay him. Although θέλει is quite admissible, θέλοι is preferable with the past tenses ἐχρῆν ἦν, as the more subtle construction.