The Plot Of The Septem Contra Thebas: THE PLOT OF THE SEPTEM CONTRA THEBAS.

J. T. Sheppard

doi:10.1017/S0009838800023909

The Plot Of The Septem Contra Thebas

THE PLOT OF THE SEPTEM CONTRA THEBAS.

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009

J. T. Sheppard

Show author details

J. T. Sheppard: Affiliation:
King′s College

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

This paper is an attempt to show that considerations similar to those which have been applied by the present writer to the Suppliants throw more light than is generally admitted on the construction and dramatic value ox the Septem. The criticism of Dr. Verrall, whom I cannot mention without a deep sense of gratitude and sorrow, and the edition by Prof. Tucker, have made it unlikely that any careful student will without argument dismiss the play as uninteresting. We are no longer content to remark that ‘the scene between Eteocles and the Chorus is dramatically unnecessary,’ that ‘in the episode, vv. 370–708, which is the centre and kernel of the Seven against Thebes, we look in vain for action,’ that ‘there is no drama proper except between Antigone and the Herald.’

Type: Research Article
Information: The Classical Quarterly , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , April 1913 , pp. 73 - 82

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009838800023909 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1913

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 73 note 1} See C.Q., October, 1911, vol. v., pp. 220 sqq.

^{page 73 note 2} In his edition and in his notice of Prof. Tucker′s work, C. R., 1908, vol. xxii., p. 249.

^{page 73 note 3} P. Richter.

^{page 73 note 4} Muff: cf. Schmid in Christ′s Gr. Lit. Gesch I. i p. 292. For the inadequacy of such criticism see H. Weil, Drame Antique, pp. 29 sqq.; interyet Weil can say (Aesch. ii., p. 15) ‘uno tantum uersu ad tragicum fatorum nexum reuocamur.’

^{page 73 note 5} Hartung.

^{page 73 note 6} See for instance Tucker′s notes on vv. 269 636, and cf. W. G. Headlam, On Editing Aeschylus, p. 87.

^{page 73 note 7} See Dr. Verrall′s restatement of his view in C. R., 1908, vol. xxii., p. 249, and Mr. Bayfield′s admirable summary in C. R., 1904, vol. xviii., p. 160. As originally stated, Dr. Verrall′s interpretation was misleading, for it seemed to implythat the drama depended on military dispositions and on a nice derangement of plans.

^{page 74 note 1} Cf. my remarks in C. Q., October, 1911, vol. v., p. 228. Nothing that I say there or here affects the value of such an analysis as is made by M. P. Nilsson (Neue jahrbb,, xxvii., ign, p. 626) of the epico-lyrical composition of the play, or of Brun′s remarks (Lit. Portrdt. p. 56) on the characters.

^{page 74 note 2} Lectures OH Creek Poetry, p. 150.

^{page 75 note 1} Prof. Murray′s ‘bitter task’ ignores the conventional character of this expression. His theory that Oedipus is hinting at a possible command to die for the city is not justified by Sophocles, and indeed would somewhat diminish the effect of the play. At the outset Oedipus is the strong, calm helper of a broken people: everything is devised to show how great and safe he seems to be.

^{page 75 note 2} Consider the living oracles of 151–7. 476, the irony of 296 545, 706, 1147, the words of Teiresias rising from 412 (cf. 449) to 418 and the climax 420, and notice especially . It is the wicked words of Jocasta which terrify the chorus 864, 884. Notice how dramatically 505 is caught up by Creon′s 513 just as 512 by 521. Oedipus was started on his journey by ‘a chance missile of reproach‘ (Jebb on 784). His own words invoked his doom 1381 Observe how Iocasta says and Oedipus (977,1080), each just before knowledge of the truth.

^{page 76 note 1} Especially pp. xxv-xxix.

^{page 76 note 2} And therefore, dramatic: see Tucker′s note on v. 820, excellent so far as concerns the dramatic effect of 707–776, whatever may be thought of his interpretation of 820 itself.

^{page 76 note 3} It is true of course that Oedipus married through not through but this is a refinement of modern criticism. If the order of the words is not enough makes it clear that Oedipus, not Laius, is meant.

^{page 76 note 4} It is the importance of this new interest that justifies the doublet lines. It is impossible to say whether (in 734) is or is not a modification of the oracle to suit the patriotic development of the play.

^{page 77 note 1} See Tucker, Introduction, pp. xlv-xlvi and notes on vv. 98, 149; Weil, vol. ii., p. xiv.

^{page 77 note 2} The barbaric blazons make the matter clearer still. Plut. Themist. 8, 1 (to which Tucker refers in his note on v. 385)

^{page 77 note 3} For this see my article on the Suppliccs (C. Q.,1911). I should have added there an acknowledgment to Prof. Murray (Greek Epic², pp. 108, 291). I had forgotten that I was indebted to him for my interpretation of , and only remembered my indebtedness when I read the second edition of the Greek Epic.

^{page 77 note 4} For this see my article on Politics in the Frogs, J. H. S. vol. xxx., 1910, p.

^{page 77 note 5} Cf. Blomfield, who quotes Hesych.

^{page 78 note 1} Hence the plural: there is no need to suppose with Weil that a line is lost.

^{page 78 note 2} Cf. Thuc. v. in, quoted by Headlam, and i. 84.

^{page 78 note 3} Agam. 206 sqq.

^{page 79 note 1} In 288–290 each word is significant. Tucker has a good note, but does not connect the two words in his translation. Transl.: ‘As you are sprung from Zeus, save us for we are sprung from Cadmus.’In 128 not ‘though we are sprung of your blood we worship,’ but ‘because of it we worship (and have a claim to be heard).’

^{page 79 note 2} Cf. 260–6. Tucker well explains the repetition there. Cf. Wecklein, Studien zu A. (1872), p. 54.

^{page 80 note 1} I mention this specially, because Prof Tucker′s translation seems to me to place the emphasis wrongly. He makes the point of their reply, ‘Nay, I came to the gods because I trusted them.’ The point really is ‘not vaguely, but to the gods’ (whom you must not slight). Similarly the point of v. 209 is obscured if

^{page 80 note 2} Though Eteocles is in danger of losing selfcontrol and slipping into impiety, the scene is not, I think, tinged with the light-hearted seeptical irreverence suggested by Verrall

^{page 81 note 1} The admission is implied in Tucker′s notes on 401, 612. But the Introduction and such notes as that on 543 show that the point needs emphasizing.

^{page 81 note 2} and axe magical, not simply meant by noise and a fine appearance to frighten the enemy, but prophylactic; cf. Chase, The Shield Devices of the Greeks, Harvard Studies, xiii 1902, p. 70, n. 1, and Pease, Harvard Studies xv. 1904, pp. 35 sqq., 41–42 elephant bells not terrifying by their noise.

^{page 81 note 3} and (396–398) are words that find their full significance in 670–672, as (402) in in 657, 8. For the significance and cf. Cho. 459, 934–937; Klausen, Aesch. Theolog p. 129.