Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T22:39:23.184Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sophocles. The Plays and Fragments. Part II. lite Oedipus Coloneus, with Critical Notes, Commentary, and Translation in English Prose, by R. C. Jebb, Doctor of Letters, Professor of Greek in the University of Glasgow, &c. Cambridge University Press, 1885. 12s. 6d.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2009

A. W. Verrall
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Reviews
Information
The Classical Review , Volume 1 , Issue 2-3 , April 1887 , pp. 53 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1887

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 54 note 1 I take the construction to be θκοισι, στσν με,εἴ τνα (θκον) βλπεις The passage from the plural to the singular is natural and even necessary. The difference between θɔς and θκοι (with singular meaning), where they differ, is that θκος is the material seat or thing sat upon, as a bench, or cliair, θκοι a sitting-place, a seat considered generally or in the abstract. Here therefore the plural and the singular are each correctly used; θκῳ στσον might have seemed to indicate a particular seat, and on the other hand εἴ τινας βλπεις (since with βλπεις the conception must be material) would have suggested a number of seats, which is not the intention. For the construction of the locative θκοισιν compare Oed. Tyr. 20 γοραῖσι θακεῖ : it seems here to be indispensable, if στσον is not to be otiose; στσν με could only mean ‘stop me’, which is surely the same thing as ‘let me rest’.

page 54 note 2 Enr.fr. 877,τηλο γρ οἴκων βοτον ξιδρυσυην, cited by the editor. He adds that there ‘it is the context which fixes this sense.’ This is true, and the passage certainly does not prove that ξιδρω could bear no other. But it strengthens the presumption which the form itself suggests, that this is the natural meaning of it.

page 54 note 3 Kuehner, Greek Grammar, § 567, 6, quoting Aesch. Eum. 696, Soph. Track. 94 κα γρ ὕστερον τ γ’ εὖ πρσσειν, πε πθοιτο, κρδος μπολᾷ and other examples.

page 55 note 1 The assumed corruption is not, however, very natural: ἔρωτες might well be changed to ἔρωτος, ‘and the change of τνδε to τοδε would follow’. Why so ? ἔρωτος τνdε is not obviously inexplicable, for τνδε might stand for με and a corrector, if we suppose deliberate change, would have devised something easier than ἔρωτος τοδε.