[1223]
ἔξοδος. It is told how Iocasta has taken her own life. The selfblinded Oedipus comes forth. Creon brings to him the children his daughters, but will not consent to send him away from Thebes until Apollo shall have spoken.
A messenger comes forth from the house. An
ἐξάγγελος is one who announces
τὰ ἔσω γεγονότα τοῖς ἔξω (Hesych.), while the
ἄγγελος (924) brings news from a distance: in
Thuc. 8.51
(τῷ στρατεύματι ἐξάγγελος γίγνεται ὡς, κ.τ.λ.),
one who betrays secrets.
ὅσον δ’
see on 29.
ἀρεῖσθε
take upon you, i.e. have laid upon you: like
αἴρεσθαι ἄχθος (so
Soph. Ant. 907
πόνον,
Soph. Trach. 491
νόσον)
: while in
Hom. Il. 14.130
μή πού τις ἐφ’ ἕλκεϊ ἕλκος ἄρηται
is more like
Hom. Il. 12.435
μισθὸν ἄρηται,
“win. ”
ἐγγενῶς
=
ὡς ἐγγενεῖς ὄντες, like true men of the Cadmean stock to which the house of Labdacus belonged (261, 273).
Ἴστρον
the Thracian name for the lower course of the river which the Kelts called Danuvius (for this rather than Danubius is the correct form, Kiepert
Anc. Geo. §196 n., Byzantine and modern
Δούναβις).
Φᾶσιν
(
Rion), dividing Colchis from Asia Minor and flowing into the Euxine. ( “Phasis ” in
Xen. Anab. 4.6.4
must mean the Araxes, which flows into the Caspian.) Soph. names these simply as great rivers, not with conscious choice as representatives of Europe and Asia.
Ovid Met. 2.248
arsit Orontes | Thermodonque citus Gangesque et Phasis et Ister. Commentators compare
Seneca Hipp. 715
Quis eluet me Tanais? aut quae barbaris Maeotis undis Pontico incumbens mari? Non ipse toto magnus Oceano pater Tantum piarit sceleris, and
Shaksp.
Macbeth 2.2.60
“Will all great Neptune's ocean wash this blood Clean from my hand?”
: where, however, the agony of personal remorse renders the hyperbole somewhat more natural than it is here in the mouth of a messenger.
καθαρμῷ, modal dat., “by way of purification, ” so as to purify.
νίψαι
Eur. IT 1191
ἁγνοῖς καθαρμοῖς πρῶτά νιν νίψαι θέλω.
The idea of
washing off a defilement belongs to
νίζειν (as to its cognates in Sanskrit and Old Irish,
Curt. Etym. 439
), cp.
Hom. Il. 11.830
etc.
ὅσα
causal, =
ὅτι τοσαῦτα:
Hdt. 1.31
ἐμακάριζον τὴν μητέρα οἵων (
=
ὅτι τοιούτων) τέκνων ἐκύρησε:
Aesch. PB 908
ἕσται ταπεινός, οἶον ἐξαρτύεται | γάμον γαμεῖν
:
Hom. Il. 5.757
οὐ νεμεσίζῃ Ἄρει … | ὁσσάτιόν τε καὶ οἷον ἀπώλεσε λαὸν Ἀχαιῶν
:
Hom. Il. 18.262
οἷος (
=
ἐπεὶ τοῖος) ἐκείνου θυμὸς ὑπέρβιος, οὐκ ἐθελήσει | μίμνειν ἐν πεδίῳ. Cp.
Soph. OC 263
n. The construction is
ὅσα κακὰ
(τὰ μὲν)
κεύθει, τὰ δὲ αὐτίκα ἐς τὸ φῶς φανεῖ
: cp.
Soph. El. 1290
πατρῴαν κτῆσιν … | ἀντλεῖ, τὰ δ’ ἐκχεῖ κ.τ.λ.
The house
conceals (
κεύθει
)the corpse of Iocasta; it will presently
disclose (
φανεῖ
)the selfblinded Oedipus: both these horrors were due to conscious acts (
ἑκόντα
),as distinguished from those acts in which Oed. and Iocasta had become involved without their knowledge (
ἄκοντἀ. ἑκόντα … ἄκοντα
for
ἑκούσια … ἀκούσια, the epithet of the agent being transferred to the act: see on 1215.
μάλιστα
because there is not the consolation of recognising an inevitable destiny: cp.
Soph. Aj. 260
τὸ γὰρ ἐσλεύσσειν οἰκεῖα πάθη | μηδενὸς ἄλλου παραπράξαντος | μεγάλας ὀδύνας ὑποτείνει
: but here
λυποῦσι
refers rather to the spectators than to the sufferers.
αἳ
for
αἳ ἄν, as oft. in poetry (
Soph. OC 395
etc.), rarely in prose,
Thuc. 4.17
οὗ μὲν βραχεῖς ἀρκῶσι,
18
οἵτινες … νομίσωσι.
λείπει
fail: Polyb. 2. 14
ἡ τῶν Ἄλπεων παρώρεια … προκαταλήγουσα λείπει τοῦ μὴ συνάπτειν αὐτῷ, the chain of the Alps, stopping short, fails of touching (the inmost recess of the Adriatic).
μὴ οὐ
because of
οὐδὲ
with
λείπει
: the added
τὸ
makes the idea of the infin. stand out more independently of
λείπει
: cp. 283.
‐ᾔδειμεν, which the MSS. give, should be kept. It was altered to
ᾔδεμεν by Elms. on
Eur. Ba. 1345
ὄψ’ ἐμάθεθ’ ἡμᾶς, ὅτε δ’ ἐχρῆν, οὐκ ᾔδετε
: where the
εἴδετε of the MSS. is possible, but less probable.
Aeschin. 3.82
has
ᾔδειμεν:
Dem. 55.9
ᾔδειτε.
See
Curtius Verb 11.239
, Eng. tr. 432, who points out that the case of the
third pers. plur. is different: for this, the forms in
εσαν (as
ᾔδεσαν)
alone have good authority.
θεῖον
epic epithet of kings and chiefs, as in
Il. of Achilles, Odysseus, Oileus, Thoas, etc., also of heralds, and in
Od. of minstrels, as
δῖος
Hom. Od. 16.1
of Eumaeus:
Plat. Phaedrus 234d
συνεβάκχευσα μετὰ σοῦ τῆς θείας κεφαλῆς
( “your worship ”). For
πρὸς
here see note on 493 ad fin.
οὐ πάρα
=
οὐ πάρεστιν ὑμῖν: ye have not been eye-witnesses, as I have been.
κἀν ἐμοὶ
“e'en in me, ” —though
your own memory, had you been present, would have preserved a more vivid impression than I can give: cp.
Plat. Alc. 1 127e
ἂν θεὸς ἐθέλῃ εἴ τι δεῖ καὶ τῇ ἐμῇ μαντείᾳ πιστεύειν, σύ τε κἀγὼ βέλτιον σχήσομεν.
ἐν—ἔνι
(=
ἔνεστἰ, as
ἐνεῖναι ἐν
Aristoph. Kn. 1132
etc. We are to suppose that, when she rushed from the scene in her passionate despair (1072), Iocasta passed through the central door of the palace
(βασίλειος θύρἀ into the
θυρών, a short passage or hall, opening on the court
(αὐλή) surrounded by a colonnade
(περίστυλον). Across this court she hurried to the
θάλαμος or bedroom of the master and mistress of the house, and shut herself into it. Presently Oedipus burst into the court with that cry of which we heard the first accents (1182) as he fled from the scene (
βοων εἰσέπαισεν
,1252). The messenger and others who were in the court watch him in terror as he raves for a sword and asks for Iocasta. Then the thought strikes him that she is in the
θάλαμος. He bursts into it (
ἐνήλατο
1261). They follow. There they find Iocasta dead, and see Oedipus blind himself.
εὐθὺ
“straight,” is obviously more forcible here than
εὐθύς, “without delay”; a distinction to which
Eur. Hipp. 1197
τὴν εὐθὺς Ἄργους κἀπιδαυρίας ὁδόν
is an exception rare in classical Attic. Nauck, with tasteless caprice, writes
εὐθὺς ἐς.
ἀμφιδεξίοις
here = not simply “
both,” but “
belonging to both hands” (for
ἀκμαῖς
alone would scarcely have been used for “hands ”): so in
Soph. OC 1112
ἐρείσατε πλευρὸν ἀμφιδέξιον
can mean, “press your sides to mine
on either hand.”
ἀμφιδέξιος usu. means “equally deft with either hand ” (
ambidexter), opp. to
ἀμφαρίστερος, “utterly gauche ” (Ar. fr. 432): hence “ambiguous ” (of an oracle,
Hdt. 5.92
). The Sophoclean use has at least so much warrant from etymology that
δεξιά, from
δεκ with added
ς, prop. meant merely “the catcher” or “receiver”: see
Curt. Etym. 11.266
.
ἐπιρράξασ’
from
ἐπιρράσσω,
Plut. Mor. 356c
τοὺς δὲ συνόντας ἐπιδραμόντας ἐπιρράξαι τὸ πῶμα,
hastily put the lid on the chest.
Hom. Il. 24.452
θύρην δ’ ἔχε μοῦνος ἐπίβλης | εἰλάτινος, τὸν τρεῖς μὲν ἐπιρρήσσεσκον Ἀχαιοί, | τρεῖς δ’ ἀναοίγεσκον κ.τ.λ.
(from
ἐπιρρήσσὠ. Hesych.
ἐπιρρήσσει. ἐπικλείει.
Plat. Prot. 314c
ἀμφοῖν τοῖν χεροῖν τὴν θύραν … ἐπήραξε
(from
ἐπαράσσὠ. In
Soph. OC 1503
(χάλαζ’) ἐπιρράξασα
is intrans.
τὸν ἤδη Λ. πάλαι νεκρόν
for the order cp.
Soph. OC 1514
αἱ πολλὰ βρονταὶ διατελεῖς
:
Soph. Phil. 1316
:
Soph. El. 183
:
Thuc. 7.23
αἱ πρὸ τοῦ στόματος νῆες ναυμαχοῦσαι
:
Isoc. 4.179
τήν τε περὶ ἡμᾶς ἀτιμίαν γεγενημένην
:
Dem. 18.271
τὴν ἁπάντων … ἀνθρώπων τύχην κοινήν
: esp. with proper names, as
Pind. O. 13.53
τὰν πατρὸς ἀντία Μήδειαν θεμέναν γάμον
:
Soph. El. 283
.
παιδουργίαν
for
παιδουργόν, i.e.
γυναῖκα τεκνοποιόν (
Hdt. 1.59
), abstract for concrete: see on 1
(τροφἤ: cp.
Hom. Od. 3.49
νεώτερός ἐστιν, ὁμηλικίη δέ μοι αὐτῷ (
=
ὁμῆλιξ). Not acc. in appos. with sentence, “an evil way of begetting children, ” because
λίποι | τοῖς οἷσιν αὐτοῦ
, “left
to (or
for) his own, ” would then be very weak.
γοᾶτο
Cp.
Curt. Verb 1.138
, Eng. tr. 92: “It seems to me best on all grounds to suppose that shortly before the rise of the Greek Epic the [syllabic] augment became occasionally exposed to the same tendency towards wearing away (
Verwitterung) which the
ἀ of
ἄρα and the
ἐ of
ἔνερθε could not always withstand; that there were, in short, pairs of forms then in use, one with the augment and one without … The omission of the syllabic augment in Homer was purely a matter of choice … Post-Homeric poetry adopts the power of dispensing with the syllabic augment as an inheritance from its predecessor, and makes the greater use of it in proportion as it is removed from the language of ordinary life. Hence it is that, as is shown by the careful investigations made by Renner (
Stud. 1.2.18 ff.), the omission of the syllabic augment is extremely rare in iambic, and far more common in elegiac and lyric verse. Hence, as is shown (
Stud. 1.2.259) by Gerth, in the dialogue of tragedy the range of this license is very limited indeed, while the majority of instances of it occur in the slightly Epic style of the messengers” speeches, or still more commonly in lyric passages. “ The tragic
ῥήσεις here borrow from a practice more marked in epic
narrative than in epic
speeches. In Homer, where augmented and unaugmented forms are on the whole about equally numerous, the proportion of augmented to unaugmented is in the speeches about 10 to 3, in the narrative about 5 to 7: see Monro,
Hom. Grammar sect. 69.
διπλοῦς
acc. plur., a twofold progeny, viz. (1) Oedipus by Laius
(ἐξ ἀνδρὸς ἄνδρἀ, and (2) her four children by Oedipus
(τέκνα ἐκ τέκνων, where the poetical plur.
τέκνων is for symmetry with
τέκνα, as 1176
τοὺς τεκόντας =
τὸν πατέρἀ.
The order (instead of
ἀπόλλυται, οὐκέτ’ οἶδα
)is a bold ”hyperbaton “: cp.
Soph. OC 1427
τίς δὲ τολμήσει κλύων | τὲ τοῦδ’ ἕπεσθαι τἀνδρός … ;
and
Soph. OC 135 ff.
Blaydes cp.
Eur. Her. 205
σοὶ δ’ ὡς ἀνάγκη τούσδε βούλομαι φράσαι | σῴζειν,
where
σῴζειν ought to come before
βούλομαι.
φοιτᾷ,
moves wildly about. Cp.
Hom. Il. 15.685
ὣς Αἴας ἐπὶ πολλὰ θοάων ἴκρια νηῶν | φοίτα μακρὰ βιβάς—
where he has just been likened to a man
jumping from one horse to another,
θρώσκων ἄλλοτ’ ἐπ’ ἄλλον. So of the sharp, sudden visits of the
νόσος,
Soph. Phil. 808
ὀξεῖα φοιτᾷ καὶ ταχεῖ’ ἀπέρχεται.
Soph. Aj. 59
φοιτῶντ’ ἄνδρα μανιάσιν νόσοις,
“raving.” Curtius (
Curt. Etym. 417
) would refer the word to
φυ, φοιτάω coming from
φοv‐ι‐τα‐ω, “to be often” (in a place).
πορεῖν
is epexegetic of
ἐξαιτῶν
, which governs a double accusative.
—(ἐξαιτῶν)
τε ὅπου κίχοι
, optative, and not subj., because the pres.
φοιτᾷ is historic, representing a deliberative subjunctive,
ποῦ κίχω; Cp. n. on 72
ῥυσαίμην.
Xen. Hell. 7.4.39
ἠπόρει τε ὅ τι χρήσαιτο τῷ πράγματι
: i.e. his thought was,
τί χρήσωμαι;
ἄρουραν
see on 1211.
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀνδρῶν
cp.
Aesch. Ag. 662
ἤτοι τις ἐξέκλεψεν ἢ ξᾘτήσατο | θεός τις, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος
:
Soph. Aj. 243
.
ὡς ὑφηγ
see on 966.
πύλαις διπλαῖς
the folding doors of the
θάλαμος.
Hom. Od. 2.344
(the
θάλαμος of Odysseus)
κληισταὶ δ’ ἔπεσαν σανίδες πυκινῶς ἀραρυῖαι | δικλίδες.
πυθμένων
prop. “bases”:
Aesch. PB 1046
χθόνα δ’ ἐκ πυθμένων | αὐταῖς ῥίζαις πνεῦμα κραδαίνοι.
Here the “bases” of the
κλῇθρα (bolts) are the staples or sockets which held them. They were on the inner side of the doors, which Iocasta had closed behind her (1244). The pressure of Oedipus on the outer side forces the bolts, causing them to bend inwards (
κοῖλα
).So Oedipus, within the house, gives the order
διοίγειν κλῇθρα, 1287. Others understand: ”forced the doors from their hinges or posts “: but this gives an unnatural sense to
κλῇθρα. πυθμένες would then mean the
στρόφιγγες (
Theophr. Hist. Pl. 5.5.4
) or pivots (working in sockets called
στροφεῖς) which served as hinges.
αἰώραισιν
expresses that the suspended body was still oscillating, and is thus more than
ἀρτάναις. αἰώρα (akin to
ἀείρω, ἄορ, ἀορτήρ, ἄωρος “uplifted,”
Hom. Od. 12.89
,
Curt. Etym. 518
) meant a
swing (as in Modern Greek), or
swinging movement:
Plat. Phaedo 111e
ταῦτα δὲ πάντα κινεῖν ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω ὥσπερ αἰώραν τινὰ ἐνοῦσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ,
there is a sort of swinging in the earth which moves all these things up and down;
… αἰωρεῖται δὴ καὶ κυμαίνει ἄνω καὶ κάτω, so they swing and surge:
Plat. Laws 789d
ὅσα τε ὑπὸ ἑαυτῶν (κινεῖταἰ ἢ καὶ ἐν αἰώραις
(in swings)
ἢ καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ἢ καὶ ἐφ’ ἵππων ὀχουμένων. Cp.
Athen. 618e
ἦν δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ ταῖς ἐώραις τις, ἐπ’ Ἠριγόνῃ, ἢν καὶ ἀλῆτιν καλοῦσιν ᾠδήν,
“at the Feast of Swings there was also a song in memory of Erigone, otherwise called the Song of the Wanderer.” The festival was named
ἐῶραι (small images, like the
oscilla offered to Bacchus,
Verg. Georg. 2.389
, being hung from trees) because Erigone had
hanged herself on the tree under which she had found the corpse of her father Icarius; the name
ἀλῆτις alluding to her wanderings in search of him. Hesych. s. v.
ἀλῆτις has
ἐώρα: the gloss of Suidas
(ἐώρα· ὕψωσις ἢ μέταρσις) is from the schol. here.
ἐώρημα for
αἰώρημα (the stage
μηχανἤ occurs in schol.
Aristoph. Peace 77
.
αἰωρα
, however, is the only form for which there is good authority of the classical age. [Eustathius on
Hom. Il. 3.108
says:
ἠερέθεσθαι δὲ κυρίως μὲν τὸ ἐν ἀέρι κρέμασθαι, ἐξ οὗ καὶ ἡ αἰώρα. ὅτι δὲ ἡ ῥηθεῖσα αἰώρα καὶ διὰ τοῦ ε ψιλοῦ ἔχει τὴν ἄρχουσαν, ὡς δηλοῖ οὐ μόνον τὸ πλεκταῖς ἐώραις ἐμπεπλεγμένην, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ μετέωρος, ἕτεροι ἐπαγωνιζέσθωσαν. Prof. Kennedy quotes this to prove ”the classical use of
ἐώρα. “ But it rather indicates that this verse furnished the only classical example of
ἐώρα known to Eustathius; and there is no proof that here he was following an older or better MS. than L.]
ἐμπεπληγμένεν
(see crit. n.) would mean ”having dashed herself into … “: but this can hardly be justified by the intrans. use of the active,
Hom. Od. 22.468 ff.
ὅταν … πέλειαι | ἕρκει ἐνιπλήξωσι
: nor is it appropriate here in reference to the hanging corpse.
γῇ,
locative dat.: see on 20: cp. 1451
ναίειν ὄρεσιν.
δεινὰ δ’
For
δέ introducing the apodosis after a temporal protasis (even when it is a short one), cp.
Hom. Od. 7.46
ἀλλ’ ὅτε δὴ βασιλῆος ἀγακλυτὰ δώμαθ’ ἵκοντο, | τοῖσι δὲ μύθων ἦρχε θεὰ γλαυκῶπις Ἀθήνη
: and
Hom. Od. 7.184
ἐπεὶ σπεῖσάν τ’ ἔπιόν θ’ ὅσον ἤθελε θυμός, | τοῖσιν δ’ Ἀλκίνοος ἀγορήσατο.
περόνας
(called
πόρπαι by
Eur. Phoen. 62
), brooches with long pins which could serve as small daggers: one fastened Iocasta's
ἱμάτιον on her left shoulder, and another her Doric
χιτών on the right shoulder, which the
ἱμάτιον did not cover. The Doric
χιτών was sleeveless, and usually made with a slit at each shoulder, requiring the use of brooches. (Cp. Guhl and Koner,
Life of the Greeks and Romans, p. 162 Eng. tr.) In “The Harvard Greek Play” (1882), plate 11. p. 26 represents Iocasta with the
ἱμάτιον thus worn. Cp.
Hdt. 5.87
, where the Athenian women surround the sole survivor of the expedition to Aegina,
κεντεύσας τῇσι περόνῃσι τῶν ἱματίων, and so slay him. Thus too in
Eur. Hec. 1170
the women blind Polymestor;
πόρπας λαβοῦσαι τὰς ταλαιπώρους κόρας | κεντοῦσιν, αἱμάσσουσιν.
ἄρθρα
can only mean the sockets of the eye-balls (
κύκλων
). “He struck his eye-balls in their sockets,” is a way of saying that he struck them full.
ἄρθρα could not mean
κόρας (pupils), as the schol. explains it. Eur. has another bold use of the word,
Eur. Cycl. 624
σιγᾶτε πρὸς θεῶν, θῆρες, ἡσυχάζετε, | συνθέντες ἄρθρα στόματος,
i.e. shut your
lips and be still.
οὐκ ὄψοιντο
κ.τ.λ. His words were:
—οὐκ ὄψεσθέ με οὔθ’ ὁποῖ’ ἔπασχον οὔθ’ ὁποῖ’ ἔδρων κακά, ἀλλ’ ἐν σκότῳ τὸ λοιπὸν οὓς μὲν οὐκ ἔδει ὄψεσθε, οὓς δ’ ἔχρῃζον οὐ γνώσεσθε: Ye shall not see the evils which I was (unconsciously) suffering and doing [as defiled and defiling], but in darkness henceforth ye shall see those whom ye ought never to have seen [Iocasta and his children], and fail to know those whom I longed to know [his parents, Laius and Iocasta]. -
ἔπασχεν … ἔδρα … ἔδει … ἔχρῃζεν can represent nothing but imperfects of the direct discourse: had they represented presents, they must have been
πάσχει, etc., or else
πάσχοι, etc.
ἔπασχεν … ἔδρα
mean “was suffering,” “was doing” all this time, while ye failed to warn me; and express the reciprocal, though involuntary, wrong of the incestuous relation, with its consequences to the offspring. (Cp.
Soph. Ant. 171
παίσαντές τε καὶ | πληγέντες αὐτόχειρι σὺν μιάσματι.)
ἐν σκότῳ … ὀψοίαθ’, i.e.
οὐκ ὄψονται: see on 997. The other verbs being plural (with
κύκλοι for subject), the subject to
ἔχρῃζεν cannot be
ἄρθρα κύκλων, but only Oed. He had craved to learn his true parentage (782 ff.).
ὀψοίατο, γνωσοίατο
, Ionic, as
Soph. OC 44
δεξαίατο,
921
πυθοίατο, 945
δεξοίατο:
Soph. El. 211
ἀποναίατο
:
Aesch. Pers. 369
φευξοίατο,
451
ἐκσωζοίατο:
Eur. Her. 547
ἐκτισαίατο
:
Eur. Hel. 159
ἀντιδωρησαίατο.
So
Thuc. 3.13
can say
ἐφθάραται Ἀθηναῖοι … αἱ δ’ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν τετάχαται (and 4. 31, 5. 6, 7. 4).
ἐφυμνῶν
of imprecation, as
Soph. Ant. 1305
κακὰς | πράξεις ἐφυμνήσασα τῷ παιδοκτόνῳ
: here the idea of
repetition is also suggested: cp.
Soph. Aj. 292
βαί’ ἀεὶ δ’ ὑμνούμενα
: so Lat.
canere, decantare. Cp.
Soph. Ant. 52
ὄψεις ἀράξας αὐτὸς αὐτουργῷ χερί
.
ὁμοῦ
= at each blow (hence imperf.
ἔτεγγον
):but in 1278
ὁμοῦ = all at once, not drop by drop (
ἀστακτί, and not
στάγδην). See on 517 (
φέρον). The best choice lies between Heath's
ὄμβρος χαλάζης αἱματοῦς
and Porson's
ὄμβρος χάλαζά θ’ αἱματοῦσσ’
. The fact that all the MSS. have
χαλάζης
and that most (including L, A) have
αἵματος
favours Heath's reading, which is also the stronger. Dindorf prefers Porson's on the ground that such forms as
αἰματοῦς, αἱματοῦν are rarer than the feminine forms; but this seems an inadequate reason. Seneca's free paraphrase (
Oed. 978
rigat ora foedus imber, et lacerum caput Largum revulsis sanguinem venis vomit) affords no clue as to his text of Sophocles.
μέλας ὄμβρος αἱματοῦς χαλάζης
= a shower of dark blood-drops rushing down as fiercely as hail: cp.
Soph. OC 1502
ὀμβρία | χάλαζ’ ἐπιρράξασα.
Pindar has
ἐν πολυφθόρῳ … Διὸς ὄμβρῳ | ἀναρίθμων ἀνδρῶν χαλαζάεντι φόνῳ (
Pind. I. 4.49
) of a slaughter in which deathblows are rained thick as hail; and so
χάλαζαν αἵματος (
Pind. I. 6.27
): so that the resemblance is only verbal. Soph. cannot have written these two verses as they stand; and the fault is doubtless in 1280. Porson's
οὐχ ἑνὸς μόνου
. though plausible, is in sense somewhat weak, and does not serve to connect 1280 with 1281. In the conjecture,
οὐ μόνου κάτα
, the force of the prep. is suitable to the image of a descending torrent which overwhelms: and for its place cp.
Soph. Aj. 969
τί δῆτα τοῦδ’ ἐπεγγελῷεν ἂν κάτα;
Soph. Aj. 302
λόγους … τοὺς μὲν Ἀτρειδῶν κάτα.
ὁ πρὶν
= which they had till lately:
παλαιὸς
, because the house of the Labdacidae was
ἀρχαιόπλουτος; tracing its line to Cadmus and Agenor, 268.
δικαίως
in a true sense: cp. 853.
Instead of
κακὰ πάντα, ὅσα ὀνομάζεται, πάρεστιν, we have
ὅσ’ ἐστὶ πάντων ὀνόματα
,
(τούτων)
οὐδέν ἐστ’ ἀπόν
:
ὄνομα κακοῦ standing for
κακὸν ὀνομαζόμενον. So
Aesch. PB 210
Γαῖα, πολλῶν ὀνμάτων μορφὴ μία
=
μορφὴ μία θεᾶς πολλαχῶς ὀνομαζομένης.
ἔν τινι
is right. Even if
τίς σχολὴ κακοῦ could mean “
what form of respite from misery?”
τίνι would be less suitable. The Chorus mean: “and is he now calmer?” —to which the answer is that he is
still vehemently excited.
μητέρ’
(Schneidewin), suggested by
Aristoph. Wasps 1178
, would debase this passage.
δόμοις ἀραῖος
fraught with a curse for the house, making it accursed,
ὡς ἠράσατο
, in terms of his own curse (238
μήτ’ εἰσδέχεσθαι μήτε προσφωνεῖν, κ.τ.λ.), according to which anyone who was knowingly
ξυνέστιος with the criminal incurred the like curse as he (270). Cp.
Eur. Med. 608
καὶ σοῖς ἀραία γ’ οὖσα τυγχάνω δόμοις,
i.e. bring a curse on it.
Eur. IT 778
(κόμισαί μἐ … ἢ σοῖς ἀραία δώμασιν γενήσομαι.
Aesch. Ag. 236
φθόγγον ἀραῖον οἴκοις.
Not
μενῶν δόμοις
, as though the dat. were locative, like
γῇ, 1266.
ἢ φέρειν
Eur. Hec. 1107
κρείσσον’ ἢ φέρειν κακά
: the fuller constr.,
Hdt. 3.14
μέζω κακὰ ἢ ὥστε ἀνακλαίειν.
The subject to
δείξει
is Oedipus. Cp.
Soph. Aj. 813
χωρεῖν ἕτοιμος, κοὐ λόγῳ δείξω μόνον.
Soph. OC 146
δηλῶ δ’
: “and I prove it” (viz. that I am wretched), like
τεκμήριον δέ. In
Aristoph. Eccl. 933
δείξει γε καὶ σοί· τάχα γὰρ εἶσιν ὡς ἐμέ,
a person just mentioned is the subject of both verbs, as just afterwards we have,
Aristoph. Eccl. 936
,
δείξει τάχ’ αὐτός. On the other hand the verb seems really impersonal in
Aristoph. Frogs 1261
πάνυ γε μέλη θαυμαστά· δείξει δὴ τάχα
(for the subject cannot well be either
μέλη or Aeschylus): and so in
Hdt. 2.134
διέδεξε,
it was made clear: as
Hdt. 2.117
δηλοῖ,
it is manifest. In
Hdt. 3.82
, however, the subject to
διέδεξε may be
μουναρχίη. Cp.
Plat. Hipp. Maj. 288b
εἰ δ’ ἐπιχειρήσας ἔσται καταγέλαστος, αὐτὸ δείξει
(the event will show): cp.
Plat. Theaet. 200e
, and see on 341. The central door of the palace is now opened. Oedipus comes forth, leaning on attendants; the bloody stains are still upon his face.
οἷον ἐποικτίσαι
proper for one to pity,
καὶ στυγοῦντα
, even though he abhors it. The infin. with
οἷος, as with other adjectives of ability or fitness
(ἱκανός, ἐπιτήδειος, etc.): so, too, with
ὅσος as = sufficient ”:
Xen. Anab. 4.1.5
ἐλείπετο τῆς νυκτὸς ὅσον σκοταίους διελθεῖν τὸ πεδίον.
Cp.
Soph. Trach. 672
: fr. 598. 8
φεῦ· κἂν ἀνοικτίρμων τις οἰκτίρειέ νιν.A
κομμός (see p. 9). The Chorus begin with anapaests (1297 -1306). The first words uttered by Oedipus are in the same measure (1307 -1311). Then, after a single iambic trimeter spoken by the Chorus (1312), (1)
1st strophe 1313-1320 = (2)
1st antistrophe 1321-1328; (3)
2nd strophe 1329 -1348 = (4)
2nd antistrophe 1349-1368. Oedipus here speaks in dochmiac measures blended with iambic; the Chorus, in iambic trimeters or dimeters only. The effect of his passionate despair is thus heightened by metrical contrast with a more level and subdued strain of sorrow. Compare
Soph. Aj. 348-429
, where the
κομμός has in this sense a like character. Some regard the
κομμός as beginning only at 1313; less correctly, I think. Its essence is the antiphonal lament rather than the antistrophic framework.
ὅσα … προσέκυρσα
I know no other example of an accus. after
προσκυρεῖν, which usu. takes the dat.: but the compound can at least claim the privilege of the simple
κυρεῖν. The neut. plur. accus. of
pronouns and
adjectives can stand after
τυγχάνειν and
κυρεῖν, not as an accus. directly governed by the verb, but rather as a species of cognate or adverbial accus.:
Soph. Phil. 509
ἆθλ’ οἷα μηδεὶς τῶν ἐμῶν τύχοι φίλων
:
Soph. OC 1106
αἰτεῖς ἃ τεύξει
(which need not be explained by attraction):
Aesch. Lib. 711
τυγχάνειν τὰ πρόσφορα,
Aesch. Lib. 714
κυρούντων … τὰ πρόσφορα
:
Eur. Phoen. 1666
οὐ γὰρ ἂν τύχοις τάδε
: cp. Munro on
Aesch. Ag. 1228 ff.
οἶα … τεύξεται
in
Journ. Phil. 11.134. In
Eur. Hipp. 746
τέρμονα κύρων
is not similar, since
κύρων = “reaching, ” and the accus. is like that after
ἀφικνεῖσθαι.
ὁ πηδήσας … μοίρᾳ;
“who is the deity that hath sprung upon thy hapless life with a leap greater than the longest leap?” i.e. “has given thee sorrow which almost exceeds the imaginable limit of human suffering? ” For
μείζονα τῶν μακίστων
see on 465
ἄρρητ’ ἀρρήτων. The idea of a malignant god leaping
from above on his victim is frequent in Greek tragedy: see on 263. But here
μακίστων
, as in 311
ἵνα, combines the notion of swooping from above with that of leaping
to a far point, — as with Pindar
μακρὰ … ἅλματα (
Pind. N. 5.19
) denote
surpassing poetical efforts. We should then conceive the
δυσδαίμων μοῖρα, the ill-fated life, as an attacked region,
far into which the malign god springs. Here we see a tendency which may sometimes be observed in the imagery (lyric especially) of Sophocles: the
image is slightly crossed and blurred by the interposing notion of the
thing: as here he was thinking, “what suffering
could have gone further?” See on
δῑ αἰθέρα τεκνωθέντες, 866. With Aeschylus, on the other hand, the obscurity of imagery seldom or never arises from indistinctness of outline, but more often from an opposite cause, —the vividly objective conception of abstract notions.
πρὸς
with dat., after a verb of throwing or falling, is warranted by epic usage:
Hom. Od. 5.415
μήπως μ’ ἐκβαίνοντα βάλῃ λίθακι ποτὶ πέτρῃ | κῦμα μέγ’ ἅρπαξαν
:
Hom. Il. 20.420
λιαζόμενον προτὶ γαίῃ,
sinking to earth.
Soph. Aj. 95
πρὸς … στρατῷ,
97
πρὸς Ἀτρείδαισιν are different, since no motion is strictly implied. Here the conjecture
ἐπὶ is metrically admissible (
Aesch. Ag. 66
κάμακος θήσων Δαναοῖσι,
Aesch. Pers. 48
φοβερὰν ὄψιν προσιδέσθαἰ,
but needless. The Attic
δύστην’
harmonises with
σῇ (1302) and
φρίκην (1306), while
δύσταν’ would hardly be confirmed by
μακίστων, since Tragedy used the latter form, and not
μήκιστος, in dialogue also (Aesch. fr. 275: cp.
Aesch. Ag. 289
: so
Aesch. Pers. 698
μακιστῆρἀ.
The use of Attic forms by the Chorus helps to bring out the more passionate lyric tone which Doricisms lend to the words of Oedipus (1307 f.). Cp. n. on
Soph. Ant. 804 ff.
The fate of Oedipus is a dark and dreadful mystery into which they are fain to peer (
ἀνερέσθαι, πυθέσθαι
: cp. the questions at 1299 ff., 1327): in its visible presentment it has a fascination (
ἀθρῆσαι
)even for those whom it fills with horror.
διαπέταται
(MSS.) is unquestionably corrupt. The view that these are anapaests of the “freer kind ” ( “ex liberioribus, ” Herm.) does not explain a verse which is not anapaestic at all.
διαπωτᾶται
is far the most probable remedy. The epic
πωτᾶσθαι, which Pind. uses, is admissible in lyrics. When there is no caesura after the 2nd foot, there is usually one in the 3rd: cp. however
Aesch. PB 172
καί μ’ οὔ τι μελιγλώσσοις πειθους
: and
Aristoph. Birds 536
,
Aristoph. Peace 1002
. Cp.
Soph. OC 1771
διακωλύσω | μεν ἰόντα φόνον.
The wilder and more rugged effect of such a rhythm makes it preferable here to
φθογγὰ φοράδην διαπωτᾶται, though the hiatus before
ἰὼ (in 1311) would be justified by the pause. To the conjecture
πέτεται
(or
πέταται
)it may be objected that the notion of dispersed sounds supports the compound with
διά. Hermann simply omitted
διαπέταται, dividing thus:
αἰαῖ—| δύστανος—| τλάμων; πᾶ μοι φθογγὰ φοπάδην; Bergk,
πᾶ μοι | φθογγά; διά μοι πέταται φοράδην. Schneidewin (ed. Nauck)
πᾶ μοι φθογγά; | φοράδην, ὦ δαῖμον, ἐνήλω.
φοράδην
= “in the manner of that which is carried ”; here correlative to
φέρεσθαι as said of things which are
swept onward by a tide or current: thus, of persons deficient in self-restraint,
Plat. Theaet. 144b
ᾄττοντες φέρονται ὥσπερ τὰ ἀνερμάτιστα πλοῖα,
they are hurried away on currents like boats without ballast:
Plat. Crat. 411c
ῥεῖν καὶ φέρεσθαι
:
Plat. Rep. 496d
πνεῦμα φερόμενον.
He has newly lost the power of seeing those to whom he speaks. He feels as if his voice was
borne from him on the air in a direction over which he has no control. With the use of the adverb here, cp.
βάδην, δρομάδην, σύδην. Elsewhere
φοράδην
is parallel with
φέρεσθαι as = to be carried, instead of walking:
Eur. Andr. 1166
φοράδην … δῶμα πελάζει,
i.e. borne in a litter:
Dem. 54.20
ὑγιὴς ἐξελθὼν φοράδην ἦλθον οἴκαδε.
Such adverbs in
‐δην, which were probably accusatives cognate to the notion of the verb, are always formed from the verbal stem, (a) directly, like
βά‐δην, or (b) with modified vowel and inserted
α, like
φοράδην instead of
* φερδην, σποράδην instead of
* σπερδην.
ἐξήλου
In a paroemiac, the foot before the catalectic syllable is usually an anapaest, seldom, as here
(ἐξήλ—), a spondee: but cp.
Aesch. Pers. 33
ἵππων τ’ ἐλατὴρ Σωσθανης
:
Aesch. Supp. 7
ψήφῳ πόλεως γνωσθεῖσαι
:
Aesch. Supp. 976
βάξει λαῶν ἐν χώρῳ
:
Aesch. Ag. 366
βέλος ἠλίθιον σκήψειεν.
L and A are of the MSS. which give
ἐξήλου
: and good MS. authority supports
ἐνήλου in
Aesch. Pers. 516
,
εἰσαλοίμην in Soph. fr. 685,
ἥλοντο in
Xen. Hell. 4.4.11
. The evidence, so far as it goes, seems to indicate that, while
ἡλάμην (itself rare in prose) was preferred in the indicative, a form
ἡλόμην was also admitted: see Veitch,
Irreg. Verbs, ed. of 1879. Blaydes gives
ἐξήλω
: Elms. gave
ἐξάλω
, “inaudite
δωρίζων, ” in Ellendt's opinion: but Veitch quotes
Theocr. 17.100
ἐξάλατο.
The imperf.
ἐξήλλου
, which Dindorf, Campbell and others read, was explained by Hermann as =
tendebas, i.e. “whither wast thou
purposing to leap? ” To this I feel two objections: (1) the unfitness of thus representing a swift act: (2) the use of
ἵνα, which means
where. This could not be used with the
imperfect of a verb of motion (as
ἵνα ἔβαινε, instead of
οἷ’, but only with the
perfect, as
ἵνα βέβηκε (i.e. where
is he now) or the aorist when equivalent to the perfect: as
Soph. OC 273
ἱκόμην
(I
have come)
ἵν’ ἱκόμην. So, here, the aor. alone seems admissible:
ἵν’ ἐξήλου
, where
hast thou leaped to, i.e. where
art thou? cp. 1515
ἵν’ ἐξήκεις, and see on 947.
ἀπότροπον
=
ὅ τις ἂν ἀποτρέποιτο (Hesych.): and so
Soph. Aj. 608
τὸν ἀπότροπον ἀΐδηλον Ἅιδαν,
such as all would turn away from, abhorred. Not, “turning away from others,” “solitary,” as
Bion Idyll. 2.2
τὸν ἀπότροπον … Ἔρωτα.
ἐπιπλόμενον
=
ἐπιπελόμενον, pres. part., as
Hom. Od. 7.261
ἐπιπλόμενον ἔτος ἦλθε.
δυσούριστον
is defective by one syllable as compared with 1323
τυφλὸν κηδεύων. Now the second syllable of
κηδεύων is “irrational, ” i.e. it is a long syllable doing metrical duty for a short one (the third of an antibacchius, \h\\h\\v\). Hence in this verse also the penultimate syllable can be either long or short. Hermann's
δυσούριστον ὄν
is therefore metrically admissible. It is, however, somewhat weak, and the sound is most unpleasing. I should rather propose
δυσούριστ’ ἰόν
: for the adverbial neut. plur., cp.
ὑπέροπτα … πορεύεται (883, where see note); for the part.,
Plat. Laws 873e
παρὰ θεοῦ … βέλος ἰόν.
Nauck conjectured
δυσοιώνιστον
. Blaydes gives
δυσεξούριστον
(not found), in the dubious sense of “hard to escape from. ”
κέντρων
not literally the pins of the brooches, (which we can scarcely suppose that he still carried in his hands,) but the stabs which they had dealt: as piercing pangs are
κέντρα,
Soph. Trach. 840
.
ἐν τοσοῖσδε πήμασιν
when thy woes are so many: cp. 893
ἐν τοῖσδ’.
πενθεῖν … καὶ φέρειν
The form of the sentence, in dependence on
θαῦμα οὐδέν, seems to exclude the version: “It is not strange that,
as you bear,
so you should mourn, a double pain ” (parataxis for hypotaxis). Rather the sense is: “that you should
mourn (aloud) and (inwardly)
suffer a double pain ” — i.e., the physical pain of the wounds, and the mental pain of retrospect. I do not agree with Schneidewin in referring
διπλᾶ πενθεῖν
to the double
οἴμοι (1316 f.) as = “make a twofold lament.” The
φέρειν
of A must be right.
φορεῖν can stand for
φέρειν “to carry” when habitual carrying is implied (
Hdt. 3.34
, and of bearers in
Soph. Trach. 965
): or fig., of mental habit (
ἦθος φορεῖν
Soph. Ant. 705
): but
φορεῖν κακά could only mean “to carry ills about with thee ”; which is not appropriate here.
μόνιμος
steadfast:
Xen. Cyrop. 8.5.11
οἱ μονιμώτατοι πρόσθεν ὄντες
(said of hoplites). Cp.
Soph. Aj. 348 ff.
where Ajax addresses the Chorus as
μόνοι ἐμῶν φίλων, | μόνοι ἐμμένοντες ἔτ’ ὀρθῷ νόμῳ.A distinct echo of
Hom. Il. 24.563
καὶ δὲ σὲ γιγνώσκω, Πρίαμε, φρεσίν, οὐδέ με λήθεις.
Besides
λήθω, λήσω, λέληθα, Soph. has
ἔληθον (
Soph. El. 1359
). Cp.
Soph. OC 891
, where Oed. recognises the voice of Theseus.
σκοτεινός
cp.
Soph. Aj. 85
ἐγὼ σκοτώσω βλέφαρα καὶ δεδορκότα.
Ἀπόλλων
The memory of Oedipus (cp. 1318) is connecting the oracle given to him at Delphi (789) with the mandate which afterwards came thence (106). Apollo was the author of the doom (
τελῶν
),but the instrument of execution (
ἔπαισε
)was the hand of Oedipus.
ὁ κακὰ κακὰ
κ.τ.λ. The dochmiac metre is sound (see Metrical Analysis): it is
νομάδος in the antistrophe (1350) which is corrupt. Prof. Campbell, however, retaining the latter, here changes the second
κακὰ
to
κακῶς, and the first
ἐμὰ
to
ἐμοί. The iteration of
τάδε, κακὰ, ἐμὰ
is in a style which the lyrics of tragedy admitted where vehement agitation was expressed. Euripides carried it to excess. But here, at least, it is in place.
νιν
τὰς ὄψεις (1328).
—οὔτις (ἄλλος),
ἀλλ’
: cp.
Hom. Od. 8.311
ἀτὰρ οὕ τί μοι αἴτιος ἄλλος | ἀλλὰ τοκῆε δύω.
Schneid. cp.
Hom. Il. 21.275
ἄλλος δ’ οὔτις μοι τόσον αἴτιος οὐρανιώνων | ἀλλὰ
[instead of
ὅσον] φίλη μήτηρ.The simple mode of expression would have been:
τί ἐμοὶ ἡδέως βλεπτόν, ἢ στερκτόν, ἢ ἀκουστὸν ἔτ’ ἐστίν; what henceforth can be pleasurably seen, or loved, or heard by me? But instead of the third clause, we have
ἢ προσήγορον | ἔτ’ ἔστ’ ἀκούειν ἡδονᾷ, “or what greeting is it longer possible for me to hear with pleasure? ”
προσήγορον
, passive in
Soph. Phil. 1353
, is here active, as in
Soph. Ant. 1185
Παλλάδος θεᾶς | ὅπως ἱκοίμην εὐγμάτων προσήγορος
.
ἡδονᾷ, modal dat. adverbially, as
ὀργῇ 405. The form
ἡδονάν, intermediate between Attic
ἡδονήν and Doric
ἁδονάν, is given by L in
Soph. El. 1277
, where Herm. keeps it, but most edd. give
ἁδονάν. If right, it was a compromise peculiar to tragedy. The Doricism of scenic lyrics was not thoroughgoing: here, for instance, we have
τλάμων (1333) yet
προσήγορον (1338).
ἐκτόπιον
cp. 1411
θαλάσσιον, and see Appendix on v. 478.
τὸν μέγ’ ὀλέθριον
is a certain correction of the MS.
τὸν ὀλέθριον μέγαν (or
μέγἀ, a corruption due to the omission and subsequent marginal insertion of
μέγα. Cp.
Hom. Il. 1.158
ὦ μέγ’ ἀναιδές
: 16. 46
μέγα νήπιος:
Soph. Phil. 419
μέγα | θάλλοντες.
The antistrophic words are
αὐτὸς ἔφυν τάλας (1363).
ὀλέθριον
, pass., “lost, ” as
Soph. Trach. 878
τάλαιν’ ὀλεθρία. τίνι τρόπῳ θανεῖν σφε φής;
The objections to the conject.
ὄλεθρον μέγαν
(metrically admissible as a dochmiac, if the second of
ὄλεθρον is made short) are: (1) the awkward necessity of supplying
ὄντα in order to defend the position of
μέγαν: (2) the phrase
ὄλεθρον, which belongs to the colloquial vocabulary of abuse;
Dem. 18.127
περίτριμμα ἀγορᾶς, ὄλεθρος γραμματεύς.
He is to be pitied alike for the intrinsic misery of his fate, and for his full apprehension
(συνέσεως, schol.) of it. A clouded mind would suffer less.
ἂν
with
ἠθέλησα· γε
emphasises
μηδέ
. Oedipus had been the all-admired (8), the “saviour of the land ” (48). But now the Theban elders wish that they had never so much as heard his name or looked upon his face. That bitter cry is drawn from them by the very strength of their sympathy: for his ruin was the result of his coming to Thebes. The objections to the reading of the MSS.,
ὥς σ’ ἠθέλησα μηδ’ ἀναγνῶναί ποτε
, are these: (1)
Eur. Hel. 290
has the 1st aor. pass.,
ἀνεγνώσθημεν ἄν, “we should have been recognised ”: but
ἀναγιγνώσκειν occurs nowhere else in tragedy; and in Attic its regular sense was “to read,” or in the 1st aor. act., “to persuade.” I have not found a single example of
ἀναγιγνώσκω as =
ἀναγνωρίζω ( “to recognise ”) in Thuc., Plato, Xen., or the Orators. (2) But the 2nd aor. has that sense in Homer, in
Pind. I. 2.23
and in
Hdt. 2.91
: may not an Attic poet have followed them? Granted. The sense required here, however, after
μηδέ
, is to
know, not to
recognise: the latter would be pointless. (3) The ellipse of
ἄν with the aor.
ἠθέλησα would be strangely harsh. Such an ellipse with the
imperf. sometimes occurs: as
Antiph. 5.1
ἐβουλόμην
(and so
Aristoph. Frogs 866
),
Antiph. 5.86
ἠξίουν.
But if, as seems clear,
ἄν is
required here, then the probability is strengthened that
ἀναγνῶναι
arose from
ἂν γνῶναι
. Between Dindorf's
ὡς ἠθέλησα μηδέ σ’ ἂν γνῶναι
and Hermann's
ὥς σ’ ἠθέλησα μηδέ γ’ ἂν γνῶναι
the question is: Which is more likely to have passed into the reading of the MSS.? Now they have
ὥς σ’
, and the loss of
γ’
through a confusion with the same letter in
γνῶναι
is slightly more probable than the double error of omitting
σ’
before
ἂν
and inserting it after
ὡς.The
νομάδος
of the MSS. is corrupt. It would require an improbable alteration in the strophe (see on 1330); and it yields no good sense. The Scholiasts hesitated between rendering it (1) “feeding on my flesh ”! or (2) “in the pastures.” Reading
νομάδ’
, we have a dochmiac dimeter, agreeing with 1330: see Metrical Analysis. But the use of the word is extraordinary. It must mean
ἐν νομαῖς, “in the pastures”—said of the babe whom the shepherd had been ordered to expose on Cithaeron. Now elsewhere
νομάς always means “
roaming,” said (e.g.) of pastoral tribes, or of animals:
Soph. Trach. 271
ἵππους νομάδας ἐξιχνοσκοπῶν,
tracking horse
that had strayed: fr. 87
νομὰς δέ τις κεροῦσσ’ ἀπ’ ὀρθίων πάγων | καθεῖρπεν ἔλαφος: of waters
wandering over the land which they irrigate,
Soph. OC 686
κρῆναι … | Κηφισοῦ νομάδες ῥεέθρων.
The idea of wandering movement is inseparable from the word. To apply it to a babe whose feet were pinned together would have been indeed a bold use. Prof. Campbell, retaining
νομάδος, takes
πέδας as acc. plur.: “that loosed the cruel clog upon my feet,
when I was sent astray.” But could
νομάς, ‘roaming, ’ be said of the maimed child merely in the sense of ‘
turned adrift’ by its parents? The nomin.
νομὰς
, referring to the roving shepherd (
πλάνης 1029) would be intelligible; but the quadruple
‐ας is against it. Now cp.
Aesch. Pers. 734
μονάδα δὲ Ξέρξην ἔρημον,
“Xerxes alone and forlorn. ” Simply transposing
ν and
μ I conjecture
μονάδ’
, a word appropriate to the complaint that the babe, sent to the lonely mountain, had not been left to perish in its solitude. The fact that the Corinthian shepherd received the child from the Theban is no objection: the child was
φίλων μεμονωμένος, desolate and forlorn.
ἔλυσ’
, which suits the dochmiac as well as
ἔλαβέ μ’, is more forcible here. There is a further argument for it. The MSS. give
ἀπ’ ἀγρίας in 1349, but the strophe (1329) shows that
ἀπ’ must be omitted, since
Ἀπόλλων, φίλοι =
ὃς ἀγρίας πέδας
, the first syllable of
ἀγρίας
being short, as in 1205,
Soph. Ant. 344
, 1124. Now
πέδας
(i.e.
πέδης)
ἔλαβε
,
took from the fetter, would be too harsh: we could only do as Schneidewin did, and refer
ἀπό
back to
πέδας
: but though
Δελφῶν κἀπὸ Δαυλίας (734) admits of such treatment, the case is dissimilar here. On the other hand
πέδας ἔλυσ’
,
loosed from the fetter, is correct. Thus the metrical impossibility of
ἀπ’
confirms
ἔλυσ’
. The epithet
ἀγρία, “cruel, ” is applied to
πέδη as it is to
ὀδύνη in
Soph. Trach. 975
.
ἔρρυτο
a strong aorist of
ῥύω, formed as if there were a present
ῥύμι: in
Hom. Il. 18.515
ῥύατο
for
ῥύντο is its 3rd plur. Cp.
Hom. Il. 5.23
ἔρυτο σάωσε δέ,
where the aor. has a like relation to
ἐρύω (the temporal augment being absent).
εἰς χάριν
see on 1152.
θέλοντι
Soph. OC 1505
ποθοῦντι προὐφάνης
:
Soph. Trach. 18
:
Thuc. 2.3
τῷ γὰρ πλήθει … οὐ βουλομένῳ ἦν … ἀφίστασθαι
:
Tac. Agric. 18
quibus bellum volentibus erat
.
φονεὺς ἦλθον
have come to be the slayer, a compressed phrase for
ἐς τοσοῦτον ἦλθον ὥστε φονεὺς εἶναι: cp. 1519 and
Soph. Ant. 752
ἦ κἀπαπειλῶν ὦδ’ ἐπεξέρχει θρασύς;
Soph. Trach. 1157
ἐξήκεις δ’ ἵνα | φανεῖ.
Hom. Il. 18.180
εἴ κέν τι νέκυς ᾐσχυμμένος ἔλθῃ,
come to be dishonoured (where some explain, “
reach thee dishonoured ”): in
Xen. Anab. 3.2.3
ὅμως δὲ δεῖ ἐκ τῶν παρόντων ἄνδρας ἀγαθοὺς ἐλθεῖν
(so the MSS.:
τελέθειν G. Sauppe)
καὶ μὴ ὑφίεσθαι, the clause
ἐκ τῶν παρόντων helps
ἐλθεῖν as =
evadere. In 1433
ἐλθών is not similar. No classical use of
venire seems really parallel: thus in
Iuv. 7.29
ut dignus venias hederis, venias = “may come forward ” (Mayor ad loc.). (
τούτων)
ἀφ’ ὧν
, i.e.
ταύτης ἀφ’ ἧς: plur., as 1095, 1176, 1250.
ἄθεος
is a necessary correction of the MS.
ἄθλιος
, the verse being a dochmiac dimeter, = 1340
ἀπάγετ’ ἐκτόπιον ὅτι τάχιστά με.
νῦν
answers to the
short first syllable of
ἀπάγετ’
, since the anacrusis can be either long or short: cp.
Aesch. Seven 181
, where
αἰθερία κόνις is metrically parallel to
νῦν δ’ ἄθεος μέν εἰμ’ here. He is
ἀνοσίων
(i.e.
ἀνοσίας) παῖς since through him Iocasta became such.
ὁμογενὴς δ’ ἀφ’ ὧν ἔφυν
=
κοινὸν γένος ἔχων (τούτοις) ἀφ’ ὦν αὐτὸς ἔφυν: i.e. having a common brood (one born of the same wife) with those (Laius) from whom he sprang. For the plur., cp. 366: for
(τούτοις) ὧν,
Soph. Phil. 957
παρέξω δαῖθ’ ὑφ’ ὦν ἐφερβόμην.
ὁμογενὴς
is usu. taken as =
ὁμοῦ γεννῶν, i.e. “engendering ”
ὁμοῦ τῇ τεκούσῃ. But
ὁμογενής is a compound from
ὁμο‐ and the stem of
γένος, and could no more mean
γεννῶν ὁμοῦ than
συγγενής could mean
γεννῶν σὺν, or
ἐγγενής, γεννῶν ἐν. In 460
πατρὸς ὁμόσπορος as =
σπείρων τὴν αὐτὴν ἣν ὁ πατήρ is different, since the second part of the compound adj. represents a transitive verb. Meineke's
ὁμολεχὴς would be better than Musgrave's
ὁμόγαμος: but neither is needed.
πρεσβύτερον
“older,” then, “ranking before”; here, “more serious ”:
Hdt. 5.63
τὰ γὰρ τοῦ θεοῦ πρεσβύτερα ἐποιεῦντο ἢ τὰ τῶν ἀνδρῶν
:
Thuc. 4.61
τοῦτο … πρεσβύτατον … κρίνας, τὸ κοινῶς φοβερὸν ἅπαντας εἶ θέσθαι.
κρείσσων … ἦσθα μηκέτ’ ὤν
=
κρεῖσσον ἦν σε μηκέτ’ εἶναι: see on 1061.
ἄν is omitted, as after
ἔδει, εἰκὸς ἧν, etc.,
κρείσσων ἦσθα μὴ ὤν implying the thought,
οὐκ ἂν ἦσθα, εἰ τὰ βέλτιστα ἔπασχες: see on 256.
ἄριστ’
is adverbial, the construction being
οὐχ ὦδε
(εἰργασμένἀ
ἐστὶν ἄριστα εἰργασμένα
: that, thus done, they are not done best. So
ἄριστα is adverb 407, 1046,
Soph. Aj. 160
.
βλέπων
=
εἰ
ἔβλεπον, which is more forcible than to take it with
ποίοις ὄμμασιν
. Cp.
Soph. Phil. 110
πῶς οὖν βλέπων τις ταῦτα τολμήσει λαλεῖν;
Hdt. 1.37
νῦν τε τέοισί με χρὴ ὄμμασι ἔς τε ἀγορὴν καὶ ἐξ ἀγορῆς φοιτέοντα φαίνεσθαι;
Dem. 25.98
(the work of a later rhetorician)
ποίοις προσώποις ἢ τίσιν ὀφθαλμοῖς πρὸς ἕκαστον τούτων ἀντιβλέψετε; Cp.
Soph. Aj. 462
καὶ ποῖον ὄμμα πατρὶ δηλώσω φανεὶς | Τελαμῶνι;
εἰς Ἅιδου
Blind on earth, Oed. will be blind in the nether world. Cp.
Hom. Od. 12.266
καί μοι ἔπος ἔμπεσε θυμῷ | μάντηος ἀλαοῦ Θηβαίου Τειρεσίαο,
where Odysseus is thinking of the blind Teiresias as he had found him in Hades. Cp.
Hom. Od. 11.91
, where
ἔγνω need not imply that the poet of the
νέκυια conceived Teiresias as having sight. So Achilles in Hades is still
swift-footed (
Hom. Od. 11.546
).
οἶν … δυοῖν
a dative of the persons affected, as, instead of the usual
ποιῶ ταῦτά σε, we sometimes find
ποιῶ ταῦτά σοι: cp.
Soph. Trach. 808
(δρῶσ’)
:
Hom. Od. 14.289
τρώκτης, ὃς δὴ πολλὰ κάκ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ἐώργει.
Plat. Apol. 30a
ταῦτα καὶ νεωτέρῳ καὶ πρεσευτέρῳ … ποιήσω, καὶ ξένῳ καὶ ἀστῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῖς ἀστοῖς.
Plat. Charm. 157c
οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμεν ὅ τι ποιοῖμέν σοι.
Xen. Hiero 7.2
τοιαῦτα γὰρ δὴ ποιοῦσι τοῖς τυράννοις οἱ ἀρχόμενοι καὶ ἄλλον ὅντιν’ ἃν ἀεὶ τιμῶντες τυγχάνωσι.
Aristoph. Wasps 1350
πολλοῖς γὰρ ἤδη χἁτέροις αὔτ’ εἰργάσω.
In
Xen. Anab. 5.8.24
τούτῳ τάναντία ποιήσετε ἢ τοὺς κύνας ποιοῦσι,
there is warrant for
τοῦτον: and in
Isoc. 16.49
μηδὲν ἀγαθὸν ποιήσας τῇ πόλει,
for
τὴν πόλιν.
κρείσσον’ ἀγχόνης
not “
worse than hanging ” (such that, rather than do them, he would have hanged himself): but “
too bad for hanging ” (such that suicide by hanging would not adequately punish their author).
Eur. Hipp. 1217
εἰσορῶσι δὲ | θέαμα κρεῖσσον δεργμάτων ἐφαίνετο,
too dreadful to be looked on:
Aesch. Ag. 1376
ὔψος κρεῖσσον ἐκπηδήματος,
too high to be leaped over.
ἀγχόνης
: cp.
Eur. Alc. 229
:
Aristoph. Ach. 125
ταῦτα δῆτ’ οὐκ ἀγχόνη;
“is not this enough to make one hang oneself? ”
ἀλλ’
introduces (or answers) a supposed objection (the
ὑποφορά of technical Rhetoric):
Andoc. 1.148
τίνα γὰρ καὶ ἀναβιβάσομαι δεησόμενον ὑπὲρ ἐμαυτοῦ; τὸν πατέρα; ἀλλὰ τέθνηκεν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς ἀδελφούς; ἀλλ’ οὐκ εἰσίν. ἀλλὰ τοὺς παῖδας; ἀλλ’ οὔπω γεγένηνται.
τέκνων ὄψις … βλαστοῦσα
=
ὁρώμενα τέκνα βλαστόντα: cp.
Eur. Alc. 967
Θρῄσσαις ἐν σανίσιν τὰς | Ὀρφεία κατέγραψεν γῆρυς,
which the melodious Orpheus wrote down.
ὅπως ἔβλαστε
Eur. Med. 1011
ἤγγειλας οἷ’ ἤγγειλας.
πύργος
the city-wall with its towers and its seven gates (already famous in the
Hom. Od. 11.263
Θήβης ἕδος ἑπταπύλοιὀ.
Cp.
Eur. Ba. 170
Κάδμον … ὃς πόλιν Σιδωνίαν | λιπὼν ἐπύργωσ’ ἄστυ Θηβαῖον τόδε.
Eur. Hec. 1209
πέριξ δὲ πύργος εἶχ’ ἔτι πτόλιν.
ἀγάλμαθ’ ἱερά
the images of the gods in their temples: cp. 20.
τῶν
=
ὧν, as
Soph. Ant. 1086
: cp. 1427. Soph. has this use in many other places of dialogue: see
Soph. OC 747
n.
κάλλιστ’ ἀνὴρ εἷς … τραφείς. εἷς
in connection with a superlative, is strictly correct only where
one is compared with
several: as
Thuc. 8.40
οἱ γὰρ οἰκέται τοῖς Χίοις πολλοὶ ὄντες καὶ μιᾷ γε πόλει πλὴν Λακεδαιμονίων πλεῖστοι γενόμενοι
:
Eur. Heraclid. 8
πλείστων μετέσχον εἶς ἀνὴρ Ἡρακλέει.
So
Soph. Trach. 460
πλείστας ἀνὴρ εἷς … ἔγημε.
But here, where the question is of degree in nobility, it merely strengthens
κάλλιστ’
: cp.
Thuc. 8.68
πλεῖστα εἶς ἀνήρ, ὅστις ξυμβουλεύσαιτό τι, δυνάμενος ὠφελεῖν
: which, notwithstanding
πλεῖστα, is really like our passage, since we cannot suppose a contrast with the collective wisdom of several advisers.
ἔν γε ταῖς θήβαις
the
γε
, by adding a second limitation, helps, like
εἶς ἀνήρ, to emphasise the superlative. If the glories of Thebes can rejoice the sight, no
Theban at least had a better right to that joy: (and who could have a better right than Thebans?)
ἀπεστέρησ’ ἐμαυτόν
a regular phrase in reference to separation from civic life:
Antiph. 5.78
εἰ δ’ ἐν Αἴνῳ χωροφιλεῖ, τοῦτο οὐκ ἀποστερῶν γε τῶν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἑαυτὸν οὐδενὸς
(not forfeiting any of his relations with Athens)
οὐδ’ ἑτέρας πόλεως πολίτης γεγενημένος:
Dem. 13.22
οὐδενὸς ἔργων τῶν τότε ἀπεστέρησαν ἑαυτούς,
the Athenians of those days did not renounce their share in any of the great deeds of the Persian Wars.
τὸν ἀσεβῆ
naturally depends on
ὠθεῖν
. But, if so, it would be very awkward to take
τὸν … φανέντα
κ.τ.λ. with
ἀπεστέρησ’ ἐμαυτόν. Rather
τὸν φανέντα
κ.τ.λ. also depends on
ὠθεῖν
. “Bidding all to expel the impious one, —that man who has
[since] been shown by the gods to be unholy—and of the race of Laius. ” His thought passes from the
unknown person of the edict to
himself, precisely as in 1440 f. The words
καὶ γένους τοῦ Λαΐου
are a climax, since the guilt of bloodshed, which the oracle had first denounced, was thus aggravated by a double horror.
κηλῖδα
see on 833:
μηνύσας
ἐμήν, sc.
οὖσαν.
ὀρθοῖς
see on 528.
τῆς ἀκουούσης … πηγῆς
the
source (viz. the orifice of the ear) from which sounds flow in upon the sense: cp.
Plat. Phaedrus 245c
ψυχή … πηγὴ καὶ ἀρχὴ κινήσεως.
(Not the
stream of sound itself.)
δῑ ὤτων
supplements
τῆς ἀκουούσης πηγῆς by suggesting the channel through which the sounds pass from the fount. Cp. fr. 773
βραδεῖα μὲν γὰρ ἐν λόγοισι προσβολὴ | μόλις δῑ ὠτὸς ἔρχεται τρυπωμένου. ἡ ἀκούουσα πηγή, instead of
ἡ πηγὴ τῆς ἀκούσεως, is said with a consciousness that
πηγή means the organ of hearing, just as we might have
τὰ ἀκούοντα ὦτα. Seneca paraphrases:
utinam quidem rescindere has quirem vias, Manibusque adactis omne qua voces meant Aditusque verbis tramite angusto patet, Eruere possem, gnata: … aures ingerunt, quicquid mihi Donastis, oculi (
Sen. Oed. 226 ff.
).
ἐσχόμην
usu. in this sense with gen., as
Hom. Od. 4.422
σχέσθαι … βίης.
τὸ μή
cp. 1232. The simple
μή, where (as here)
μὴ οὐ is admissible, occurs also in prose, as
Antiph. 4.2.4
οὐδεὶς ἡμῖν λόγος ὑπελείπετο μὴ φονεῦσιν εἶναι.
ἵν ἦ
For
ἦ
(as 1393) see on 1123. The negative
μηδέν
here shows how in this construction
ἵνα
is essentially final, “so that I might have been ”; not = “in which case I should have been ”—for which the negative must have been
οὐδέν. So
ὡς ἔδειξα μήποτε (1392), that I might never have shown. Eur. fr. 442
φεῦ φεῦ τὸ μὴ τὰ πράγματ’ ἀνθρώποις ἔχειν | φωνήν, ἵν’ ἦσαν μηδὲν οἱ δεινοὶ λόγοι.
ἔξω τῶν κακῶν
i.e. undisturbed by those sights and sounds from the outer world which serve to recall past miseries.
The imperf.
ἐδέχου
helps the personification: “wast ready to shelter me. ”
ὡς ἔδειξα
see on 1389, and cp.
Aesch. PB 776
τί … οὐκ ἐν τάχει | ἔρριψ’ ἐμαυτήν … ὅπως πέδῳ σκήψασα τῶν πάντων πόνων | ἀπηλλάγην;
τὰ πάτρια λόγῳ
=
τὰ λόγῳ πάτρια, an order the less harsh since
πάτρια (= of my
fathers, not
πατρῷα, of my
father) is supplemented by
παλαιά
. Cp.
Soph. Aj. 635
ὁ νοσῶν μάταν
:
Soph. El. 792
τοῦ θανόντος ἀρτίως
:
Aesch. PB 1013
τῷ φρονοῦντι μὴ καλῶς
:
Eur. Med. 874
τοῖσι βουλεύουσιν εὖ.
κάλλος κακῶν ὕπουλον
a fair surface, with secret ills festering beneath it (gen.
κακῶν
as after words of fulness, =
κρυπτῶν κακῶν γέμον): because he had seemed most prosperous (775), while the doom decreed from his birth was secretly maturing itself with his growth.
κάλλος
concrete, a fair object,
Xen. Cyrop. 5.2.7
τὴν θυγατέρα, δεινόν τι καλλος καὶ μέγεθος, πενθικῶς δ’ ἔχουσαν.
ὕπουλον
of a sore festering beneath an
οὐλή or scar which looks as if the wound had healed:
Plat. Gorg. 480b
ὅπως μὴ ἐγχρονισθὲν τὸ νόσημα τῆς ἀδικίας ὕπουλον τὴν ψυχὴν ποιήσει καὶ ἀνίατον,
“lest the disease of injustice become chronic, and render his soul
gangrenous and past cure ” (Thompson).
Thuc. 8.64
ὕπουλον αὐτονομίαν,
unsound independence opp. to
τὴν ἄντικρυς ἐλευθερίαν.
Dem. 18.307
ἡσυχίαν ἄγειν ἄδικον καὶ ὕπουλον,
unjust and
insecure peace.
Eustath. Od. 1496.35
Σοφοκλῆς … λέγεται … ὕπουλον εἰπεῖν τὸν δούρειον ἵππον,
the wooden horse at Troy, as concealing foes.
κἀκ κακῶν
like
ἀνοσίων παῖς (1360), with reference to the stain incurred by Iocasta.
His memory recalls the scene as if he were again approaching it on his way from Delphi. First, he descries three roads converging in a deep glen or ravine (
τρεῖς κέλευθοι—κεκρυμμένη νάπη
):then, descending, he comes to a coppice (
δρυμός
)at a point where his own road narrows (
στενωπός
)just before its junction with the two others (
ἐν τριπλαῖς ὁδοῖς
).See on 733. The genuineness of v. 1399 has been groundlessly questioned, on the score of supposed tautology. The language may be compared with that of the verses from the
Oedipus of Aeschylus (fr. 167), quoted in the Introduction.
τοὐμὸν αἷμα
thus divided from
πατρός
, is more than
αἷμα τοὐμοῦ πατρός: “the same blood which flows in my own veins—the blood of my father. ”
For
τι
, which has a tone of bitterness here, see on 124, 969. The
ὅτι of the MSS. must be explained in one of two ways: —(1) as if the construction was irregularly changed by
οἶα, ὁποῖα
: but the immediate succession of
οἶα to
ὅτι makes this intolerably harsh: or (2) as if
οἶα, ὁποῖα
were exclamatory substitutes for
δεινά or the like: which seems inadmissible.
ἀνεῖτε ταὐτοῦ σπέρμα
By the change of one letter, we restore sense to the passage. The
ταὐτὸν
of the MSS. is unintelligible. Oedipus was the
σπέρμα
of Laius and Iocasta. When Iocasta weds Oedipus, the marriage cannot be said
ἀνιέναι ταὐτὸν σπέρμα: for it is absurd to suppose that
the seed sown by Oedipus could be identified with
Oedipus himself. But the marriage can be rightly said
ἀνιέναι ταὐτοῦ σπέρμα, to yield seed
from the same man (Oedipus) whom that womb had borne.
The marriage of Iocasta with Oedipus constituted (
ἀπεδείξατε
)Oedipus at once
father and brother (of his children), while he was also
son (of his wife), … the closest relation in
blood (
αἶμ’ ἐμφύλιον
)becoming also the
husband. The marriage made Iocasta the
bride (
νύμφας
) … aye, and the child-bearing
wife (
γυναῖκας
),—of him to whom she was also
mother (
μητέρας
).Thus, through the birth of children from such a marriage, complex horrors of relationship arose (
ὁπόσα αἴσχιστα ἔργα γίγνεταἰ. αἶμ’ ἐμφύλιον
is in apposition with
πατέρας ἀδελφοὺς παῖδας
,— “a blood-kinship” standing for “a blood-kinsman.” It expresses that the monstrous union confounded the closest tie of
consanguinity with the closest tie of
affinity. The phrase
ἐμφύλιον αἷμα, like
συγγενὲς αἶμα, would in Tragedy more often mean “murder of a kinsman.” But it can, of course, mean also “kindred blood” in another sense; and here the context leaves no ambiguity. Cp.
Soph. OC 1671
(n.)
ἔμφυτον αἷμα,
Eur. Phoen. 246
κοινὸν αἷμα, κοινὰ τέκεα | τῆς κερασφόρου πέφυκεν Ἰοῦς.
ἔξω μέ που | καλύψατ’
the blind man asks that they will lead him away from Thebes, and
hide him from the sight of men in some lonely spot—as amid the wilds of Cithaeron (1451). We must not transpose
καλύψατ’
and
ἐκρίψατ’
, as is done in Schneidewin's ed. (as revised by Nauck), after Burges.
θαλάσσιον
cp. Appendix, note on v. 478. Cp.
Soph. OC 119
n. -
ἔνθα μή
with fut. indic., as
Soph. Aj. 659
,
Soph. El. 380
,
Soph. Trach. 800
.
No one can share the burden of his ills. Other men need not fear to be polluted by contact with him, as with one guilty of blood. His unwitting crimes and his awful sufferings—alike the work of Apollo—place him apart. In illustration of the fear which he seeks to allay, compare the plea of Orestes that, since he has been duly purified from bloodshed, contact with him has ceased to be dangerous (
Aesch. Eum. 285
ὅσοις προσῆλθον ἀβλαβεῖ ξυνουσίᾀ.
—Contrast
Soph. OC 1132 ff.
, where Oed. will not allow his benefactor Theseus to touch him.
There, he feels that he is still formally
ἄναγνος, and that gratitude forbids him to impart a possible taint.
Here, he thinks only of his unique doom and his incommunicable anguish.
ὧν ἐπαιτεῖς ἐς δέον
= seasonably in respect of those things which (
ὧν
=
τούτων ἅ) you ask. For the gen. of relation cp.
Xen. Hell. 6.2.9
κεῖσθαι τὴν Κέρκυραν ἐν καλῷ μὲν τοῦ Κορινθιακοῦ κόλπου καὶ τῶν πόλεων αἳ ἐπὶ τοῦτον καθήκουσιν
( “conveniently in respect to ”),
ἐν καλῷ δὲ τοῦ τὴν Λακωνικὴν χώραν βλάπτειν.
τὸ πράσσειν καὶ τὸ βουλεύειν
are strictly accusatives of respect, “as to the doing and the planning, ” i.e. with a view to doing and planning. So
Soph. Ant. 79
,
Soph. El. 1030
,
Soph. OC 442
,
Soph. Phil. 1253
, etc.
μοῦνος
see on 304. Kuhlstadt (
De Dial. Trag. 104) thinks that Soph. never uses
μοῦνος for
μόνος unless with some special emphasis: but, as Ellendt remarks, such instances as
Soph. OC 875, 991
,
Soph. Ant. 705
, fr. 434 refute that view. Rather it was a simple question of metrical convenience. The same is true of
ξεῖνος and
ξένος, with this exception, that, even where metre admitted
ξέν’, ξεῖν’ occurs as the
first word of an address:
Eur. IT 798
ξεῖν’, οὐ δικαίως.
In
Soph. OC 928
also, L and A give
ξεῖνον παρ’ ἀστοῖς.
τίς μοι φανεῖται πίστις ἔνδικος;
“
what reasonable claim to confidence can be produced on my part?” Oedipus had brought a charge against Creon which was false, and had repudiated a charge against himself which was true. He means: — “How can I expect Creon to believe me now, when I represent myself as the blind victim of fate, —when I crave his sympathy and pity? ”
πίστις has two main senses, each of which has several shades, —(1)
faith, and (2)
a warrant for faith. Here it is (2) essentially as in
Soph. OC 1632
δός μοι χερὸς σῆς πίστιν.
Not “a persuasive argument” in the technical sense of Rhetoric, for which
πίστεις were “instruments of persuasion,” whether
ἔντεχνοι, provided by the Art itself
(λογική, παθητική, ἠθικἤ, or
ἄτεχνοι, external to the art, as depositions, documents, etc.
πάντ’
see on 475.
Cp. the words of Tennyson's Arthur to Guinevere: “Yet think not that I come to urge thy crimes. ”
Nauck gives these verses to Oedipus, making them follow 1415. He regards
τοιόνδ’ ἄγος
κ.τ.λ. as inconsistent with the profession which Creon has just made. Rather may we consider them as showing a kinsman's anxious and delicate concern for the honour of Oedipus and of the house (1430). Creon, deeply moved, deprecates the prolonged indulgence of a painful curiosity (cp. 1304). It is again Creon who says
ἴθι στέγης ἔσω (1515) when Oedipus would fain linger. Clearly, then, these verses are rightly placed in the MSS.
βόσκουσαν
boldly for
τρέφουσαν: cp.
Aesch. Ag. 633
, where the sun is
τοῦ τρέφοντος … χθονὸς φύσιν.
δεικνύναι
depends on
αἰδεῖσθε
, for the constr. of which with (1) acc. of persons revered, and (2) infin. of act which such reverence forbids, cp.
Xen. Anab. 2.3.22
ᾐσχύνθημεν καὶ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους προδοῦναι αὐτόν,
“respect for gods and for men forbade us to betray him. ”
τὸ
(=
ὅ, see on 1379)
μήτε
, not
οὔτε, since
τοιόνδ’ ἄγος indicates a
class of
ἄγη: not merely “
which, ” but “
such as, ” “earth will not welcome ” (
quod Terra non admissura sit): cp. 817,
Soph. El. 654
ὅσων ἐμοὶ | δύσνοια μὴ πρόσεστιν.
γῆ—ὄμβρος—φῶς
. The pollution
(ἄγος) of Oedipus is such that the pure elemental powers—represented by
earth, the
rain from heaven, the
light— cannot suffer it to remain in their presence (
προσδέξεται
):it must be hidden from them. Cp.
Aesch. Eum. 904 ff.
, where the Erinyes, as Chthonian powers, invoke blessings on Attica,
γῆθεν—ἔκ τε ποντίας δρόσου—ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τε.
ὄμβρος
here is not a
synonym but a
symbol of water generally, as with Empedocles 282
ὣς τότ’ ἔπειτ’ ἐδίηνε Κύπρις χθόνα δηρὸν ἐν ὄμβρῳ | εἴδεα καὶ ποιοῦσα θοῷ πυρὶ δῶκε κρατῦναι: cp.
Lucr. 1.714 f.
quattuor ex rebus posse omnia rentur Ex igni terra atque anima procrescere et imbri. In
Soph. Ant. 1073
the exposure of the unburied corpse is spoken of as a
violence to
οἱ ἄνω θεοί (βιάζονταἰ. It was a common form of oath to pray that, if a man swore falsely, neither earth, nor sea, nor air, might tolerate the presence of his corpse (
Eur. Orest. 1085
,
Eur. Hipp. 1030
). The original sense of
ἱερός
, “strong ” (
Curt. Etym. 614
), suits a few phrases, such as
ἱερὸς ἰχθύς (
Hom. Il. 16.407
). But in such as
ἱερὸν ἦμαρ, κνέφας, ὄμβρος, ποταμοί etc. it is more likely that the poet had no consciousness of any other sense than “sacred. ”
The objection to taking
μάλιστα
with
τοῖς ἐν γένει
is not that it follows these words (see on 1394), but that
τἀγγενῆ
intervenes. Rather join it with
εὐσεβῶς ἔχει
.
ὁρᾶν μόνοις τ’ ἀκούειν =
μόνοις ὁρᾶν ἀκούειν τε.
ἐλπίδος μ’ ἀπέσπασας
suddenly plucked me away from (made me to abandon) my uneasy foreboding: cp. Lat.
revellere (
falsorum persuasionem,
Sen. Letter 95
), and our phrase, “a revulsion of feeling ”:
Soph. Aj. 1382
ὥς μ’ ἔψευσας ἐλπίδος πολύ.
Conversely (
Soph. El. 809
)
ἀποσπάσας … φρενὸς | αἵ μοι μόναι παρῆσαν ἐλπίδων.
ἄριστος ἐλθὼν πρὸς … ἐμέ
having come to me in so noble a spirit; cp. 1422
ἐλήλυθα. This is more natural than to render, “having proved thyself most noble towards me ” (see on 1357).
πρὸς σοῦ
in thy interest:
Eur. Alc. 58
πρὸς τῶν ἐχόντων, Φοῖβε, τὸν νόμον τίθης
:
Soph. Trach. 479
δεῖ γὰρ καὶ τὸ πρὸς κείνου λέγειν,
the argument on his side.
χρείας
request:
Soph. OC 1754
προσπίτνομέν σοι. ΘΗ. τίνος, ὦ παῖδες, χρείας ἀνύσαι;
μηδενὸς προσήγορος
accosted by no one: for the gen., cp.
Soph. El. 1214
οὕτως ἄτιμός εἰμι τοῦ τεθνηκότος;
Soph. El. 344
κείνης διδακτά.
With dat.
Soph. Phil. 1353
τῷ προσήγορος;
see on 1337: for
ὅπου μή with fut. indic., on 1412. For the double
ἄν
, cp. 139.
τοῦτ’
depends on
ἴσθι, not
ἔδρασα.
φάτις
(151), the message brought by Creon from Delphi (86);
πᾶσ’
, “in full, ” explicitly:
Soph. Aj. 275
κεῖνος … λύπῃ πᾶς ἐλήλαται.
The indefinite person of the
φάτις is identified with Oedipus just as in 1382 f.
ἀπολλύναι
could refer either to misery in exile (1436), or to death: cp. 100.
Soph. Phil. 252
διωλλύμην.
ἵνα … χρείας
see 367.
οὕτως
with
ἀθλίου
:
Soph. Phil. 104
οὕτως ἔχει τι δεινὸν ἰσχύος θράσος;
The
καὶ
belongs to
σύ
: “even thou ” who didst not believe Teiresias. This is not spoken in mockery, but with grave sorrow. The phrase
πίστιν φέροις
as =
πιστεύοις (
Soph. El. 735
τῷ τέλει πίστιν φέρων)
prob. = “
render belief” (as a tribute due), cp.
φόρον, δασμόν, χρήματα φέρειν, and the like figure in
Pind. O. 11.17
νικῶν | Ἴλᾳ φερέτω χάριν.
καὶ σοί γ’
yes [I
am prepared to abide by Apollo's word], and on
thee too I lay an injunction, and I will now make a prayer to thee; i.e. as I turn to the god for what he alone can give (cp. 1519
τοῦ θεοῦ μ’ αἰτεῖς δόσιν), so I turn to
thee for that which lies in thine own power. The midd.
προστρέψομαι
as in fr. 759
Ἐργάνην (Athene)
… προστρέπεσθε: the active has the same sense in
Soph. Aj. 831
,
Soph. OC 50
. On the future, see 1077. There is no cause to desire
ἐπισκήψω: each tense has its due force: I now enjoin, and am going on to ask. Just so in
Thuc. 2.44
οὐκ ὀλοφύρομαι μᾶλλον ἢ παραμυθήσομαι,
where the conjecture
ὀλοφυροῦμαι is needless: “I
do not bewail them, but rather
intend to comfort them. ” The reading
προτρέψομαι
must be judged by the context. With it, the sense is: —yes
[I am sensible of my duty to Apollo], and I enjoin on
thee, and will
exhort thee, to do thine. (Cp. 358
προὐτρέψω;
Plat. Laws 711b
πρὸς ἀρετῆς ἐπιτηδεύματα προτρέπεσθαι τοὺς πολίτας.)
But this strain of lofty admonition seems little in accord with the tone of the broken man who has just acknowledged Creon's unexpected goodness (1432), and is now a suppliant (cp. 1468). In
Soph. Aj. 831
and
Soph. OC 50
, where
προστρέπω is undoubtedly right,
προτρέπω occurs as a variant.
τῆς … κατ’ οἴκους
the
name of Iocasta has not been uttered since 1235. Contrast 950.
τελεῖς
absol., like
ἔρδειν, perform rites, i.e. the
ἐντάφια (
Isaeus 8.38
). The special term for offerings to the dead was
ἐναγίζειν (
Isaeus 3.46
).
ἀξιωθήτω
be condemned:
Hdt. 3.145
ἐμὲ μέν, ὦ κάκιστε ἀνδρῶν, … ἀδικήσαντα οὐδὲν ἄξιον δεσμοῦ γοργύρης ἠξίωσας,
doomed me to a dungeon though I had done no wrong
worthy of bonds.
ἔα
a monosyllable by synizesis, and in
Soph. Ant. 95
ἀλλ’ ἔα με.
Cp.
Hom. Od. 9.283
νέα μέν μοι κατέαξε Ποσειδάων ἐνοσίχθων.
ὄρεσιν
locative dative, cp.
γῇ, 1266.
—ἔνθα κλῄζεται κ.τ.λ., lit., “where my Cithaeron yonder is famed,” = “where yonder is Cithaeron, famed as mine,” —i.e. made famous by the recent discovery that it is
Οἰδίπου τροφὸς καὶ μήτηρ (1092). There is an intense bitterness in the words; the name of Cithaeron is for ever to be linked with his dark story. Statius (quoted by Schneidewin) was doubtless thinking of this place:
habeant te lustra tuusque Cithaeron (
Stat. Theb. 11.752
).
κλῄζεται is stronger than
καλεῖται, as in
Soph. Trach. 659
ἔνθα κλῄζεται θυτήρ
means, “where
fame (that brought the tidings of his great victory) tells of him as sacrificing. ” For the idiom cp.
Hom. Il. 11.757
Ἀλεισίου ἔνθα κολώνη | κέκληται.
The words
ἐξ ἐκείνων
form the decisive argument for the
ζῶντε
of the MSS. against Toup's specious emendation,
ζῶντι
. His parents in
their life-time appointed Cithaeron to be his grave. Now they are dead; but, though he can no longer die by their
agency, he wishes to die
ἐξ ἐκείνων,
by their doom; i.e. by selfexposure in the same wilds to which they had consigned him (cp. 719
ἔρριψεν ἄλλων χερσὶν εἰς ἄβατον ὄρος). The thought of the
dead bringing death upon the living is one which Sophocles has also in
Soph. Aj. 1026
εἶδες ὡς χρόνῳ | ἔμελλέ σ’ Ἕκτωρ καὶ θανὼν ἀποφθιεῖν;
Soph. Trach. 1163
(Heracles speaking of Nessus)
ζῶντά μ’ ἔκτεινεν θανών:
Soph. Ant. 871
. The reading
ζῶντι
, on the other hand, yields nothing but a weak verbal antithesis with
τάφον
. Had his parents meant him to
live in lonely misery on Cithaeron, there would be some point in calling it his “living grave. ” But they meant him to die there forthwith (cp. 1174);
ζῶντι, then, would mean nothing more than that the grave was chosen before the babe was dead.
κύριον
appointed by their authoritative decision: cp.
Aesch. Eum. 541
ποινὰ γὰρ ἐπέσται· | κύριον μένει τέλος.
ἀπωλλύτην
for the imperf. of intention, cp.
Andoc. 1.41
τὸν πατέρα μου ἀπώλλυε
( “
sought to ruin ”),
συνειδότα ἀποφαίνων.
οἶδα μὴ ἂν πέρσαι
= “I am confident that nothing can destroy me ”
μή is admissible since
οἶδα here =
πέποιθα, and
μὴ ἂν πέρσαι represents a negative conception of the mind. So with partic.
Soph. OC 656
οἶδ’ ἐγώ σε μή τινα | ἐνθένδ’ ἀπάξοντ’. οἶδα οὐκ ἂν πέρσαι
would be more usual; the difference being that this would be the oblique form of
οἶδα ὅτι οὐκ ἂν πέρσειε. The ordinary usage is (1)
οὐ with infin. (=
ὅτι with indic.) after verbs of saying or thinking,
λέγω, φημί, οἴομαι, etc; (2)
μή with infin. after verbs of feeling confident, promising, etc., as
πιστεύω, πέποιθα, ὑπισχνοῦμαι, ὄμνυμι. But a few exceptions occur both ways, when a verb of either class is virtually equivalent to a verb of the other: e.g. (1)
Dem. 29.48
οἴεσθε οὐκ ἂν αὐτὴν λαβεῖν (
=
ὅτι οὐκ ἂν ἔλαβεν αὐτήν), but
Xen. Mem. 1.2.41
οἶμαι
μὴ
ἂν δικαίως τυχεῖν τούτου τοῦ ἐπαίνου τὸν μὴ εἰδότα: (2)
Plat. Prot. 336b
ὁμολογεῖ
μὴ
μετεῖναί οἱ μακρολογίας, but
Plat. Apol. 17a
ὁμολογοίην ἂν ἔγωγε
οὐ
κατὰ τούτους εἶναι ῥήτωρ. Cp. Whitelaw in
Trans. Cam. Phil. Soc. (1886) p. 34, and Gildersleeve in
Amer. Fourn. Philol. 1.49. —Whitelaw here takes
πέρσαι ἄν as =
ἔπερσεν ἄν, and reads
τῷ (not
τᾠ δεινῷ κακῷ: “my parents wished to kill me; but nothing could have killed me; I was reserved for
this dread evil. ” Surely, however, it is better to connect the verses with the wish for death which he has just uttered. The poet of Colonus gives Oedipus a presentiment that his end is not to be as that of other men. with
μή
understand
σωθείς
, =
εἰ μὴ ἐσώθην ἐπὶ κακῷ τῳ: cp.
Soph. Aj. 950
οὐκ ἂν τάδ’ ἔστη τῇδε μὴ θεῶν μέτα,
sc.
στάντα =
εἰ μὴ ἔστη.
προσθῇ μέριμναν,
take care
upon thee: so often of assuming a
needless burden:
Thuc. 1.78
μὴ … οἰκεῖον πόνον προσθῆσθε
:
Thuc. 1.144
κινδύνους αὐθαιρέτους μὴ προστίθεσθαι
:
Plat. Prot. 346d
ἔχθρας ἑκουσίας … προστίθεσθαι.
Elmsley's plausible
προθῇ (
Soph. El. 1334
εὐλάβειαν προὐθέμην)
would be weaker.
ἄνδρες
, males (though not
ἐξηνδρωμένοἰ; cp.
Soph. Trach. 1062
θῆλυς οὗσα κοὐκ ἀνδρὸς φύσιν.
τοῖν δ’ ἀθλίαιν
Instead of supplying
πρόσθου μέριμναν, it is better to regard
οἷν
in 1466 as an anacolouthon for
τούτοιν, arising from the length of the preceding clause. Cp.
Antiph. 5.11-12
δέον σε διομόσασθαι … ἃ σὺ παρελθών,
where, after a long parenthetic clause,
ἅ has been irregularly substituted for
ταῦτα.
οἷν
for whom
ἡ ἐμὴ βορᾶς τράπεζα
the table at which I ate
οὔποτε χωρὶς ἐστάθη
was never placed apart,
ἄνευ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός
(so that they should be)
without me. Instead of
ἄνευ αὐταῖν, we have
ἄνευ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός, because
(οἶν being dat. of persons affected)
οἶν οὔποτε ἡ ἐμὴ τράπεζα χωρὶς ἐστάθη ἄνευ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός is equivalent to
ὣ οὔποτε τὴν ἐμὴν τράπεζαν χωρὶς σταθεῖσαν εἰδέτην, (ὥστε εἶναἰ ἄνευ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός. This is simpler than to construe: “for whom the dinner-table, which was (always) mine, was never placed apart, or without me ”: when
ἡμή would be a compressed substitute for
ἡ ἐμὴ ἀεὶ οὖσα in the sense of
ἀλλὰ ἡ ἐμὴ ἀεὶ ἦν. We cannot take
ἡμὴ βορᾶς τράπεζα as merely = “the table which I
provided”: the emphasis on
ἡμή would alone exclude this. Prof. Kennedy understands: “apart from whom
(οἷν χωρίς) my dinner-table ne'er was set
without my bidding,” i.e. never except on special occasions, when I had so directed.
ἄνευ
could certainly mean this (
Soph. OC 926
etc.). But can we understand Oedipus as saying, in effect, — “who always dined with me—except, indeed, when I had directed that they should
not”? —I am much inclined to receive Arndt's
ἄλλη
for
ἡμή
(ΛΛ for M), as Wecklein has done. —The attributive gen.
βορᾶς
is equivalent to an adj. of quality like
τρόφιμος, as
Eur. Phoen. 1491
στολὶς τρυφᾶς
=
στολὶς τρυφερά: not like
ἅμαξαι σίτου (
Xen. Cyrop. 2.4.18
) “waggon-
loads of grain. ”
ἐστάθη
because a light table is brought in for the meal, and removed after it (cp.
Hom. Il. 24.476
,
Hom. Od. 10.354
etc).
ἄνευ τοῦδ’ ἀνδρός
explaining
χωρίς
, as in
Soph. Phil. 31
κενὴν οἴκησιν
is explained by
ἀνθρώπων δίχα,
Soph. Aj. 464
γυμνὸν φανέντα
by
τῶν ἀριστείων ἄτερ.
ἄνευ
as in
Soph. Trach. 336
μάθῃς ἄνευ τῶνδ’,
hear
apart from these.
μέλεσθαι
infin. for imper.: cp. 462.
μάλιστα μέν
: see on 926.
ἴθ’ ὦναξ
A moment of agitated suspense is marked by the bacchius interrupting the trimeters, as
Soph. Phil. 749 ff.
(in an anxious entreaty, as here)
ἴθ’, ὦ παῖ. So
Soph. OC 1271
τί σιγᾷς;
318
τάλαινα. The speech of the agonised Heracles is similarly broken by short dactylic or choriambic phrases,
Soph. Trach. 1081
,
αἶ, αἶ, ὦ τάλας: 1085
ὦναξ Ἀΐδη δέξαι μ’, | ὦ Διὸς ἀκτίς, παῖσον. But Soph. has used the license most sparingly, and always, it may be said, with fine effect.
γονῇ γενναῖε,
noble in the grain, —one whose
γενναιότης is
γνησία, inbred, true, —referring to the
ἀρετή just shown by Creon (1433).
γονῇ here is not merely intensive of
γενναῖε
, making it =
γενναιότατε, (as the sarcastic
γένει seems to be in
Plat. Soph. 231b
ἡ γένει γενναία σοφιστική,
“the most noble. ”) Cp.
Soph. Aj. 1094
μηδὲν ὢν γοναῖσιν.
δοκοῖμ’
for this form, cp.
Soph. Phil. 895
δρῷμ’
(n.).
ἔχειν σφας
.
σφέας has the accent in Homer when it is emphatic, as when joined with
αὐτούς, being then a disyllable:
Hom. Il. 12.43
σφέας αὐτούς.
When non-emphatic and enclitic, it is a monosyllable:
Hom. Od. 4.77
καί σφεας φωνήσας.
The perispomenon
σφᾶς corresponds to
σφέας, as in
σφᾶς αὐτούς: the enclitic
σφας to
σφεας. Thus in
Soph. OC 486
we must write
ὥς σφας καλοῦμεν with Herm.; where Elmsley gave
ὡς σφᾶς, holding (against the grammarians) that this form was never enclitic. Here, as in 1508, the pronoun is non-emphatic. According to the rule now generally received, a
monosyllabic enclitic stands unaccented after a paroxytone word, the latter remaining unaffected: we therefore write
ἔχειν σφας. But, according to Arcadius and Herodian, a paroxytone word followed by an enclitic
beginning with
ς φ took the acute on its last syllable, as
ἔχείν σφας: see Chandler, §§965, 966, 2nd ed.
τί φημί;
the cry of one startled by a sound or sight, as
Soph. Trach. 865
:
Soph. OC 315
τί φῶ;
Aesch. PB 561
τίς γῆ; τί γένος; τίνα φῶ λεύσσειν;
τοῖν … φίλοιν | δακρυρροούντοιν
Cp.
Soph. Ant. 381
οὐ δή που ..;
In participles belonging to the 3rd declens. the masc. form of the dual is often used as fem.; indeed the specially fem. forms, such as
ἐχούσα, are very rare. See
Soph. OC
append. on 1676, p. 293. Similarly
τώ, τοῖν, τούτοιν, οἶν were the usual fem. forms: cp. 1462 f., 1504, and
Soph. Ant. 769
n. Thus
Xen. Cyrop. 1.2.11
μίαν ἄμφω τούτω τὼ ἡμέρα λογίζονται.
Plat. Phaedrus 237d
ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκάστῳ δύο τινέ ἐστον ἰδέα ἄρχοντε καὶ ἄγοντε, οἶν ἑπόμεθα.
So
τὼ θεώ, τοῖν θεοῖν (Demeter and Persephone).
τὰ φίλτατ’ ἐκγ. ἐμοῖν
my chief treasure, (consisting in) my two daughters: cp. on 261
κοινῶν παίδων κοινά:
Soph. El. 682
πρόσχημ’ ἀγῶνος,
a glory (consisting in) a contest.
λέγω τι;
see
Plat. Crat. 404a
κινδυνεύεις τι λέγειν,
compared with
Plat. Sym. 205d
κινδυνεύεις ἀληθῆ λέγειν.
Aristoph. Kn. 333
νῦν δεῖξον ὡς οὐδὲν λέγει τὸ σωφρόνως τραφῆναι,
“what nonsense it is. ”
γνοὺς … πάλαι
aware of the delight which you now feel, —as you ever felt it: i.e. taught by the past to foresee that you would thus rejoice.
Soph. may have been thinking of
Aesch. Lib. 1063
ἀλλ’ εὐτυχοίης, καί σ’ ἐποπτεύων πρόφρων | θεὸς φυλάττοι καιρίοσι συμφοραῖς.
τῆσδε τῆς ὁδοῦ
, causal gen.:
Soph. El. 626
θράσους | τοῦδ’ οὐκ ἀλύξεις
:
Eur. Orest. 1407
ἔρροι τᾶς ἁσύχου προνοίας.
ἢ μὲ
is required here, since with
ἤ με the stress would fall wholly on
φρουρήσας
. On the other hand in 1478
καί σε
is right, because, after
εὐτυχοίης
, the
person does not need to be at once emphasised again. This is not, however, like
Hom. Il. 23.724
ἤ μ’ ἀνάειρ’ ἢ ἐγὼ σέ,
where
με suffices because the sense is, “
slay or
be slain.” In
Soph. El. 383
,
Soph. El. 1213
με
and
σοι are justified by the stress on
ὕστερον and
προσήκει respectively.
ὡς τὰς … χέρας
As the sense is so plainly equivalent to
ὡς ἐμέ, we are scarcely justified in changing
ὡς
to
εἰς
(with Elmsley), or
ἐς
(with Blaydes).
Soph. Trach. 366
δόμους | ὡς τούσδε
is a slightly stronger case for such a change, yet not a conclusive one.
ἐς is now read for
ὡς in
Aristoph. Ach. 242
(ὡς τὸ πρόσθεν)
and in
Thuc. 8.36
(ὡς τὴν Μίλητον),
103
(ὡς τὴν Ἄβυδον). Soph. has
ὡς ὑμᾶς
Soph. Trach. 366
. Construe:
αἳ προὐξένησαν ὑμὶν
who
have effected for you
τὰ πρόσθε λαμπρὰ τοῦ φυτ. πατρὸς ὄμματα ὧδε ὁρᾶν
that the once bright eyes of your sire should see thus, i.e. should be sightless: cp. his own phrase quoted in 1273
ἐν σκότῳ τὸ λοιπὸν … ὀψοίατο.
Soph. Phil. 862
ὡς Ἀΐδᾳ παρακείμενος ὁρᾷ,
he sees as the dead, i.e. not at all. Cp.
Xen. Apol. 7
ὁ θεὸς δῑ εὐμένειαν προξενεῖ μοι οὐ μόνον τὸ ἐν καιρῷ τῆς ἡλικίας καταλῦσαι τὸν βίον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ᾗ ῥᾷστα,
the god's kindly offices grant to me that I should close my life etc.
προξενεῖν = (1) to be a
πρόξενος: then (2) fig., to lend one's good offices: either (a) absol., as
Soph. OC 465
προξένει,
stand my friend: or (b) with dat. and acc., or acc. and infin., to
effect a thing, or result, for one:
Xen. Anab. 6.5.14
ἴστε … με … οὐδένα πω κίνδυνον προξενήσαντα ὑμῖν
:
Plut. Alex. 22
αὐτῷ … τοιαῦτα ὀνείδη προξενῶν
(said of one who panders to vices):
Soph. Trach. 726
ἐλπὶς ἥτις καὶ θράσος τι προξενεῖ.
In particular,
προξενεῖν τινά τινι =
συνιστάναι, to
introduce one person to another. So Prof. Kennedy understands here: “which introduced to you your father's once brilliant eyes, that you should thus behold them ” —i.e. presented them to you in this state. But
ὦδ’ ὁρᾶν
seems thus to lose its force: and the ordinary usage of
προξενεῖν confirms the version given above. The conjecture
προυσέλησαν
( “maltreated ”) has found some unmerited favour. Besides
προυσελούμενον in
Aesch. PB 438
, we find only
προυσελοῦμεν in
Aristoph. Frogs 730
.
οὔθ’ ὁρῶν οὔθ’ ἱστορῶν
i.e. neither
recognising his mother when he saw her, nor
possessing any information which could lead him to suspect that she was such.
ἱστορεῖν is (1) to be, or (2) to become,
ἵστωρ, a knower: i.e. (1) to have information, or (2) to seek it. Sense (2) is more frequent: but Aesch. has (1) in
Aesch. Eum. 455
and
Aesch. Pers. 454
. [In
Soph. Trach. 382
οὐδὲν ἱστορῶν
prob. =
ὅτι οὐδὲν ἱστόρει (imperf.), “did not ask. ”] Here (1) is best, because it would be almost absurd to say that he had wedded Iocasta “without asking any questions ”—as if he could have been expected to do so. Cp.
Soph. OC 273
νῦν δ’ οὐδὲν εἰδὼς ἱκόμην ἵν’ ἱκόμην.
ἠρόθην
cp. 1257, 1210.
ὁμιλίας … ἑορτάς
The poet is thinking of his own Athens, though the language is general.
ὁμιλίας
comprises all occasions on which Attic women could appear in public, —as at the delivery of
ἐπιτάφιοι (
Thuc. 2.45
):
ἑορτάς
suggests such festivals as the Thesmophoria, the Panathenaea, or the Dionysia (when women were present in the theatre, at least at tragedy). To feel the force of this passage, we must remember how closely the Greek festivals were bound up with the life of the
family. Kinsfolk took part in them together: and at such moments a domestic disgrace, such as that which the sisters inherited, would be most keenly felt. In Athenian law-courts the fact of association at festivals could be cited in evidence of family intimacy:
Isoc. 19.10
ἕως μὲν γὰρ παῖδες ἦμεν, περὶ πλέονος ἡμᾶς αὐτοὺς ἡγούμεθα ἢ τοὺς ἀδελφούς, καὶ οὔτε θυσίαν οὔτε θεωρίαν
(public spectacle)
οὔτ’ ἄλλην ἑορτὴν οὐδεμίαν χωρὶς ἀλλήλων ἤγομεν.
Isaeus 8.15
καὶ εἰς Διονύσια εἰς ἀγρὸν ἦγεν ἀεὶ ἡμᾶς, καὶ μετ’ ἐκείνου τε ἐθεωροῦμεν
(in the theatre)
καθήμενοι παρ’ αὐτόν, καὶ τὰς ἑορτὰς ἤγομεν παρ’ ἐκεῖνον πάσας. It was the Attic custom for a bridegroom
Θεσμοφόρια ἑστιᾶν τὰς γυναῖκας, to provide a banquet at the next Thesmophoria for the women of his deme (
Isaeus 3.80
), and also
φράτορσι γαμηλίαν εἰσφέρειν, to provide a banquet for his clansmen when his bride was introduced into his
φρατρία (
Isaeus 8.18
).
κεκλαυμέναι
only poet.: later poets and Plut. have
κέκλαυσμαι: the poet.
δεδακρυμένος also occurs in later prose, Plut., Lucian, etc. The festivals were religious celebrations, which would be polluted by the presence of persons resting under an inherited
ἄγος (cp. note on 240). Some word or act reminds the daughters of Oedipus that they are thus regarded, and they go home in tears. Greek sensitiveness to public notice on such occasions might be illustrated by the story in Herodotus of the affront offered to the deposed king Demaratus by his successor Leotychides at the Spartan festival of the
γυμνοπαιδίαι (
Hdt. 6.67
). Demaratus drew his robe over his head, and left the theatre:
κατακαλυψάμενος ἤϊε ἐκ τοῦ θεήτρου ἐς τὰ ἑωυτοῦ οἰκία. Contrast the effusive public greeting which Electra imagines herself and Chrysothemis as receiving
ἔν θ’ ἑορταῖς ἔν τε πανδήμῳ πόλει (
Soph. El. 982
).
ἀντὶ τῆς θεωρίας
in place of the
sight-seeing (for which they had looked).
θεωρία is (1) subjectively,
a sight-seeing: (2) objectively,
a spectacle. In sense (1) the article is added here because a definite occasion is meant; usually, the art. is absent:
Thuc. 6.24
πόθῳ ὄψεως καὶ θεωρίας
:
Plat. Rep. 556c
ἢ κατὰ θεωρίας ἢ κατὰ στρατείας
(on
travels or
campaigns):
Isoc. 17.4
ἅμα κατ’ ἐμπορίαν καὶ κατὰ θεωρίαν.
In
Hdt. 1.30
τῆς θεωρίης ἐκδημήσας … εἵνεκεν,
the art. is added as in
ἡ εἰρήνη ( “peace ”) etc., because “seeing the world ” is spoken of generically.
τίς οὗτος ἔσται, τίς
κ.τ.λ., is more animated for
τίς οὖτος ἔσται, ὅστις.
Theocr. 16.13
τίς τῶν νῦν τοιόσδε; τίς εὖ εἰπόντα φιλασεῖ;
is compared by Jacobs there, and by Schneidewin here, but is not really similar, since
τοιόσδε there refers back to v. 5 f.,
τίς γάρ … ὑποδέξεται (κ.τ.λ.);
λαμβάνων
instead of the infin. with
παραρρίψει, as
Plat. Laws 699a
οὐδεὶς τότε ἐβοήθησεν οὐδ’ ἐκινδύνευσε ξυμμαχόμενος.
γοναῖσιν
The disgraces of the polluted house will be ruinous not only to the children of Oedipus, but to his children's children (
σφῷν, genit., sc.
γοναῖς). I formerly read
γόνοισιν: but Kennedy justly objects that the plur. of
γόνος is not used; and his conjecture,
ταῖς ἐμαῖς γοναῖσιν, gives more point here. For
γοναί, “offspring, ” cp.
Soph. OC 1192
,
Soph. Ant. 641
. The
γονεῦσιν
of the MSS. yields no tolerable sense, whether it is referred to Laius and Iocasta or to Iocasta alone.
—δήλημα is a hurt, bane, mischief, in a physical or material sense:
Hom. Od. 12.286
ἄνεμοι χαλεποί, δηλήματα νηῶν
:
HH Apoll. 364
(of the dead monster)
οὐδὲ σύ γε ζώουσα κακὸν δήλημα βροτοῖσιν: Aesch. fr. 119
ὁδοιπόρων δήλημα χωρίτης δράκων (the serpent in the fields, a bane of wayfarers). The disgraces are
δηλήματα
to the sons and daughters as involving their ruin in life: but could not be called
δηλήματα to the
dead in the remote figurative sense of
disgracing their memories. Nor would there be any fitness in the conjuction of harm
of another kind to the living. Oedipus here thinks of the living, and of the future, alone. The conject.
γαμβροῖσιν
, besides being far from the MSS., presumes the event which he regards as impossible.
πατέρα
for the tribrach see on 719.
τῶν ἴσων
is poetically equivalent to
τῶν αὐτῶν, i.e.
τῆς αὐτῆς: it is like saying, “from a source which was
even as that whence he sprang,” instead of, “from the
same source whence he sprang.” Cp. 845
οὐ γὰρ γένοιτ’ ἂν εἶς γε τοῖς πολλοῖς ἴσος, and note.
ὀνειδιεῖσθε
see on 672.
δηλαδή
prosaic, but also in
Eur. Orest. 789
,
Eur. IA 1366
.
ἀλλ’
after the vocative, like
σὺ δέ, but stronger, as introducing an appeal: as
Soph. OC 1405
ὦ τοῦδ’ ὅμαιμοι παῖδες, ἀλλ’ ὑμεῖς … μή μ’ ἀτιμάσητέ γε
: and
Soph. OC 237
.
δύ’ ὄντε
both of us: cp.
Soph. Trach. 539
δύ’ οὖσαι μίμνομεν
:
Eur. Ion 518
σὺ δ’ εὖ φρόνει γε καὶ δύ’ ὄντ’ εὖ πράξομεν
.
—περιίδῃς: on Porson's objection, see Appendix.
ἐγγενεῖς
your kinswomen as they are (where in prose we should have
οὔσας added). The word was full of meaning for an Attic audience, who would think of Creon as placed by Oedipus in the position of
ἐπίτροπος (guardian) and
κύριος (representative before the law) of the unmarried girls who are here viewed as orphans (1505); their brothers not being of age. Cp.
Isaeus 5.10
;
Dem. 46.18
.
ἐξισώσῃς τάσδε,
do not put them on the level of my miseries: cp. 425: for
τάσδε instead of
τὰ τῶνδε κακά, cp. note on 467.
τηλικάσδ’
at their age, i.e. so young:
Soph. Ant. 726
οἱ τηλικοίδε
(so old)
καὶ διδαξόμεσθα δὴ | φρονεῖν πρὸς ἀνδρὸς τηλικοῦδε (so young)
τὴν φύσιν;
πλὴν ὅσον τὸ σὸν μέρος
except in so far as, on thy part,
οὐκ ἔρημοι εἰσί.
εἰχέτην
2nd pers. dual, with the form proper to the 3rd
(μετειχέτην, 1465). Before the Attic period, the Greek language had attained to this regular distinction of active dual forms: —(1) primary tenses, 2nd pers.
‐τον, 3rd pers.
‐τον; (2) secondary tenses, 2nd pers.
‐τον, answering to Skt.
tam: 3rd pers.
‐την, Skt.
tām. As regards (2), two classes of exceptions occur: (a) Homeric 3rd pers. in
‐τον instead of
‐την; three instances,
διώκετον (
Hom. Il. 10.364
),
ἐτεύχετον (
Hom. Il. 13.346
),
λαφύσσετον (
Hom. Il. 18.583
). These Curtius refers to “the want of proper linguistic instinct on the part of some late rhapsodist. ” (b) Attic 2nd pers. in
‐την instead of
‐τον. Our
εἰχέτην
here is the only instance proved by metre: but 8 others are established. Against these fall to be set at least 13 Attic instances of the normal
‐τον. Curtius regards the 2nd pers. in
‐την as due to a false analogy. In the
third person dual
‐την was distinctive of the secondary tenses. Attic speech sometimes extended this distinction to the
second person also. (
Curt. Verb 1.80
, Eng. tr. 53.) Cp n. on
Soph. OC 1378 ff.
Oedipus now turns from Creon to the children. The few words which he addresses to them are spoken rather to the older hearers and to himself.
τοῦτ’ εὔχεσθέ μοι
, “make this prayer, as I bid you ” (not, “pray on my account, ” in which sense Wunder reads
ἐμοἴ: the ethic dat.
μοι in request, as
Soph. OC 1475
. In these words Oedipus is thinking solely of his children: he has now passed away from the thought of self (1458).
ὑμᾶς
in 1514 is no argument for understanding
με as subject to
ζην
: rather it is added to mark the contrast with
πατρός.
I prefer
οὗ καιρὸς ἐᾷ ζῆν, τοῦ βίου κ.τ.λ. to
οὗ καιρὸς ἀεὶ ζῆν, βίου
κ.τ.λ. on these grounds. 1.
τοῦ
before
βίου
, though not required, is commended, by Greek idiom; it also gives a decidedly better rhythm; and it is not likely to have crept into the text, since the occurrence of
ἀεί with the
α long was not so uncommon that it should have suggested the need of supplementing the metre by
τοῦ: but, apart from metrical motive, there was no other for
intruding the article. 2.
οὗ καιρός
, without any verb, though a possible phrase, is a harsh one. 3. From
εαι
to
αει
would be an easy transition. And
καιρὸς ἐᾷ is quite a natural expression: cp.
Eur. IA 858
δοῦλος· οὐχ ἁβρύνομαι τῷδ’· ἡ τύχη γὰρ οὐκ ἐᾷ.
The foreboding of Oedipus is that his daughters must become homeless exiles (1506) unless Creon shelters them at Thebes. “To live
where occasion allows” means in his inner thought, “to live at Thebes, if that may be—if not, in the least unhappy exile that the gods may grant you. ” The monosyllabic
ἔα (1451,
Soph. Ant. 95
) and
ἐᾷ (
Hom. Il. 5.256
τρεῖν μ’ οὐκ ἐᾷ Παλλὰς Ἀθήνἠ
go far to remove the metrical objection. Meineke's conjecture,
ᾖ, gives a more prosaic phrase, and is too far from the
ἀεί of the MSS.
ἐξήκεις
see on 1357.
καιρῷ
=
ἐν καιρῷ. In
Thuc. 4.59
most MSS. give
εἰ μὴ καιρῷ τύχοιεν ἑκάτεροι πράσσοντες: Classen reads
ἐν καιρῷ on the ground that Thuc. so has it in
Thuc. 1.121
,
Thuc. 5.61
,
Thuc. 6.9
.
The words
οἶσθ’ ἐφ’ οἶς οὖν
εἶμι; were said with some return of his former agitation:
λέξεις
κ.τ.λ. is said by Creon with calm, grave courtesy; they have nothing in them of such irony as, “I shall know when you are pleased to tell me.” So
Aesch. Seven 260
ET.
αἰτουμένῳ μοι κοῦφον εἰ δοίης τέλος: “would that thou couldst grant me a light boon.” XO.
λέγοις ἂν ὡς τάχιστα, καὶ τάχ’ εἴσομαι (i.e. and then I shall know if I can serve thee).
ὅπως πέμψεις
sc.
ὅρα:
Xen. Anab. 1.7.3
ὅπως οὖν ἔσεσθε ἄνδρες,
“see that ye be”:
Plat. Rep. 337a
ὅπως μοι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε, μὴ ἐρεῖς.
Not
(εἶμι ἐπὶ τούτοις), ὅπως κ.τ.λ.
ἀλλὰ θεοῖς γ’
i.e. “Nay, the
gods, who hate me, will not be displeased that I should be thrust forth.” For the synizesis in
θεοῖς
cp. 215.
ἤκω
cp. 1357,
Soph. OC 1177
ἔχθιστον ἥκει,
has come to be most hateful. Creon's reply,
τοιγαροῦν τεύξει τάχα
, means: “if the gods
do desire thy banishment, thou wilt soon have thy wish”—when the oracle at Delphi is consulted (1443). According to the story which Soph. follows, Oedipus was at first detained at Thebes against his own wish. But when some time had elapsed, and that wish had given place to a calmer mood, the Thebans, in their turn, demanded his expulsion; and Creon then yielded (
Soph. OC 433 ff.
).
ἃ μὴ φρονῶ
In
Soph. OC 765 ff.
) Creon is represented as opposing a distinct refusal to this prayer of Oedipus. His words here could mean: “No, I do not promise, for I am not wont to speak vain words when I lack knowledge”
(φρονῶ as in 569): i.e., “I cannot tell how Apollo may decide.” But I now think that, on the whole, it suits the context better to take them as expressing consent
(ἃ μὴ φρονῶ = what I do not mean to do). As this consent can be only provisional—depending on the approval of Apollo—it is not necessarily inconsistent with
Soph. OC 765 ff.
ἕλῃ μου
: cp. 1022
χειρῶν λαβών.
See critical note. These verses are spoken by the Chorus, as Creon turns with Oedipus to enter the house. The calm close which the tragedy requires would be wanting if they were spoken by the chief sufferer himself. Of extant Greek tragedies, the
Prometheus and the
Agamemnon are the only ones which end with words spoken by one of the actors; and in each case this is justified by the scheme of the trilogy to which the play belonged.
Here, as elsewhere, the MSS. fluctuate between
ᾔδει and
ᾔδη. The Attic
ᾔδη, as
first pers. sing., is contracted from
ᾔδεα: in the
third, the classical form was not
ᾔδη but
ᾔδει, or, before a vowel,
ᾔδειν (as it
must be in
Eur. Ion 1187
,
Aristoph. Peace 1182
etc.). No 3rd sing. in
εα, from which
η could come, is said, or can be supposed, to have existed. Aristarchus, indeed, is quoted by the schol. on
Hom. Il. 5.64
in favour of the
η. But the Doric 3rd sing.
ἀπολώλη in
Tab. Heracl. 1.39 is the only such form which is beyond question. Curtius (
Curt. Verb 11.237
, Eng. tr. 431 ff.) therefore agrees with those textual critics who, like La Roche, Cobet, and Kontos
(Λόγιος Ἑρμῆς p. 61) would always write the 3rd sing.
ᾔδει (or
ᾔδειν).
ᾔδει αἰνίγματα
(plur. with reference to the hexameter
ἔπη in which it was chanted) = knew
instinctively, by the intuition of genius: in
Eur. Phoen. 1759
the adapter of this verse has altered
ᾔδει (perhaps by a slip of memory) to the more natural but less forcible
ἔγνω, “read aright,” solved.
οὖ τίς οὐ ζήλῳ … ταῖς τύχαις ἐπέβλ.,
“on whose fortunes what citizen did not look with emulous admiration?” (Cp.
Xen. Hiero 1.10
πῶς δὲ πάντες ἐζήλουν ἂν τοὺς τυράννους;
) To me it appears certain that we should here read the interrogative
τίς
, with
ἐπέβλεπεν
instead of
ἐπιβλέπων
. Cp.
Soph. OC 1133
ᾦ τίς οὐκ ἔνι | κηλὶς κακῶν ξύνοικος;
871
ὅπου τίς ὄρνις οὐχὶ κλαγγάνει;
Soph. El. 169 ff.
τί … οὐκ … | … ἀγγελίας
:
Eur. Phoen. 878
ἁγὼ τί δρκων οὐ, ποῖα δ’ οὐ λέγων ἔπη, | εἰς ἔχθος ἦλθον.
Dem. 18.48
ἐλαυνομένων καὶ ὑβριζομένων καὶ τί κακὸν οὐχὶ πασχόντων πᾶσα ἡ οἰκουμένη μεστὴ γέγονεν.
Then the
καί
of the MSS. should probably be
ταῖς
: though it is possible (as Whitelaw proposes) to take
ζήλῳ καὶ τύχαις as “his glory and his fortunes”: cp.
Soph. Aj. 503
οἵας λατρείας ἀνθ’ ὅσου ζήλου τρέφει.
I doubt, however, whether
ἐπέβλεπεν, without
ζήλῳ, could mean “admired.” On the usage of the verb
ἐπιβλέπω, see Appendix. The use of
ἐπισκοποῦντα
is peculiar. I take the exact sense to be: —“
fixing one's eye on the final day (as on a point towards which one is moving),
that one should see it,” i.e. “until one shall have had experience of it.” Thus
ἐπισκοπεῖν is used in a sense closely akin to its common sense of “attentively considering” a thing: and the whole phrase is virtually equivalent to, “
waiting meditatively to see the final day.” For the added infin., cp.
Thuc. 3.2
νεῶν ποίησιν ἐπέμενον τελεσθῆναι, καὶ ὅσα ἐκ τοῦ Πόντου ἔδει ἀφικέσθαι.
Cp.
Plin. NH 7.132
alius de alio iudicat dies, et tamen supremus de omnibus,
ideoque nullis credendum est. Hartung proposed to replace
ἰδεῖν by
γε δεῖ (where
γε would be intolerable); Stanley by
ἔδει, Seyffert by
δέον, and Nauck by
χρεών. Kennedy, keeping
ἰδεῖν, changes
ἐκείνην into
ἄμεινον. But the infin.
ὀλβίζειν
as a “sententious” imperative (see on 462) is appropriate in this
γνώμη. The accus.
(θνητὸν ὄντ’, ἐπισκοποῦντἀ stands with the infin. when, as here, the infin. represents an imperat. of the
third person; cp.
Hom. Il. 3.284
εἰ δέ κ’ Ἀλέξανδρον κτείνῃ ξανθὸς Μενέλαος, | Τρῶας ἔπειθ’ Ἑλένην καὶ κτήματα πάντ’ ἀποδοῦναι,
with Leaf's note: and Madvig
Gr. sect. 546. When the infin. = an imperat. of the
second pers., the case is regularly the nom. (
Hom. Od. 11.441
), rarely the acc. (
Hes. WD 389
). The view that
ὀλβίζειν depends on
ὥστε requires a shorter pause at
ἐλήλυθεν, and thus weakens the effect of v. 1527.
μηδέν’ ὀλβίζειν
.
Eur. Andr. 100 ff.
partly reproduces the language of this passage:
χρὴ δ’ οὔποτ’ εἰπεῖν οὐδέν’ ὄλβιον βροτῶν, | πρὶν ἂν θανόντος τὴν τελευταίαν ἴδῃς | ὅπως περάσας ἡμέραν ἥξει κάτω. He has the thought also in
Eur. Tro. 510
,
Eur. Her. 866
,
Eur. IA 161
, as Soph. in
Soph. Tr. 1
and fr. 588. The maxim, “Call no man happy before death,” first appears in Greek literature as a set
γνώμη in
Aesch. Ag. 928
ὀλβίσαι δὲ χρὴ | βίον τελευτήσαντ’ ἐν εὐεστοῖ φίλῃ
: but Aristotle recognises the popular tradition which ascribed it to Solon. In
Hdt. 1.32
Solon says that a man may be called
εὐτυχής
in life, but
ὄλβιος only
after a life exempt from reverse. Cp.
Iuv. 10.274 ff.
Et Croesum, quem vox iusti facunda Solonis Respicere ad longae iussit spatia ultima vitae, where Mayor refers to the proverbs
Λυδὸς (Croesus)
ἀποθνήσκει σοφὸς ἀνήρ, and
τέλος ὅρα βίου (Parmoemiogr. 11. 187, I. 315 n.), and to notices of the saying in Cic. (
De Fin. 2.87, 3.76), Diog. Laert. (
Diog. Laert. 1.50
τά θρυλούμενα
), Ovid (
Ovid Met. 3.135
), Seneca (
De Tranq. An. 11.12), Josephus (
Bell. Iud. 1.5.11=29.3), Arrian (7 sect. 16.7), Lucian (
Charon 10): cp. Ecclus. 11. 28. Does Solon mean, Aristotle asks, (1) that a man
is happy when he is dead? Or (2) that, after death, he
may be said to have been happy? If (1), Arist. declines to allow that the dead are positively happy; and popular opinion, he says, denies that they are always negatively so, i.e. free from unhapppiness. If (2), then is it not absurd that at the time when he
ishappy we are not to call him so? The fallacy, he concludes, consists in treating “happiness” as dependant on bright
fortunes:
οὐ γάρ ἐν ταύταις τὸ εὖ ἢ κακῶς ἀλλὰ προσδεῖται τούτων ὁ ἀνθρωπος βίος, καθάπερ εἴπαμεν, κύριαι δ’ εἰσὶν αἱ κατ’ ἀρετὴν ἐνέργειαι τῆς εὐδαιμονιας, αἱ δ’ ἐναντίαι τοῦ ἐναντίου. (
Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1.11
) Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus Tyrannus. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Cambridge, UK. 1885.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.