Sophocles Oedipus at Colonus 384

mvp-comment-1161-1 ἄγε με ¹

mvp-comment-1162-1 The MS.

has been defended in two ways, neither of which is satisfactory: (1) by an ellipse of : (2) as= As in 383 (n.) we should read for , and in 335 (n.) for , so here I feel sure that ποῦ is right. It suits the sense better than the v.l. πῇ , besides being closer to the MSS. The v.l. ἄξω , (which would justify ποῖ ,) is plainly a mere corruption of .

mvp-comment-1162-2 αὖθις ²

mvp-comment-1163-1 In these verses the utterances usually assigned to Antigone all turn on her anxiety as to a refuge, and her desire to return to Thebes. Such feelings, at this moment, are more in harmony with the character of Ismene (cp. 1735). Antigone is at present absorbed in the yearning to visit her father's tomb, or at least the spot where she last saw him alive (1724). When Theseus appears, it is this wish which she instantly presses on him. Only when it has been put aside does she think of a return to Thebes (1769).

mvp-comment-1163-2 Ought we, then, to read

for throughout vv. 1737—1750? This has been suggested by Bergk. I may observe that the Laur. MS. leaves the question open. At 1730 it has before . After that, there is no indication of any person, but only short lines (-), until at 1741 again stands before . The next words, etc., have before them: but after that no person is indicated till 1751, where (instead of ) is erroneously placed before .

mvp-comment-1163-3 I am disposed to think that Sophocles wrote the words for Ismene, but that the fourth-actor difficulty had led to a fluctuation of stage-practice, which helps to account for the ambiguity of the MS. tradition. See the note on the Dramatis Personae. If the part of Ismene, after v. 509, was ever taken by a

, there may then have been a wish to keep her part in this scene as small as possible. Similarly at 1689 ff. there is a doubt as to which sister ought to have the words .

mvp-comment-1164-1 φύγω ³

mvp-comment-1165-1 The MS. ἀπεφεύγετον is most simply corrected to ἀπεφύγετον . But then we must either (1) add τί δή , and expand v. 1726 , as Bergk and Gleditsch do (cr. n. ad l. ): or (2), leaving v. 1726 intact, suppose that vv. 1739, 1740 are spoken by the Chorus without any interpellation by Antigone. This, however, is improbable, and also injurious to the point of v. 1740. Further, with

, v. 1740 has a construction which makes the order of the words harsh, viz.: —

mvp-comment-1165-2 τὸ μὴ τὰ σφῷν πίτνειν κακῶς ⁴

mvp-comment-1166-1 φρονῶ ⁵

mvp-comment-1167-1 ὅπως μολούμεθ’ ⁶

mvp-comment-1168-1 μηδέ γε μάτευε ⁷

mvp-comment-1169-1 μόγος ἔχει ⁸

mvp-comment-1169-2 ἐπεῖχε ⁹

mvp-comment-1170-1 τοτὲ μὲν … ὕπερθεν ¹⁰

mvp-comment-1170-2 τοτὲ μὲν … τοτὲ δέ ¹¹

mvp-comment-1170-3 ὕπερθεν ¹²

1733. mvp-comment-923-1 ἄγε με

(Elmsley.) ἐπενάριξον] “Take me thither (who will), and then I care not if you kill me at his tomb.' Cp. Eur. Hec. 504.

1734. mvp-comment-924-1 ποῖ Sc. ἐλθοῦσα. For the condensation, see Essay on Language § 43. p. 81.

1737. mvp-comment-925-1 The interchange in strophe B' was between Antigone and Ismene: in the antistrophe it is between single members of the chorus and Antigone. The number of interlocutions assigned to the chorus, 15 counting from 1667, shows that here as in other κομμοί the choreutae took part successively in the dialogue, but in what order they did so can hardly be determined.

1739. mvp-comment-926-1 The change from the imperfect to the aorist is necessary to the sense, which can only be that the solemn promise of Theseus guarantees them from all ill. And Hermann's conjecture, ΧΟ. καὶ πάρος ἀπέφυγε. ΑΝ. τί; ΧΟ. τὰ σφῶν τὸ μὴ πίτνειν κακῶς, gives a subject to πίτνειν, preserves the same distribution of the persons as in the strophe, and avoids the inverted order οἱ σφῶν τὸ μή, κ.τ.λ.

1741. mvp-comment-927-1 I know that. What then have you further in your thoughts? Why then do you trouble your thoughts farther?' On the prep. in comp., see Essay on Language § 18. pp. 26, 7. There is no need of any change; and the conjecture ὅπερ νοεῖς is based on a misconception of the meaning required. Hermann objects that there cannot be degrees of thinking; but this is hypercritical : cp. Plat. Theaet. 165 C, D. Qy. ὑπερπονεῖς ?

1744. mvp-comment-928-1 See v. rr. The words καὶ πάρος ἐπεί might perhaps be explained to mean καὶ πάρος (ὴν χρόνος) ἐπεὶ (μόγος ἔσχε). But as a syllable is required, it is reasonable to suppose some corruption, and Wunder's conjecture adopted in the text is not improbable. Cp. El. 517. Erewhile, too, ye were oppressed by weariness. See L. and S. 5. ν. ἐπέχω, VI. 2.

1745. mvp-comment-929-1 It was then beyond my strength, but now it overwhelms me.' The language anticipates the metaphor of a sea of troubles, which appears in the next line. For ὕπερθεν, cp. κατάκρας, supr. 1242.