Some Interpolations in Sophocles Reeve, Michael D Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1970; 11, 4; ProQuest pg. 283

Some Interpolations in Sophocles 

Michael D. Reeve 

I 

D EIANIRA'S opening speech in Trachiniae ends, according to the 
tradition, as follows (36--48):1 

~ "" • , , "(J\ ~ "" • \ , ".1. vvv 0 "f}VLI< a I\WV TWVO VTTEpTEI\TJC E'f'V, 

, ~(J '" "\ a ' '" EVTav a oTJ IWI\LCTa Tap,..TJcac EXW. 

'c l' '" ~ 'TJ.' a' E~ ov yap EI<Ta I<ELVOC I.If'LTOV ,..Lav, 

~J.LELC J.L€V iv TpaXLvL TtJS' aVcXcTaToL 
c ' , , '" \' ~ "" <I 
~EV't1 TTap avopL vaLoJ.LEv, I<ELVOC 0 OTTOV 
a 'a '''' \ .,.'" \ \ ,\ , 
,..E,..TJI<EV OVOELC OLOE' TTI\TJV EJ.LOL TTLl<pac 
, ~~ '~a \' , , 

WOLvac aVTOV TTpoc,..al\wv aTToLXETaL. 
(:- , t:-" , , ,.., tI , 

CXEOOV 0 ETTLcTaJ.LaL TL TTTJJ.L ExovTa VLV" 

44 1 , • \ a \ , \ \' "'" '" , Xpovov yap OVXL ,..aLOv a/\/\ "f}oTJ OEl<a 
,.., "\ \ " , , , 

J.L TJvac TTpOC a/\/\OLC TTEVT al<TJpVI<TOC J.LEVEL. 
~ ~,~ '" l<aCTLV TL OELVOV TTTJJ.La· TOLavT7Jv EJ.LOL 

'" '\ \ '" \' \ (J , OEI\TOV I\LTTWV ECTELXE, TTJV EyW aJ.La 

(JEOLC apwJ.Lat 7T"f}J.Lov1Jc aTEp Aa{3ELv. 

But lines 44-48 were condemned by Wunder2 for the following 

1 The following commentaries will be cited by the author's name: on Ajax, A. NAUCK 
(SchneidewinD, Berlin 1888), R. JEBB (Cambridge 1896); on Trachiniae, E. WUNDER (Gotha 
1841), F. W. SCHNEIDEWIN (Leipzig 1854), NAUCK (Schneidewin5 , Berlin 1880), JEBB (Cam­
bridge 1892); on Oedipus Tyrannus, WUNDERZ (Gotha 1840), SCHNEIDEWIN (Leipzig 1851), 
JEBBs (Cambridge 1893), E. BRUHN (Schneidewin1o, Berlin 1897); on Oedipus Coloneus, 
P. ELMSLBY (Oxford 1823), L. CAMPBELL2 (Oxford 1879), N. WBCKLBIN (Munich 1880), JEBB3 

(Cambridge 1900). All these commentaries except Jebb's have been consulted in the earli­
est edition accessible. Two other exceptions: the first edition of Wunder's OT (Gotha 1832) 
does not contain the relevant matter, and Wecklein's OC (=Wunder5 ?) was not accessible 
at all (his views are reported by Jebb). 

2 E. Wunder, Emendationes in SophoC/is Trachinias (Grimma 1841) 167-70. The preface to 
this work is an interesting exercise in diplomacy. Originally a loyal pupil of Gottfried Her­
mann, Wunder had incurred his displeasure by a review of the second edition of Lobeck's 
Ajax. Cordiality was restored when they happened to meet on holiday, and in the follow­
ing year he took the opportunity of dedicating to Hermann a work that would otherwise 

2.-G.R.B.S. 283 



284 SOME INTERPOLATIONS IN SOPHOCLES 

reasons: (1) the 8lA'TOC of 47 and 157 contains a report of the oracle; but 
whereas in 164-68 the period of fifteen months is critical, in 44-48 it is 
merely long; (2) if 46-48 are removed, 44-45 repeat the gist of 38-41; 
(3) 44-48 anticipate 155-74; (4) Kacnv n 8€£vov ~p.a in 46 repeats 43; 
(5) 46-47 'To£av'T7]V ... EC'T€£X€ repeats 41-42 7TA~v ... a7TolX€'Ta£; (6) 
~v ... Aafkiv in 47-48 is inappropriate, because the OlA'TOC cannot 
harm Deianira. 

Jebb in the appendix to his edition disposes of (5), reasonably ig­
nores (2) and (6), but gives incompatible answers to (1) and (4): 
"Deianira is alarmed not merely because the absence of Heracles has 
been long, but because, as she says, it has now lasted precisely 15 
months, thus completing the term fixed by the oracle. Verse 43 ex­
presses a surmise; verse 46 is stronger, and expresses certainty." If 
surmise in 43 changes to certainty in 46, then the fifteen months, 
which give rise to the former, cannot be connected with the 8lA'Toc, 
which gives rise to the latter. 

The only escape from (1) is to concede (4) and punctuate lightly 
after 45, so that the 8lA'TOC can serve to explain why the fifteen months 
disquiet her. 

have widened the distance between them. In the circumstances the preface strikes a nice 
balance between candour and generosity. 

Ten years later the public heard more. In the third edition of his Trachiniae (Leipzig 
1851) pp. xiv-xvi, Hermann felt impelled to explain why he had scarcely referred to Wun­
der's work: "est enim Wunderus vir ... singulari naturae proprietate ita semper mentem 
atque oculos in uno tantum puncta defixos habens. ut, quemadmodum qui aliquid per 
tubum telescopii contemplantur, illud unum cernat acutissime, a ceteris rebus omnibus, 
etiam proximis et quae bene cognita habet, plane interclusus." To sum up, "vellem ego 
quidem vir optimus quid et recte et Graece diceretur sibi ab Sophocle, non Sophocli ab se 
discendum putaret." 

For all the fairness of Hermann's strictures (and they are not unmixed with praise), 
\Vunder remains one of the most independent and least cloudy of Sophoclean commenta­
tors. As the present article shows. he was not afraid to delete. and even inert editors agree 
with him from time to time (e.g. at Trach. 684); but it is by no means his only method. 
Others are employed, for instance. at Trach. 941-42, where he makes an unassailable case 
for Wakefield's conjecture plov, and at 810, where his suggestion EPIV for O£fUv is far more 
penetrating than the usual preoccupation with 1TpovAa{J£cl1TpOV{Ja.A£c. 

Though most of his endeavour was devoted to Sophocles, at least two other contribu­
tions are worth recalling. both ta be found in NeueJahrbUcher 99 (1869): ii.ber {wei stellen in 
Horatius oden, 134-44, and itber {wei oden des Horatius, 849-55. In the first he argues with care 
and clarity for visis in place oflinquis at 1.35.24; in the second he offers interpretations of 1.22 
and 30 that are altogether more helpful and perceptive than anything written before and 
many things written since. 

1869 was the year of his death. and a brief obituary is appended to the second of these 
articles. 



MICHAEL D. REEVE 285 

Jebb parries (3) as follows: HAn allusion to the S€A:roc, without fur­
ther explanation, is natural here, where she communes aloud with her 
own thoughts, heard only by the Nurse. It is also dramatically effec­
tive, as bespeaking the interest of the spectators for the explanation 
given in 155ff." That the function of the passage is to create suspense 
had already been stated by Schneidewin. 

Nauck apparently agrees with what he takes to be Wunder's view, 
that 46-48 are interpolated. He makes three points: (1) the S€ATOC is 
ignored in the immediate sequel; (2) Deianira's distress is greater in 
46 than in 43, but for no obvious reason;3 (3) the same as Wunder's (6). 

Tycho von Wilamowitz, Die dramatische Technik des Sophocles (Berlin 
1917) 122-25, takes up these three points and launches a vigorous 
attack on the idea that Sophocles or any of the tragedians might have 
wished to create suspense of the kind that appealed to Jebb. Like 
Nauck, however, he fails to notice that by deleting only 46-48 he ex­
poses himself to the full force of Wunder's (1) and (2). 

Recent editions and commentaries4 give the impression that the 
matter is closed; but it has no right to be until the arguments of 
Wunder, Nauck and Tycho von Wilamowitz have been confuted. 
Can they be confuted? On the contrary, Wunder's case against 44-48 
is corroborated by a small but significant detail, and it can even be 
maintained that he did not go quite far enough. 

In dialogue the tragedians appear to have used TOY K.T.A. for OY K.T.A. 
only under metrical constraint. The manuscripts offer no exception 
in Aeschylus,S three in Euripides,6 and in Sophocles perhaps only 
ECTELXE, ri}v eyc1 {)aJLCt. in line 47 of the present passage.7 As it happens, 

3 He does not make it clear whether the Steigerung lies in 8€LV~V '7Tfjll-a compared with 
'7Tfjll-a or in £CTLV compared with cX£8~v €'7TlCTall-aL; but he is right in either case, because 
it is pointless, as Wunder saw, to distinguish between'1Tfjll-a and aELV~V '1Tfjll-a, and the other 
distinction is the one unwisely drawn by Jebb (see above in the text). 

4 Pearson (OCT, Oxford 1928), Dain (Bude, Paris 1962); Kamerbeek (Leyden 1959), 

Longo (Padua 1968). 

5 At Supp. 265, KVw8&Awv PpoTo4>86pwv I T~ 8~ ... is an emendation (Turnebus: T~ 8i 

cod.); "notandum T~ 8~ in initio trimetri positum sine metri necessitate pro a 8~, nisi hoc 
ipsum restituendum," Dindorf, Lexicon Aeschyleum (Leipzig 1873) s.v. 0 § 5. It may be that 
in'1Top8€iv a Il-~ XP~ at Ag. 342« (FTr.) is an emendation of TO: (V). 

6 Supp. 858 £'1TaLVOV TWV £ywy£ {JoVA0ll-aL .•• (wv Pierson, Twv8' iytfJ T€ Nauck), IT 35 V61l-0LCL 

TO'CLV Tj8£TCCL 8£& (-CLV OlCLV Herwerden), Bacch. 338 T~V 'AKTtwVOC a8ALOv 1l-6pov, I T~V ••• (T~V 
L,ov 1). Only the second of these instances is noticed by Kuhner-Gerth § 460.3. 

7 At OC 35, TWV a 8T]AOfill-£V used to be printed as TWV &8T]Aofill-€V, which according to 
Campbell and Dain is the original reading of L, until Elmsley pointed out that "TWV 
neque ... neque pro wv nisi post vocalem in hoc metro usurpari solet." Dindorf emended 



286 SOME INTERPOLATIONS IN SOPHOCLES 

the words ~v ~yc1 Bap,&. occur after a vowel in Ei. 1144, albeit not at 
the end of the line; and it may be that an actor has borrowed them 
from Electra's famous speech without noticing that he should have 
." l'\t\() \ wntten EcrnXEV, TJV EyW ap,a. 

When Wunder found too many faults in 44-48, it may seem 
surprising that at the same time he should have made the contrary 
mistake of not going far enough; but made it he has. By ending 
Deianira's speech at 43, he leaves the last line tagging along like an 
afterthought: it introduces a new point only to abandon it at once 
and leave it hanging in the air. Delete it, and the speech could not 
have a more fitting conclusion: 

\ , " , 
1T'I\TJV Ep,Ot 1T'tKpac 

• ~~ • ~ fJ--' \ , I wowac aVTOV 1T'pOC al\WV a1T'otXETat. 

It is with the same language that Tecmessa concludes her final speech 
(Ajax 971-73): 

\ ~ , 'O~ \. ~ ',Q r I 
1T'pOC TaUT oVCCEVC EV KEVOtC V,...pt':,ETW· 

A" , 1 "'" ,," I -'-'\" , tac yap aVTOtC OVKET ECTLV, aI\I\ Ep.ot 
, \ >1 \ I ~ I 8 
I\t1T'WV avtac Kat yoovc OLOtXETaL. 

II 
One deletion proposed by Wunder exceeds all the others in impor­

tance and is indeed one of the most important ever proposed in 
tragedy. 

What, asks Oedipus, is the reason for these supplications and the 
wailing all over the dty? Rather than learn at second hand, 

., 'f' "'. ., I, B 
aVTOC wo £1\7JI\V a, 

o 1T'aCL KAELV6C Ol8t1T'oVC KaAovp,EvOC (OT 7-8), 

and so the action starts. 

Track. 47 accordingly, but ]ebb had already cited it in two editions of DC as an instance 
of metrical constraint before he came to edit Track. and saw that it is not. 

S Schneidewin, Philologus 4 (1849) 473-74, was quite wrong to remove 969 and 972-73: 

what must go is 966-70 (Nauck). "The diversity of opinion among the critics as to which 
verses should be deleted curiously illustrates," says ]ebb in his appendix, "the arbitrary 
character of such processes"-or the unremarkable fact that some people have more wit 
than others. 

In the circumstances it is a waste of time to tinker with ~ in 966, especially if all that 



MICHAEL D. REEVE 287 

Wunder deleted line 8; Hneque enim umquam apud Sophoclem qui 
prologum orditur suum ipsius nomen ita profitetur, sed ab eo quicum 
colloquitur primum nomine appellatur. accedit quod numquam 
Sophocles, quo fuit sensu venusti et decori, Oedipum in ipso exordio 
rov 1Tan KI\€LVOV Kal\01JjLfllOV se dicentem introduxisset." 

Now the second of these arguments may be intangible and leave 
room for dispute;9 but the first rests on an observation of the greatest 
simplicity and the greatest significance. When Sophocles begins a 
play, two concerns are in his mind; to furnish essential information, 
and to develop a realistic situation. It is not realistic10 for someone to 
announce his name to people who know it already, and so the audi­
ence must wait until the second speaker uses it unless they are familiar 
with the myth.ll In Oedipus Tyrannus they wait only 14 lines; in Philoc­
tetes it is 26 and in Trachiniae 49.12 

emerges is an ugly sequence like Tt8V11K€ Klil K€ivO" (R. D. Dawe, ProcCambPhilSoc 194 [1968] 
12-13). Among the examples of repeated syllables collected by Diggle, ib. 195 (1969) 59, 
there is none as bad as this. 

• Cf Schneidewin and Jebb: "Oed. spricht diese Worte nicht im stolzen S e I b s t gefiihl 
- erinnert er doch nur an die allgemeine Volksstimme -, sondern in tiefem Mit gefUhl 
fUr die Leiden Thebens und in bitterm Bewusstsein, wie gross der Abstand sei zwischen 
seiner gepriesenen Herrlichkeit und dem, was er in der Noth zu thun vermoge. Wie es aber 
fUr die lK£-rat ein Trost sein muss, dass der gefeierte Fiirst selbst sich ihrer annimmt, so ist 
es fUr den Zuschauer ein Zug tragischer lronie, das Oed. gerade am Wendepunkte seiner 
KAnv6Tl)c an diese erinnert"; "the tone is Homeric ... : Oedipus is a type, for the frank 
heroic age, of Arist.'s JL£ya.-\6ifJVXoc - 6 JL£YaAWV av-rov &[tWV, a[wc wv." 

10 Admittedly, different people will draw the line between the realistic and the unreal­
istic in different places, so that it may be impossible to tell whether a particular scene is 
meant to be realistic. At the beginning of Philoctetes, for instance, it would probably strike 
most people as unrealistic that Odysseus tells Neoptolemus at length when they set foot on 
Lemnos a story that he is bound to have heard earlier in even greater detail; but would 
Sophocles have pleaded necessity, or did he see nothing unrealistic in it? 

11 The only true statement in Bruhn's interesting note is the comment of Voltaire's that 
he disagrees with: "Die Nennung des Namens ist notwendig, damit der Zuschauer weiss, 
wen er vor sich hat, aber zugleich psychologisch wohl begriindet ... ; so dass wir eher mit 
dem Scholiasten sagen werden 1TtOaVWC 3'\ TO 5voJLa TOU 1TPOAOY{~OV7'OC €3.]AWC£V als mit Vol­
taire (Lettres Ii M. de Genonville 3) einem Dichter unsere Bewunderung versagen, qui n·em­
ploie d'autre artifice pour faire connaitre ses personnages que de faire dire (Ie roi): Je m'appelle 
CEdipe, si vant!! par tout Ie monde." 

12 Aristophanes can be much less obliging: see Dover on Clouds 134 (Oxford 1968). In 
comedy, of course, nothing hinges on the name-though it is as well for modern readers to 
remember that the audience was not disposed in Dicaeopolis' favour at the beginning of 
Acharnians by merely knowing his name. 

The crudity of Euripides' introductions can go without illustration, but there is a wel­
come exception in Heraclidae, where lolaus uses his own name in an imaginary rebuke (line 
30). Eteocles does much the same in Septem (line 6); cf also OC 3. 



288 SOME INTERPOLATIONS IN SOPHOCLES 

Wunder's arguments seem not to have impressed the editors, who 
ignore his deletion; and one P. de Koning apparently failed to set 
Leyden alight in 1891 when he made the same proposal, whether in­
dependently or not, in his doctoral examination (Quaestiones Atticae, 
thesis V). It is hoped that the explanation here offered for the phe­
nomenon observed by Wunder will acquit him of irresponsibility and 
encourage the editors to think again. 

III 
.... ~, , \ \ I , , " \ 

VVV 0 , EC CE yap 7TOP.7TOV TE KaVTOV ayyEl\ov 

., '''' '" '\' " .... TJKW, CV CWCOV, cv P. EI\ETJCOV, ELCOpWV 
• , ~ I 13' ~ , a ~ WC 7Tav-ra oELVa, Ka7TLKLVOVVWC ,...POTOLC 

KELTaL 7TaOELV P.€V EO, 7TaOELV 8€ OaTEpa. 
\ ~" , JI , \ ~ ,,, r ,... 

XPTJ 0 EKTOC ov-ra 7TTJp.aTWV Ta oELV opav, 
" .,. y- -, fJ' XWTav TLC EV ~TI, T'T}VLKav-ra TOV LOV 

CK07TELV P.a'\tCTa p.~ fJLacpOapEk '\aOTl' 

These lines (Phil. 500-06) must be judged in the light of a Sophoclean 
mannerism. Since it may have passed unnoticed, here are sixteen 
examples: 

Ajax 479-80 

691-92 

1314-15 

El. 821-22 

132D-21 

OT 145-46 

Ant. 37-38 

209-10 

&'\'\' ~ Ka'\wc 'fjv ~ Ka'\wc TEOVTJK'vaL 
, , ,... , ,,,, I \' 

TOV EVYEVTJ XPTJ. 7Tav-r aKTJKoac l\oyOV. 
"" ,It Tax av p. LCWC 

'fJO ,-~ - I 7TV OLC E J KEL VVV OVCTVXW J CECWCP.EVOV. 

fJoV'\-r]CTI 7TOT€ 
,~ \',. ~\ \ '" , '0 ' Kat OELI\OC E wat p.al\l\ov "I v EP.Ot pacvc. 

co I \" , 

WC xaptc P.EV "IV KTavn J 

\ , ~., , r - ,.. fJ' ~, ,~, 'n 1\V7T'TJ 0 Eav ~W' TOV LOV 0 OVOELC 7TOUOC. 

~ yap (xV Ka'\wc 

€CWC· Ep.av~v ~ Ka'\wc a7Tw,\6p.TJV· 
., , , .... 

"I yap EVTVXE LC 

, ,.. 0 - .J.. 'lI'" , CVV Tep Eep 'f'avovp.EU "I 7TE7TTWKOTEC. 

l>EtgELC TaXa 

"" ".J.. ., , • ()\ - , UT EVYEVTJC 7TE'f'VKac EtT EC I\WV KaKTJ. 

Oavwv 
\ y.... f' , 't""" I 

Kat ,:>WV OP.OLWC ES EP.OV TLp.TJCETaL 

13 &~'\a Wakefield, accepted by Diggle, loc.cit. (supra n.S) 37. 



313-14 

927-28 

Trach. 468-69 

819-20 

1111 
Phil. 1043-44 

OC 459-60 

1344-45 

MICHAEL D. REEVE 

EK TWV yd.p alcxpwv ,\7Jf-tf-taTWV Tove 7T'\£{ovae 
) 1 H'~ ¥. '" , 

aTWILEvove WOLC av 7J CECWCf-tEVOVC. 
, \' , 

f-L7J 7TIlELW KaKa 
'0 ... ,~- • ~, ., 7Ta OLEV "I KaL OpWCLV EKOLKWC Ef-LE. 

CO, O' EYW 1>pa~w KaKOV 

7TpOC aMov EfvaL, 7TpOC O' Ef-L' ao/EvOEtV ad. 
, ~ , , .1. .-

T7JV OE TEp'f'LV 7Jv 
• - ~,~ ,,~. ., \ ' R 

TWf-LC{J UWWCL 7TaTpL, T7JVU aVT7J llafJoL. 
'y- I '0'" KaL ,:>WV KaKovpyoVc KaL avwv ETELcaf-L7Jv. 

• y - , • - • ~ ... ~ •• \ \' WC ,:>W f-LEV OLKTPWC, EL 0 LOOtf-L OIlWIlOTac 
, ~ _." -, ..1..' 

TOVTOVC, UOKOLf-L av T7JC vocov 7TE'f'EVYEVat. 

TiloE f-L€V 7T6'\EL f-LEyav 

CWTfjp' apELcOE, TOLC o· €f-LOLC €XOpOLC 7T6vovc. 
,- -, /: 0 '\ " KaL TaVTa cov f-LEV ~VV EIlOVTOC EeTL f-L0L 

-" -~,. ~, 0 - 0 ' KOf-L7TELV, aVEV cov 0 OVOE cw 7JvaL C EVW. 

289 

All these antithetical formulations occur at the end of long speeches; 
there are other examples at the end of shorter speeches (Ajax 132-33, 
OT 521-22, Trach. 83+85, Phil. 94-95), and also at heavy pauses in long 
speeches (Oe 1306-07). It is therefore hard to repress the suspicion 
that Philoctetes' speech ended as follows: 

• , ~ " ~, R -wc 7TaVTa OELva, Ka7TLKLVOvvwe fJPOTOLC 

KELTaL 7TaOELV f-L€V EV, 7TaOELV o€ OaTEpa. 

That 504-06 add nothing is insufficient to condemn them, and they 
are inoffensive in themselves; but 7TaOELV f-L€V EV, 7TaOELV o€ OaTEpa ac­
cords with the poet's manner both formally and in another respect: 
it has the eloquence of economy and restraint. 

A similar improvement can be made in a speech whose final lines 
are not so inoffensive (OT 51-57): 

, ..I.. \' ,~." 0 '\ • • . aC'I'aIlEtf!- T7JVO avop weov 7TOIlLV. 

" 0 ' " "" , OpVL L yap Kat T7JV TOT aLCLC{J TVX7JV 
, C'.... \ ....." ..... 

7TapECXEC 7Jf-LLV, KaL Tavvv LCOC YEVOV' 

WC E/'7TEP aptELc TfjcOE yfje, we7TEp KpaTELC, 
/:' ,~, ,'\ ... - -
£VV avopaCLV KallllLOV 7J KEV7JC KpaT£LV' 

C' ,~" " , " ..... we OVUEV ECTLV OVTE 7TVpyOC OVT£ vavc 

" ,~- '/: ' " £P7Jf-tOC avupwv f-L7J SVVOLKOVVTWV £CW. 

Not to linger over the Boeotian navy, the military commonplace in 



290 SOME INTERPOLATIONS IN SOPHOCLES 

the last clause is infelicitously expressed: men do not <dwell together' 
in ships, hardly even in embattled towers. In addition, though this 
appeal is littered with instances of c1Jc (44,47, 54, 56), the last two un­
like the rest occur in the same sentence, one on top of the other-a 
piece of clumsiness that could easily have been avoided (ov8€v yap 

K.T .A.).14 

IV 
Certain peculiarities of Polynices' appeal to his father at Oedipus 

Coloneus 1285-1345 have not been given sufficient attention. 
(1) Eteocles won the city over and drove me out, says Polynices 

(1292-98); 
f' "'\ , WV EyW f.LalHcTa f.LEV 

, "E ' " ., \ , TTJV cTJv PWVV at'Ttav E:wat l\E:yW' 

£7TE:tTa Ka7T() f.LaVTE:WV TaVrn KAvw (1298-1300). 

According to Jebb, H £7TE:tTa is not opposed to f.LEV, but introduces the 
fact which confirms his conjecture." How likely that is may best be 
judged from the other passages in Sophocles where £7TE:tTa follows 

'\ , 
f.Lal\tCTa f.LE:V: 

..... ~}, " "', ., ,'" ()' () -f<"'M,tcTa f.LE:V TOVO 0PKOV atOE:C E:tC E:WV, 

l1TE:LTCt Kaf.L€ Tovc8E: ()' ot 1TapE:Lcl COt (OT 647-48). 
'\ '''' , A ()' ., f.LCtl\tCTCt f.LE:V 0TJ TOV CtVOVTOC £f.LE:pCfJ, 

., ~~ , "() "'~ , 01TWC WOLf.L a a1TTOV' ov yap E:to0f.LTJv· 

£1TE:tTCt f.L'VTOL XW A6yoc KaAoc 1TpOCfjV (Phil. 350-52). 
"'\ (}"A ~'" , '\ ,,, '" \ OI\OLC, TpE: toaL f.LE:V f.Lal\tCT , E:7TE:tTa OE: 

o AapTlov 7Ta,c Kat cv (Phil. 1285-86). 

Unless Polynices is misusing the language, therefore, he must mean 
"that your Curse was responsible is primarily my opinion, but I hear 
the same from seers as well"; yet that is surely not what he does 
mean, and even if it were he would have put his words in a different 
order. 

(2) He goes on 
, , \ .,t\(} "A "A , 

E:7TE:£ yap'll\ ov pyOC E:C TO LlWPLKOV, 

Aaf3c1v "A8pacTov 7TE:v(}E:p6v, eVVWf.L6Tac 

£C'TTJC' £f.LCtV'TifJ yijc OCOL1TE:P , A1Tlac 

I' Alternatively, the second ~c clause may have been designed to replace the first. 



MICHAEL D. REEVE 291 

- \- \, ~, 
11PW'TOL KC:t:I\OVVTCXL KCXL 'T£'TLp:rIVTcxL OOPL, 
" \. '\ , a 'Q '\ 011WC 'TOV £7T'TCXI\OYXov £e l:77JfJcxc C'TOI\OV 
i: \ - ~'" " e' ~ , ~ VV 'TO LCO C:t:YELPCXC 7J CXVOL/LL 7TCXVOLKWC 

~ 'TOVC 'Tao' €K7Tpa[cxV'TC:t:c €K{3aAOL/LL y7jc (1301-07). 

Why yap? Jebb, reduced to perplexity and reluctant to write 0' ap', 
supposes Hthe hearers are left to understand that he found the seers 
among his new allies." 0' ap' is certainly out of the question, but so is 
any other particle, because only o~ and 0' OVV are appropriate and 
neither scans. 

(3) The vocabulary and expression of 1313-25, in which Polynices 
lists his allies, are in various ways unusual. 

1313 ofoc: in this use, an echo from a bygone age (Hes. Catal., Aesch. 
Pers. 21; cf. Il. 1.263; parodied in Timon's GMot1S). 

1313 oopvccovc: Hesiod, Theognis, Aesch. Supp. 182 and 985 uncon­
tracted, otherwise lyric (Aesch. Sept. 125, Eur. Heraclid. 774); 
clumsy, not to say superfluous, alongside 'Tet 7TPW'TCX /L~V 06P£L 

I 
KpCXTVVWV. 

1314 KPC:t:'TVVwv: elsewhere 'rule' or 'possess'; 'Tet 7TPW'TCX KpCX'TVVWV pre­
sumably to be interpreted along the lines of Ajax 1300 'Tet 7TPW'T' 
, , 

C:t:PLC'T£Vccxc. 

1318 EVXE'TCXL ••• 0nWCEW: LSJ EVX0P.C:t:L III 'profess loudly, boast, 
vaunt ... : mostly, not of empty boasting, but of something of 
which one has a right to be proud', and for that reason seldom if 
ever construed with the future infinitive, which is confined to 
religious vows (LSJ II). 

1318-19 the datives KC:t:'TC:t:CKCXcPfi and 7TVPL (7TVpL UP, 'TaXcx A) sit uneasily 
together in the same phrase. 

1319 0nWC£LV: in this sense, Solon, Herodotus, Thucydides, Aristo­
phanes, Hetc." (LS]); not in tragedy at all. 

1320 OPVV'TCXL, 1321 a8p.~7'1}c: epic and lyric.16 

1322 Aox£v8£LC: nowhere else in Sophocles,17 seven times in Euripides. 

15 References can be found under 010' in Index n of Diels, Poetarum Philosophorum Frag­
menta (Berlin 1901). 

11 opVVTaL, however, has a much stronger flavour of epic and lyric than &SI'Vnl" partI y no 
doubt because it is commoner, partly because more synonyms were in use. 

17 A. S. Gratwick, CR 79 (1965) 243-46, takes exception to"\ox£v8£k in the colourless sense 
'born', and for other reasons as well follows tl> in omitting Xpovcp ••• 'A'TaAcfvn]c; but tl> 
probably omits the words because some scribe jumped from cia,.,:rj-'"I' to ' A'TaA&V-'"I" 



292 SOME INTERPOLATIONS IN SOPHOCLES 

1322 1TLCT(>C, 1325 acf>o{1ov: in the situation, empty swagger.I8 

(4) " ... and I ... am leading to Thebes the fearless army of Argos" 
(1323-25), 

" "\ It;, A t;, \ .,~. A , OL C aVTL 1Tawwv TWVOE KaL 'f'v')(T/C, 1TaTEp, 

ZKET~VOp,EV ~vp,1TaVTEC ••• (1326-27). 

] bb . .., \ It;, ., h \ It;, 'b h ' e agaIn: aVTL 1TaLOWV ••• LKETEV0p,EV ere=1TpOC 1TaLowv, y t em, 
i.e. 'as you love them', a very rare use of aVT2, but one which comes 
easily from its ordinary sense, 'in return for', 'as an equivalent for'." 
Ludwig Dindorf wished to substitute ap,cf>~, also "very rare," if that 
is the phrase for singularities (Ap.Rhod. 2.216). 

(5) ... €~aLTOVp,EVOL 
p,fjVLV {1apELav ElKaOELv opp,wp,Ivcp 

TipS' avSp2 TOVp,OV 1TPOC KacLMTov TLCLV (1327-29) 

"p,fjVLV .•• ElKaOEw, concede thy wrath to me, i.e. remit it: the same 
constr. (though not in the same application) as Ph. 464 0717}VLK' <Xv 

OEOC 11T'\OVV ~p,'iv EiK'[J. concede a voyage to us. This is better than to 
make p,fjVLV acc. of respect," ]ebb. 

It is hard to say how many of these peculiarities ought to excite sus­
picion. (5) and (4) may not seem beyond the range of audax verborum 
nova tor Sophocles;I9 the loss of all but a few fifth-century tragedies will 
doubtless be said to account for most of (3); and ]ebb's treatment of 
(2) and (1) may be thought satisfactory. Anyone who is prepared to 
swallow all five need read no further; others may like to consider the 
following suggestions for removing (1), (3) and (4). 

(1) Delete 1300. At OT 1466 p,a'\LcTa p'EV is not followed up, and 
Denniston, The Greek Particles (Oxford 1954) 382, collects similar in­
stances of 1TPWTOV p,EV. In this passage alternative speculations (if 
p,a'\LcTa P,EV means 'rather than anything else') or attributions of 
secondary responsibility (if p,aALcTa P,EV means 'more than anything 
else') are quite irrelevant, but a continuation may have been missed 
by some pedant. 

18 The same applies to'ITavapxo,c (codd.) at 1293. In a class 011 the play Ed. Fraenke1 once 
proposed 'lTavapxoc, which is surely right. It is published here without his knowledge, be­
cause he is now with Sophocles. 

18 The phrase comes from Ellendt-Genthe, Lexicon Sophoc/eum (Berlin 1872) S.v. ap'CT'ErXu. 
Cf. Haupt's remarks on 'lTp68vp.oc at EI. 3, cited by C. Belger in M. Haupt als akademischer 
Lehrer (Berlin 1879) 220. 



MICHAEL D. REEVE 293 

(3) Delete the list of allies (1313-25) and either or both of the rela­
tive clauses that frame it. Deletion of the second has the virtue of re­
moving (4); the first is harmless enough in itself, but cvv E7TTa ••• 

AOyXO:LC repeats 1305 E7TTeXAoYXOV.20 Read therefore 

1310 
1328 

fr , CIA A' l' A 
ELEV • 'TL OTJ'TCl VVV ClcpLYf-LEVOC KVPW; 

\ I 'f" \'" 
COL 7TPOCTP07TClLOVC, W 7TClT€P, IUTClC €XWV 

., '" ,.. , .... ,,.. 
ClV'TOC 'T EfLClVTOV CVfLfLClXWV T€ TWV €fLWV 

fLijVLV f3ClP€LClV €LKCl(J€LV OPfLWfL/.Vcp 
..... ~, , ~ \ ., ...., I I 

TcpU ClVUpL TOVfLOV 7TpOC KClCLYV'TJTOV TtCLV. 

The excision of a substantial passage from the play is not unprece­
dented (299-307 del. Wecklein21). Nor is the list any loss: it contributes 
nothing to the appeal and is devoid of any other merit.22 

As long as (5) has to be taken on trust, however, and (2) remains a 
grave problem (perhaps a sign of omission or dislocation),23 it cannot 
be pretended that the difficulties of the speech have been cleared 
away. 

EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD 

October, 1970 

20 "The art. TOV" with E1TTdAOYXOV, "because the expedition is no longer a project, but a 
fact (1312)," Jebb. Since 1312 comes seven lines after 1305, another possibility could be 
entertained: that'Tov is addressed to a knowledgeable audience (so Campbell: "The article 
is probably used by an anachronism: i.e. 'The well-known expedition of the seven chief­
tains·. "). In that case no more information about 'TOV E1TTCxAoyxov CTOAOV ought to be forth­
coming. 

21 301-04, in which the chorus say that the mention of Oedipus' name will bring Theseus 
running to the spot, are a fussy elaboration of what they have just said (297-98), that the 
same CK01TC\c as brought them themselves on the scene has gone to fetch him. Though 
Sophocles could have been fussy for once, linguistic eccentricities point the other way: it 
may be an accident thatEV'Tpo1T~V (299) is attested only in Hellenistic prose (€V'Tp£1To!-,a, Ajax 
90, OT 724, 1056, 1226, EI. 519), but &twv (304) is foreign to trimeters, and {Jpa8vc €v8€, 

(306-07) has always been an embarrassment. 
22 Contrast the rhetorical force of Trach. 1089-1106, where Heracles lists six of his victims 

in suitably horrific language and then continues: 

aAAWV T€ jLOX(Jwv jLVptwv £y€vcajLT}v, 

Kov8£k 'Tp01Ta'i.' £C'TT}C£ 'TWV €!-'wv X£pwv' 

vVv 8' w8' avap8poc Kat Ka'T£ppaKWjL£VOC 

'Tvt{>>..fjc 1m' a'TT}C £K1T£1TopOT}!-'at 'TaAac, 

o Tfjc aptc'TT}C !-'TJ'TPOC wvo!-'ac!-'£voc, 
o 'TOU Ka'T' aC'Tpa ZT}VOC av87]8dc yOVOC. 

23 Unless, in the absence of 1300, the force of yap could be "I hold your Curse responsible, 
because the measures I proceeded to take will bring disaster on either me or him (and 
thereby fulfil your Curse)."