Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:25:38.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 1271–4

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

Adam Parry
Adam Parry
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In an article in the July 1959 issue of the American Journal of Philology, Mr. William Calder III offers two suggestions for the interpretation of 11. 1271–4 of Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, one concerning the reference of wv in 1271, and the other, the reference of in 1273 and 1274.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 10 , Issue 3-4 , November 1960 , pp. 268 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1960

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 268 note 1 Cf. Denniston, . The Greek Particles 2, p. 509Google Scholar; and also Pearson, , The Fragments of Sophocles, i. 99. I owe this note to Professor H. Rowell.Google Scholar

page 268 note 2 Kühner-Gerth, , ii. 577 ff. For the multi plication of negatives, cf. Euripides (Alexis ?) fr. 322 Nauck.Google Scholar

page 268 note 3 kakà goes with both verbs, not only with the latter, as Calder. Jebb has ‘such horrors as I was suffering and working’. He insists too much on the progressive character of the verbs. The Greek imperfect is much less progressive than the English was + participle. Cf., e.g., Plato, , Protagoras 314 c 8, d 5.Google Scholar

page 268 note 4 So Herwerden, Schneidewin, Jebb. Herwerden, however, cites one ‘Firnhaberus … qui vir doctus tamen cum aliis turn in eo fallitur, quod viv ad Jocasten spectare putavit’. Calder says that Jebb wanted to translate vlv by him. That is not correct.

page 268 note 5 Calder says that the S.-N.-B. edition attributes this interpretation to a suggestion of Wilamowitz, but I could find no mention of Wilamowitz in the relevant passage of the 1910 edition. Schneidewin himself apparently had a different view: see above.

page 269 note 1 The notion of ‘seeing’ with the mind's eye was not a commonplace to the ancients, as it is to us. commonly meant ‘I understand’, ‘I follow you’, but that is something else. The notion probably first appears in the Cave Allegory of Plato (Resp. 517 c), but here it has behind it the strength of an explicit metaphor. [Cf. pp. 185 ff. above. Ed.]

page 269 note 2 Infinitives to both must be supplied from the main verbs which follow them. Calder's translation is herein again inaccurate: ‘… whom on the other hand they were in the habit of desiring they would not know.’ When means to desire a person or a thing, it takes the genitive.

page 269 note 3 in posterum (from Brunck) is right;for the rest (of time) (Calder) is wrong.

page 270 note 1 I am quoting Dobree from Herwerden's edition, which cites his translation in order to reject it.

page 270 note 2 Cf. [Longinus, ], De Sublimitate 23. 2–3.Google Scholar