Hypotheses
ΣΟΦΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΗ
I.
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Ἀντιγόνη παρὰ τὴν πρόσταξιν τῆς πόλεως θάψασα τὸν Πολυνείκην ἐφωράθη, καὶ εἰς μνημεῖον κατάγειον ἐντεθεῖσα παρὰ τοῦ Κρέοντος ἀνήρηται· ἐφ’ ἧ καὶ Αἵμων δυσπαθήσας διὰ τὸν εἰς αὐτὴν ἔρωτα ξίφει ἑαυτὸν διεχειρίσατο. ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ τούτου θανάτῳ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ Εὐρυδίκη ἑαυτὴν ἀνεῖλε
.κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιΐα καὶ παρὰ Εὐριπίδη ἐν Ἀντιγόνη· πλὴν ἐκεῖ φωραθεῖσα μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος δίδοται πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν καὶ τέκνον τίκτει τὸν Μαίονα
.ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόκειται ἐν Θήβαις ταῖς Βοιωτικαῖς. ὁ δὲ χοπὸς συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἐπιχωρίων γερόντων. προλογίζει ἡ Ἀντιγόνη· ὑπόκειται δὲ τὰ πράγματα ἐπὶ τῶν Κρέοντος βασιλείων. τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τάφος Πολυνείκους, Ἀντιγόνης ἀναίρεσις, θάνατος Αἵμονος καὶ μόρος Εὐρυδίκης τῆς Αἵμονος μητρός. φασὶ δὲ τὸν Σοφοκλέα ἠξιῶσθαι τῆς ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγίας εὐδοκιμήσαντα ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῆς Ἀντιγόνης. λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον
.
ΑΡΙΣΤΟΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ
Aristophanes of Byzantium, librarian at Alexandria (flor. 200 B.C.), to whom the metrical argument for the
Oedipus Tyrannus is also ascribed in the MSS., but incorrectly: see
Oed. Tyr. p. 4. Though the genuineness of this prose
ὑποθέσις
has not such a
prima facie case against it as exists against that of all the metrical arguments ascribed to Aristophanes, it must at least be regarded as very doubtful. If the perfect
ἀνῄρηται
in line 2 is sound, it is an indication of much later age, as has been shown in the critical note above. Another such indication, I think, is the phrase
εἰς μνημεῖον κατάγειον ἐντεθεῖσα παρὰ
(instead of
ὑπὸ
)
τοῦ Κρέοντος
(l. 2),—a later (and modern) use of the prep. which does not surprise us in Salustius (
Arg. II.
l. 11
παρὰ τοῦ Κρέοντος κωλύεται
), but which would be strange in the Alexandrian scholar of
circ. 200 B.C. In the Laurentian MS. this Argument precedes, while the other two follow, the play.
ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ
Only some 21 small fragments remain (about 80 verses in all), and these throw no light on the details of the plot.
τὸν Μαίονα
. This reading is made almost certain by the mention of ‘Maion, son of Haemon’ in
Il. 4.394
, coupled with the fact that L has
Μαίμονα
in the margin (see cr. n.). But the reading
μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος
just before is doubtful. If it is sound, then we must understand: ‘having been discovered in company with Haemon, she was given in marriage (to him).’ But I am strongly inclined to think that the conjecture
μετὰ τοῦτο τῷ Αἵμονι
(which would explain the
v.l.
τῷ Αἵμονι
) is right. Dindorf differs from other interpreters in supposing that it was not Haemon, but someone else—perhaps a nameless
αὐτουργός,
as in the case of the Euripidean Electra—to whom Euripides married Antigone: and he reads
τίκτει τὸν Αἵμονα
. We have then to suppose that Antigone marked her affection for her lost lover by giving his name to her son by the
αὐτουργός
. At the end of the scholia in L we find these words:—
Ὅτι διαφέρει τῆς Εὐριπίδου Ἀντιγόνης αὕτη, ὅτι φωραθεῖσα ἐκείνη διὰ τὸν Αἵμονος ἔρωτα ἐξεδόθη πρὸς γάμον· ἐνταῦθα δὲ τοὐναντίον
. The contrast meant is between her marriage in Euripides and her death in Sophocles: but the words obviously leave it doubtful whether the person to whom Euripides married her was Haemon or not.
τῆς ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγίας
The traditional
στρατηγία
of Sophocles, and its relation to the production of the
Antigone, are discussed in the Introduction.
τριακοστὸν δεύτερον
Written
λ—β—
in L. The statement seems to have been taken from Alexandrian
διδασκαλίαι
which gave the plays in chronological order. Sophocles is said to have exhibited for the first time in
468 B.C. ,
aet. 28. See
Introd.
II.
ΣΑΛΟΥΣΤΙΟΥ ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.
Τὸ μὲν δρᾶμα τῶν καλλίστων Σοφοκλέους. στασιάζεται δὲ τὰ περὶ τὴν ἡρωΐδα ἱστορούμενα καὶ τὴν ἀδελφὴν αὐτῆς Ἰσμήνην· ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ἴων ἐν τοῖς διθυράμβοις καταπρησθῆναί φησιν ἀμφοτέρας ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ τῆς Ἥρας ὑπὸ Λαοδάμαντος τοῦ Ἐτεοκλέους· Μίμνερμος δέ φησι τὴν μὲν Ἰσμήνην προσομιλοῦσαν Θεοκλυμένῳ ὑπὸ Τυδέως κατὰ Ἀθηνᾶς ἐγκέλευσιν τελευτῆσαι. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν ἐστι τὰ ξένως περὶ τῶν ἡρωΐδων ἱστορούμενα. ἡ μέντοι κοινὴ δόξα σπουδαίας αὐτὰς ὑπείληφεν καὶ φιλαδέλφους δαιμονίως, ᾗ καὶ οἱ τῆς τραγῳδίας ποιηταὶ ἑπόμενοι τὰ περὶ αὐτὰς διατέθεινται. τὸ δὲ δρᾶμα τὴν ὀνομασίαν ἔσχεν ἀπὸ τῆς παρεχούσης τὴν ὑπόθεσιν Ἀντιγόνης. ὑπόκειται δὲ ἄταφον τὸ σῶμα Πολυνείκους, καὶ Ἀντιγόνη θάπτειν αὐτὸ πειρωμένη παρὰ τοῦ Κρέοντος κωλύεται. φωραθεῖσα δὲ αὐτὴ θάπτουσα ἀπόλλυται. Αἵμων τε ὁ Κρέοντος ἐρῶν αὐτῆς καὶ ἀφορήτως ἔχων ἐπὶ τῇ τοιαύτῃ συμφορᾷ αὑτὸν διαχειρίζεται· ἐφ’ ᾧ καὶ ἡ μήτηρ Εὐρυδίκη τελευτᾷ τὸν βίον ἀγχόνῃ
.
ΣΑΛΟΥΣΤΙΟΥ
A rhetorician of the
5th cent. A.D.: see on
Oed. Col., p. 6.— In the Laurentian MS., which alone records him as the writer, this Argument stands at the end of the play, immediately after the anonymous Argument (our
III.
).
στασιάζεται,
pass., ‘are made subjects of dispute,’ i.e. are told in conflicting ways, are ‘discrepant’: a late use of the word, which cannot be deduced from the older, though rare, active use of
στασιάζω
(
τὴν πόλιν,
etc.) as ‘to involve in party strife.’
Ἴων
Of Chios, the poet and prose-writer, flor.
circ. 450 B.C. His dithyrambs are occasionally mentioned (schol. on
Aristoph.
Pax 835
and on
Apollon. Rhod. 1. 1165
): it is probably from them that Athenaeus quotes (35 E): but only a few words remain.
Μίμνερμος
Of Smyrna, the elegiac poet, flor.
circ. 620 B.C.
Θεοκλυμένῳ
The only persons of this name in Greek mythology seem to be the soothsayer in the
Odyssey (
Od. 15.256
etc.), and a son of Proteus (
Eur.
Helen 9
): Wecklein suggests
Ἐτεόκλῳ,
an Argive who was one of the seven leaders against Thebes (
O. C. 1316
n.).
ξένως
i.e. in a way foreign to the version followed by Sophocles.
ἀγχόνῃ
Eurydice kills herself with a sword (
1301
). Possibly
ἀγχόνῃ
should follow
ἀπόλλυται
in l. 11 (cp.
Arg. III.
l. 10
ἀπολομένῃ ἀγχόνῃ
): but more probably it is due to a slip of memory, or to a confusion with the case of Iocasta in the
Oed. Tyr.III.
Ἀποθανόντα Πολυνείκη ἐν τῷ πρὸς τὸν ἀδελφὸν μονομαχίῳ Κρέων ὔταφον ἐκβαλὼν κηρύττει μηδένα αὐτὸν θάπτειν, θάνατον τὴν ζημίαν ἀπειλήσας. τοῦτον Ἀντιγόνη ἡ ἀδελφὴ θάπτειν πειρᾶται. καὶ δὴ λαθοῦσα τοὺς φύλακας ἐπιβάλλει χῶμα· οἷς ἐπαπειλεῖ θάνατον ὁ Κρέων, εἰ μὴ τὸν τοῦτο δράσαντα ἐξεύροιεν. οὗτοι τὴν κόνιν τὴν ἐπιβεβλημένην καθάραντες οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐφρούρουν. ἐπελθοῦσα δὲ ἡ Ἀντιγόνη καὶ γυμνὸν εὑροῦσα τὸν νεκρὸν ἀνοιμώξασα ἑαυτὴν εἰσαγγέλλει. ταύτην ὑπὸ τῶν φυλάκων παραδεδομένην Κρέων καταδικάζει καὶ ζῶσαν εἰς τύμβον καθεῖρξεν. ἐπὶ τούτοις Αἵμων, ὁ Κρέοντος υἱός, ὃς ἐμνᾶτο αὐτήν, ἀγανακτήσας ἑαυτὸν προσεπισφάζει τῇ κόρῃ ἀπολομένῃ ἀγχόνῃ, Τειρεσίου ταῦτα προθεσπίσαντος· ἐφ’ ᾧ λυπηθεῖσα Εὐρυδίκη, ἡ τοῦ Κρέοντος γαμετή, ἑαυτὴν ἀποσφάζει. καὶ τέλος θρηνεῖ Κρέων τὸν τοῦ παιδὸς καὶ τῆς γαμετῆς θάνατον
.
καθάραντες
vulg.,
καθαίροντες
L, and so most recent edd. But the present partic. cannot stand here; the removal of the dust was not a continued or repeated act (cp.
v. 409
). The form
xml:lang="grc">ἐκάθαρα
has earlier epigraphic evidence (
347 B.C.) than
ἐκάθηρα·
see Meisterhans,
Gramm. Att. Inschr. p. 86.
προσεπισφάζει
L:
ἐπισφάζει
vulg. II
ἀποσφάζει
L:
κατασφάζει
vulg.
ἐπιβάλλει χῶμα,
because the strewing of dust on the corpse was a symbolical sepulture: see
v. 256
, and
n. on 10
. The phrase is strange, but no emendation seems probable. 7
ἑαυτὴν εἰσαγγέλλει,
‘denounces herself’: see
v. 435
. 10
προθεσπίσαντος·
alluding to
vv. 1064 ff.
ΤΑ ΤΟΥ ΔΡΑΜΑΤΟΣ ΠΡΟΣΩΠΑ.
ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΗ ΑΙΜΩΝ ΙΣΜΗΝΗ ΤΕΙΡΕΣΙΑΣ ΧΟΡΟΣ ΘΗΒΑΙΩΝ ΓΕΡΟΝΤΩΝ ΑΓΓΕΛΟΣ ΚΡΕΩΝ ΕΥΡΥΔΙΚΗ ΦΥΛΑΞ ΕΞΑΓΓΕΛΟΣThe parts may have been cast as follows:
1.
Protagonist. Antigone. Teiresias. Eurydice.
2.
Deuteragonist. Ismene. Watcher. Haemon. Messenger. Second Messenger.
3.
Tritagonist. Creon.
Schneidewin gives Eurydice to the second actor, and the two Messengers to the first actor. But, as the part of Eurydice is much lighter than the combined parts of the Messengers, it is more naturally assigned to the first actor, who already bears the heaviest burden. From
Demosthenes
De Falsa Legat. § 247
it is known that the third actor played Creon.
It is a general rule of Greek Tragedy that, when the protagonist represents a woman, the Chorus represent women. The dramatic motive for the exception in this play is noticed
in the Introduction.
STRUCTURE OF THE PLAY.
1.
πρόλογος verses
1-99.
2.
πάροδος
100-161.
3.
ἐπεισόδιον πρῶτον
162-331.
4.
στάσιμον πρῶτον
332-375.
Anapaests,
376-383.
5.
ἐπεισόδιον δεύτερον
384-581.
6.
στάσιμον δεύτερον
582-625.
Anapaests,
626-630.
7.
ἐπεισόδιον τρίτον
631-780.
8.
στάσιμον τρίτον
781-800.
Anapaests,
801-805.
9.
ἐπεισόδιον τέταρτον
806-943
, beginning with a
κομμός, 806-882.
10.
στάσιμον τέταρτον
944-987.
11.
ἐπεισόδιον πέμπτον
988-1114.
12.
ὑπόρχημα
1115-1154
, taking the place of a fifth stasimon.
13.
ἔξοδος
1155-1352
, including a
κομμός, 1261-1347.
Introduction to Commentary on Sophocles: Antigone. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Cambridge. 1900.
Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.
Funding provided by National Endowment for the Humanities.