Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:41:31.465Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sophocles, Oedipvs Tyrannvs 876–877

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. S. Henry
A. S. Henry
Affiliation:
University of New England ArmidaleN.S.W.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I print the text as given in Pearson. I agree with Jebb and Sheppard that the strophe is sound, and therefore I would retain at 866–7. The problem now lies with the antistrophe, where with the manuscript reading at 877 we lack either or-to give proper responsion with 867.

The manuscript text can be vindicated if we detect that simplest of scribal errors, haplography. Thus for 876–7 I would read

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , December 1965 , pp. 203 - 205
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1965

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

1 I am most grateful to my colleague, Mr. A. S. McDevitt, for his assistance in matters of metre. Ultimate responsibility is mine.

1 I can find no exact parallel for γε emphasizing a superlative in the lyric portions of Tragedy, but the well-instanced use of γε ‘with adjectives and adverbs expressing number, size and intensity, corresponding to the far more frequent use of (Denniston) and the common use of ye both in prose and verse (e.g. Eur. Hel. 851, I.T. 580) should afford sufficient justification for the usage here.

1 Aristarchus but in view of Iliad 18. 68 and the fact that ‘the construction of without a genitive and with a bare accusative of the terminus ad quern is very harsh’ (Leaf), the reading is surely .

2 As for the omission of the definite article, neither here nor in the Hymn need be interpreted as ‘the highest’, but simply ‘very high’.

3 (i.e. Doric for a word of limited usage in the classical period, cf. LSJ, s.v. ) would give an impossible responsion since, although long elements in the ‘aeolic base’ may be resolved to double- short, two successive elements may not take the single-short form. Thus might be regarded as a resolved form of but not as a variation of a form with 4 base-elements.