Sophocles, "Trachiniae" 1264-78Author(s): Philip WebbSource: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 36, Fasc. 3/4 (1983), pp. 368-370Published by: BRILLStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4431257 .

Accessed: 18/09/2013 18:31

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:31:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

368 MISCELLANEA

this meaning of a?????a from that of 'musical mode' (e.g. N. 4, 46), or (more probably) to express human modesty with regard to the

god's desired behaviour: cf. 0. 9, 25 s?? t??? ?????d?? pa????. I do not agree with Hubbard (?. 17) that "if vv. 67-9 referred to

Apollo, we would expect a causal connective like ???" at 70. The

asyndeton has explanatory (specifying) force (cf. my note on /. 2, 37 a?d????, Mnem. IV 35, 1982, 27): 70-2 is the thought to which

Apollo is asked to give his approval. In that context ???a is "en-

comiastic propriety" (Hubbard, 291), but not in the sense of ap-

propriate composition (Bundy I, 61 n. 69): it simply refers to the fact that the song of praise is the victor's due (see my remarks in

Mnem. IV 14, 1961, 45-6). The next sentence then forms a suitable

contrast, if we take dp?? in the sense of 'respect', 'reverence' (LSJ II

1) and read af??t??: a success, even if it is deserved, should not

tempt a man to expect that he now will be master of his future, but

he should never cease to revere the gods (who may at any moment

cause a reversal in his fortune)1).

Zeist, Homeruslaan 53 VV. J. Verdenius

1) The reading af??t?? has been adopted by Fennell, Gildersleeve, Farnell, Puech, Turyn; so W. Burkert, MH 38 (1981), 203, is wrong in calling it a "allge- mein verworfene Variante". He seems to agree with LSJ in taking ?e?? dp?? in our

passage as 'the care or favour of the gods', but this is unparalleled. For the mean- ing 'respect' with an objective genitive there are parallels in Pindar himself (O. 2, 6 dp? ... ?????) and in Herodotus (IX 76, 2 t??? ??te da?????? ??te ?e?? dp?? ????ta?; similarly Vili 143, 2). Burkert (201) writes: "Herodot hat praktisch ?p??es?a? zerlegt in ?p?? e?e?? und damit eine neue Verwendung von ?p?? geschaffen", but this usage may be much older: cf. Tyrt. 6-7 D. = 10 W., 12 out' dp?? ??? ??e?? (Bergk's emendation, defended by me in Mnem. IV 22, 1969, 344) and Od. 14, 82 ??? ?p?da f??????ta? ?vi f?es? ??$' ??e?t?? (where an ellipse of ?e?? is much harder to

accept than at 88, where ?e?? and ?e?? precede). Burkert's explanation of/. 5, 58 e?p?d?? ... ?p?? as 'der Hoffnungen aufmerksame Sorge', seil, "wann endlich die Fr?chte reifen" (203) seems to me impossible: 'attentive care' can be a special case of 'respect', but not if 'attention' refers to a look-out (Burkert: "indem man ... Ausschau halt"). I am inclined to prefer the interpretation proposed by D. Korzeniewski, Gymn. 78 (1971), 140-1 (similarly G. A. Privitera, Pindaro, Le Istmiche, Milan 1982, 200-1): 'respect paid to hopes' is equivalent to 'those who

fervently hope* (seil, for success). For hope as a divine power cf. fr. 214.

SOPHOCLES, TRACHINIAE 1264-78

Besides the minor difficulties at 1266 (te/d?), 1270 (?f??$/?f??$) and 1275 (?p??p'), the attribution of 1275-8 is a major problem. The lines are well-suited to the youthful Hyllos (cp. 1264-9), and s?

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVI, Fase. 3-4 (1983)

This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:31:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MISCELLANEA 369

pa????e will then be addressed to the Coryphaeus; it might even be

felt unfitting for a chorus of maidens to finish so dramatic a scene.

But they have commented already at 1044 and 1112 on very masculine passages, and it is quite unparalleled for a play by one of

the four great dramatists to end without words from the chorus (ex-

cept for the first or second of a tetralogy: in Eumenides the Propom-

poi form a substitute chorus). A modern playwright might have the

chorus file out in silence to underline his attack on the gods, but not

a Greek. If on the other hand the chorus speak 1275-8, s? pa????e must

refer to Iole. But apart from the unlikely use of a silent Iole (not hinted at elsewhere in the scene) and the absurdity of a sympathetic reference to so minor a character (linked with the Erinyes 895, cp. 1233 ff.) to end the play, we must explain ?p'/?p' ?????. Where is

Iole told to go? She cannot return to Oikhalia (which has been

destroyed), nor go with Herakles to Oita (cp. 1194), while 'into the

house' would entail an unexampled use of ?p? = 'outside'. This

objection also refutes the view that 1275-8 (together with p??? in

1269) is a 4th-Century inter-(super-?)-polation to go with the in-

troduction of a silent Iole: in any case it is grotesque to suggest that

the supposed interpolator refered to Iole only in the last 4 lines. On

any account of the passage, the only available reference of s? is the

Coryphaeus. (If the Coryphaeus addressed 1275-8 to the rest of the

chorus, s? pa????e would have to be plural.) I believe Sophocles ended the Trachiniae in the following way:

1264-9, 1275-8 (Hyllos), 1270-4 (Chorus). Hyllos' speech is now a

well-balanced unity: the first half is addressed to the henchmen, the

second to the Coryphaeus, both halves explicitly upbraid Zeus

(pat??e? 1269, ?e?? 1278), and the whole thing bristles with jingles and alliterations (1264-7, 1276-7) which are absent from 1270-4.

Having dismissed the ?pad??, Hyllos returns our attention to the

chorus after their long silence, and telling them to go home (ap* ????? with the best mss.: for ?p? = 'absent from' cp. Thuc. I 99

etc) goes out railing against Zeus. The Coryphaeus (on behalf of the

chorus) then closes the drama with 5 lines of non-committal

platitude, hinting at Herakles' coming deification (1270, the only reference in the play). Even a?s???, though a criticism of the gods, is tempered by ta ??? ?st?t': ??e????? refers to the gods, mentioned in the person of Zeus three lines above, the timid circumlocution of the girl contrasting sharply with Hyllos' outspoken vigor. The play concludes, not with a piece of un-Sophoclean blasphemy (in the

traditional text 1266-9 + 1275-8 landing finally on the word

This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:31:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

370 MISCELLANEA

'Zeus'), but with a reference to the sufferings of the hero (1273-4) which have been its principal theme, ??? (1264) goes with te (1266) which is in the oldest ms. (cp. Tr. 1012-3); ??d? (1275) contrasts the

maiden with the warriors (for ??d? without antecedent cp. OC 481);

?e? ??? (1270) stands more appropriately at the beginning of a

speech with corrective force (cp. Denniston, 475); and finally ?f??f, which is in all mss., can be retained in 1270, for it no longer comes

straight after ?f???s? in 1269 (which it now answers). The corruption would arise through mutilation of the last page of

the play (not uncommon), 1270-4 being copied from another ms.

between or alongside 1275-8, and thence finding their way into

their present position. The mss. attributions are guesswork (cp. the

ancient scholiast's e???e).

University of Toronto Philip Webb

SOPHOCLES, TRACHINIAE 1270-8

The transposition of 1275-8 advocated by Mr. Webb (above, pp.

368-70) is an interesting suggestion, but the vigour of his language does not seem to me to correspond to the strength of his argument. On the one hand, he plays down the force of 1272 (a?s???

"tempered by ta ??? ?st?ta", ??e????? a "timid circumlocution"), on the other hand, he magnifies 1278 into a "blasphemy", "railing

against Zeus". Such extreme qualifications cannot be strictly

disproved, but they may at least be called in question by adducing the views of two experts. R. P. Winnington-Ingram, Sophocles

(Cambridge 1980), 74, points out (1) that a?s??? "is not a general moral judgement but refers specifically to the shame brought on a

parent who has failed his son", and (2) that the words of 1278, "whoever spoke them, are completely neutral". P. E. Easterling, ICS 6, 1 (1981), 70, observes that "if the Chorus speak these words

[1278] they offer a comment which is perfectly neutral in itself ...

this is not presented as a contradiction of Hyllus' blasphemy,

though it is bound to have the effect of modifying the final tone. If

Hyllus is the speaker then the denunciation of Zeus continues to the

end, but for the audience it is qualified by the element of irony in

the preceding scenes". It may be added (1) that ?e? ??? can have

prospective force (Denniston, 473-4), and (2) that ?f??f (1270) after

?f???s? (1269) is paralleled by ??s?? at 964 and 967 (as is observed

by Easterling, n. 35).

Zeist, Homeruslaan 53 W. J. Verdenius

Mnemosyne, Vol. XXXVI, Fase. 3-4 (1983)

This content downloaded from 128.148.252.35 on Wed, 18 Sep 2013 18:31:42 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions