Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 278

ed. Lewis Campbell

μοίραις ποιεῖσθε μηδαμῶς· ἡγεῖσθε δὲ

Oedipus at Colonus. Sophocles. ed. Lewis Campbell. Oxford. 1879.

Current edition Experimental

Greek (Lewis Campbell, 1879) (OCR draft) (Greek) (Greek (Lewis Campbell, 1879))

Provisional text from uncorrected OCR; expect errors.

Editions (1)
Greek (F. Storr, 1912) (OCR draft) Experimental (Greek (F. Storr, 1912)) — 254-509 focus
Translations (5)
English (Lewis Campbell, 1906) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Lewis Campbell, 1906)) — 278 focus
OED
What hath befallen, my daughter?
German (J. J. C. Donner, 1875; OCR review) (OCR draft) Experimental (German (J. J. C. Donner, 1875; OCR review)) — 296 focus
Und wo verweilt, o Freunde, dieses Landes Fürst?
English (Thomas Francklin, 1758–1759) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Thomas Francklin, 1758–1759)) — 278 focus
Antigone
To our father still
May every pleasure come !
English (Robert Potter, 1788) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Robert Potter, 1788)) — 278 focus
Oedipus
Him I shall not touch:
O rulers of this land!
English (Sir Richard Jebb, 1904) (OCR draft) Experimental (English (Sir Richard Jebb, 1904)) — 254-507 focus

Commentary

Commentary (R. C. Jebb) (OCR draft) (Commentary (R. C. Jebb))

mvp-comment-207-1 μοίραις ποεῖσθε 1

mvp-comment-207-2 ποεῖσθε 2

Commentary (Lewis Campbell, 1879) (OCR draft) (Commentary (Lewis Campbell, 1879)) focus

278. mvp-comment-156-1 Do not while you think to honour the Gods, in reality dishonour them,' i.e. by driving out the suppliant. Some editors have attempted, reading μοῖραν, as in the early recension, or μοίpas, which is found in two MSS, to render, Do not, while ye honour the Gods suppose them to be fates' (or 'a fate'). By no means,' etc. But this sharp distinction between God and Fate belongs to a much later age. Sophocles would no more have spoken irreverently of the μοίραι than of the other deities. And the interpretation has no meaning that is relevant to the context. For how would the rejection of Oedipus imply that the Gods were blind fates? Was it not rather based on a misinterpretation of their will? The conjectures μαυρούς (Nauck), μείους (Martin) are not more satisfactory. The best hitherto is Schndw.'s μοίρᾳ ἐμποιεῖσθε. With regard to the reading of the text, which has strong MS. authority, it may be noticed; (1) that there is no difference of meaning between μοίραις and μοίρᾳ, if this is supposed equivalent το ἐν μοίρᾳ. This poetical al dative plural occurs in Plat. Legg. 923 Β, τὸ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου κατατιθεὶς ἐν μοίραις ἐλάττοσι δικαίως. (2) Next, that the omission of ev, or the substitution of the instrumental dative (Essay on Language § 14 p. 20) is supported by the similar use of τιμαῖς (r mg. C²*. 275 280 278. μοί- = ἐν τιμῇ ἀγόμενος, in Ο. Τ. 909, κούδαμοῦ τιμαῖς Ἀπόλλων ἐμφανής. See note in loco. (3) This explanation of μοίραις requires μηδαμῶς to be taken separately from μή, and to have the force of an independent negative. This is very unusual, but may be defended, a. by the consideration that μή negatives the sentence as a whole, and a subordinate negative is therefore more easily admissible; b. that μηδαμῶς may be taken closely with μοίραις after ποιεῖσθε = ὥστε μηδαμῶς ἐν μοίραις εἶναι. c. In Plat. Legg. 11, 913 A, there is a parallel instance in a participial clause, μηδ' αὖ κινήσειε μηδὲ τὸ βραχύτατον ἐμὲ μηδαμῇ μηδαμῶς πείθων. Nor again let him move anything, however small, without any sort of consent from me. And in El. 336, καὶ μὴ δοκεῖν μὲν δρᾶν τι, πημαίνειν δὲ μή, although the force of μή is continued in the latter part of the line, the second μή has an independent force. Cp. also Eur Erechth. fr. 362. 1. 46, οὐδ᾽ ἀντ᾿ ἐλάας χρυσέας τε Γοργόνος | τρίαιναν ὀρθὴν στᾶσαν ἐν πόλεως βάθροις | Εύμολπος οὐδὲ Θρᾶξ ἀναστέψει λεὼς | στεφάνοισι, Παλλὰς δ᾽ οὐδαμοῦ τιμήσεται. The antithesis between the literal observance of the local sanctities and the higher obligations of justice and mercy is the point of this part of the play. Cp. Phil. 451. 2, ποῦ χρὴ τίθεσθαι ταῦτα, ποῦ δ᾽ αἰνεῖν, ὅταν | τὰ θεῖ᾽ ἐπαινῶν, τοὺς θεοὺς εὕρω κακούς; Ant. 924, τὴν δυσσέβειαν εὐσεβοῦσ᾽ ἐκτησάμην, for similar contrasts of expression. The use of μοῖρα for τιμή is in keeping with the language of the play. See Introduction, p. 270.