The New Fragments of Euripides' "Oedipus" Vaio, John Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Spring 1964; 5, 1; ProQuest pg. 43
The New Fragments of Euripides'
Oedipus
John Vaio
EURIPIDES' LOST PLAY, Oedipus, has long been the subject of zealous
attempts at detailed reconstruction.! But the fragments of the
play preserved in ancient authors have afforded little solid
ground for such speculation.2 Nor have the supposed representations
of the play in ancient art provided any certain evidence.3 The five
fragments published by E. G. Turner in Volume 27 of the Oxyrhynchus
Papyri are of considerable interest but cannot be said to have settled
any of the outstanding problems regarding the reconstruction of the
play.4 These fragments were again edited and discussed by H. Lloyd
Jones in an important review of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri Part, 27;5 and
most recently Bruno Snell has identified the remains of the first line
of Euripides' Oedipus (POxy 2455 frg. 4 col. iv 41f) with frg. trag. adesp.
378N2.6 The purpose of this paper is not to attempt another recon
struction. The first part of the paper consists of a new text of POxy
2459 frgg. 1 and 2 with critical and exegetical remarks;7 the second
1 See, for example, the literature cited at C. Robert, Oidipus II (Berlin 1915) 107 n.3
(henceforth cited: Robert).
2 Fragments whose attribution to Eur. Oed. is certain are collected at A. Nauck, TGf2
(Leipzig 1889) Eur. frgg. 540-557 (henceforth cited: Nauck). To these must now be added
frg. trag. adesp. 541 (see p. 46 infra) and perhaps frg. trag. adesp. 378 (see n.14 infra).
3 For one of these see n. 60 infra.
4 E. G. Turner,J. Rea, L. Koenen,]. M. F. Pomar, The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part 27 (London
1962) No. 2459 frgg. 1-5 with pIs. v, VI, x (henceforth cited: Turner).
6 H. Lloyd-Jones, Gnomon 35 (1963) 446-7 (henceforth cited: Lloyd-Jones).
8 Bruno Snell, "Oer Anfang von Euripides' Oedipus," Hermes 91 (1963) 120 (henceforth
cited: Snell). See n.14 infra.
7 The text is based on those of Turner and Lloyd-Jones with some changes as indicated
below (pp. 44--47) and on an examination of the photographs in Turner: pIs. VI (frg. 2) and
x (frg.1). No attempt is made to reproduce the accents, breathing marks, or punctuation
marks of the papyrus; the texts are printed in modern form with accents and punctua
tion. The use of iota subSCript and adscript, square brackets, and dots follows that of Turner
(see Turner, p. xii). The remarks made below (pp. 44--47) are also based on an examination
of the photographs and are accordingly tentative. How much lowe to Turner's excellent
study and Lloyd-Jones' careful review will be evident from what follows. No attempt is
made to deal with POxy 2459 frgg. 4-5, which contain only a few letters. For frg. 3, see
pp. 48-49 with n.20 infra.
43
44 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
part deals with the relevance of the new fragments to the reconstruc
tion of the whole.
I
TEXT
POXY 2459 FRG. 1 JP.LSij T€ {30UTp-UX[ WY] cf9f?nY
, , ~,. n \ 'r '\ , Q ' ovpay 0 U7TL J(\au V7TO I\€OYT07TOVY fJa'1LY
{} 'Y J~",I,.' ", Ka L~€TO . .. 0 a7To'f'€pOVU WKV7TT€POY
]Y E7TL7Ta .. pL~[ .]Y XPOYWL·
5 Jv SL1]A€U€ .. c/> . . ~WY c/>6f3TjY
J7Tpou{3eXATJ T' aVy~~? 7TT€POY· ,\ ,., J r \ , , .1;[ H IL€Y 7Tpor; L7T 7TOVr; TjI\LOV XPV'lW7TOY ~I Y
YWTLUILa {}TjP Jor;· €l SE [7Tp Jar; pic/>or; {?4[AOL
KVaYW7T()Y w]r; nr; tpL[r; aY]TnVY€L u['AaS'.
10 ]{p6vw[
] ... . Ovuctp[
..• • ]pOX[
15 ..... . ]~T[
FRG.2
5
10
FRG. 1
] .. . ct ... . p[
JILoV EAt7TOIL€Y[
J7TWV tUTctVT' ct[
U JvP~ctucttp~[ . J . [
JctZVLYIL' ~ ILLaLc/> [ 6voS'
£J~€L7TOVU' €g . [ . J . T[
J€V g-UY€ULV S' €X9[v
}vovv n Tp{7T9[~Y
J07 TPLU~ S' . [
J/v S' apu€v K~[
] . H'Hr; ~ 7TeXAw f}[
Jay VILVOY OV[
] ~IL€tr; Mg[
]~ovv[
COMMENTARY
Line 1. "Accent and metre combine to rule out everything except an ad jecti ve
ofform -p€LS~S' (-o£L8~s) ... " (Turner ad loc.). Lloyd-Jones (ad loc.) misquotes
Turner: for -O€LO~S' read -p€L~S' (-OEtO~S').
JOHN VAIO 45
Lines 2-3. These lines coincide with Euripides frg. 540N2, which can be cer
tainly assigned to Euripides' Oedipus (see Nauck ad lac.), and so assures the
attribution of POxy 2459 to that play. At 2 an examination of the photograph
shows Turner's readings to be correct; in Lloyd-Jones' text for JAau' read ]~au',
and for {3ar;nv read {3al!w. The form v1rtAau' (adopted by Nauck and Lloyd
Jones) is to be preferred to Turner's u1Tti\J~C(a'.8 "Only Aelian continues into
[he next line with KaO€(ETo . .. " (Turner ad loc.). Bur the textof Aelian(NA 12.7,
followed by Nauck) reads Ka8t,ETo. The papyrus offers no help. The reading
Kae{~ETO is not impossible in the sense required (see LS] S.v. Kae[~W III. I),
although Ka8€{0!J-cu is the commoner word in this sense in Euripides (see
Allen and Italie, A Concordance to Euripides [Berkeley, Los Angeles and London
1954J S.v. Kae'{O!J-aL). At 3 Turner suggests EfL{3a] Sa or oAKa]Sa. Lloyd-Jones (ad
loc.) rightly rejects these. In addition to his remarks we might note the following.
It is far more probable that the Sphinx's wings, not her feet, are referred to at
3. A mention of footgear (E!J-{3aS') here would repeat {3cfULV (2). And how could
the Sphinx carry back (a:1T0rP'povu" 2) her feet while sitting? Apollodorus
(Bibl. 3.5.8.2) describes the Sphinx as follows: ElxE SE 1TPOUW1TOV fLEV YVVaLKOS-,
~e " ' 'Q ' '" \' " " e UTYJ os- OE KaL paULV KaL ovpav I\EOVTOS- Kat 1TTEpvyas- OpVL OS-.
Line 4. An examination of the photograph supports Lloyd-Jones' reading,
which has been adopted in the text above. Turner reads ]VE1TL1Ta. t;t!PL~[.]!,XpoVWt.
Line 5. SL~Aau' b:rypp.iuwv Turner. An examination of the photograph sup
ports Lloyd-Jones' ~ before wv against Turner's a. 9 Moreover, the active of
€1Tuppcf,w is not found in the sense of "to mark, observe" Lloyd-Jones (ad
loc.) suggests E[1TL]rP[V~J~wv or E[pL]rP[v~Hwv. The vertical stroke after rP might
possibly be the stem of an upsilon, but the slightly rising horizontal in mid
line that follows can hard Iv be a lambda. The restoration remains uncertain.
Turner conjectures SL~Aau;' for SL~'\EU', and holds that the line refers to the
action of a spectator thrusting his way through a crowd (not "some under
growth," as Lloyd-Jones reports). But in view of the uncertainties of this line
and the previous one, can we be sure that SL~AEUE is corrupt (see Lloyd-Jones
ad loc.)? Furthermore, according to Turner, the subject must shift at 5 from
the Sphinx (1-4) to some spectator. The uncertain nature of the line makes it
difficult to accept such an hypothesis.
Line 6. Lloyd-Jones (p. 446) errs when he states that "fr. 1,6-9 coincides with
fr. trag. adesp. 541 ... " The latter fragment coincides with frg. 1, 7-9. Thus
Turner's restoration at 6 (chav fLEOfi TE], printed by Lloyd-Jones in his text with
out comment) is unsupported by external evidence. Let us consider this
restoration. The stop printed by Turner in his version of the preserved text
at the end of 4 is certain; a trace of the stop he prints at the end of 6 can be
seen in the photograph. Lines 5 and 6 then form a single sentence unit. The
fragment is part of a narrative, and the obvious way to interpret the aorist
tense at 5 (St~AEUE) is as a simple past tense. This makes it exceedingly difficult
8 See Lloyd-Jones ad loc. The emendation was made by Valckenaer at Diatribe in Euripidis
perditorum dramatum reliqnias (Lei den 1767) 193 (henceforth cited: Valckenaer).
9 Lloyd-Jones ad 5 prints ~ before WI', bur in his text prints A. The letter should be dotted.
46 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
to explain Turner's restoration at 6 (OTCtV with the subjunctive). This construc
tion is found with the gnomic aorist or aorists with a sense approaching that
of the gnomic aorist (GMT2 p. 205£). The subjunctive with o.7T6TCtvis found with
the aorist at Sophocles, Electra89ff.But as Jebb(adEI.9I, also Kuhner-Gerth, II.
449) explains, "The subjunctive canfollownaOov, since the thought is 6{3TJv (5) to mean "plumage" here but
"tresses",at line 1. Can¢>6{JTJ be used of wing-feathers, and especially in a context
where it has already been used to mean "tresses" (its regular meaning)? Nor
do we know whether ¢>6{JTJv (5) is to be understood as the object of the verb
presumably missing at the beginning of line 6 or exclusively with the verb of
line 5. If line 5 describes some action of the Sphinx, then line 6 might be a
purpose clause introduced by 01TWS, for example. As has been noted above a
conditional relative clause with the subjunctive is unsuitable here, especially
in the light of El with the optative in line 8 below. In Lloyd-Jones' text, for
CtVyCttS read Ctoyt.Xis-.
Line 7. Lines 7-9 coincide with frg. trag. adesp. 54IN2, and confirm Valcke
naer's attribution of that fragment to Euripides' Oedipus. 10 Turner's version of
the preserved text reads ]1TOVO'7}.\{OVXPvP-W1TOvn[. But the photograph shows an
acute accent over the last omicron, and the short oblique stroke over the final
eta may be one leg of a circumflex accent (for a similar circumflex see that
over the upsilon at line 11 of this fragment, pI. x). In Lloyd-Jones' text, for
xpvaw1Tov ~v read XPVP-W1TOV n[v.
Line 8. Turner in his translation (p. 85) renders vcf.ma/La as "back." LSJ's
translation S.v. is to be preferred: "that which covers the back, e.g. wings."
In Turner's restored text, for OTJ]p6s readOTJpJ6s. Turner's P.4[ is right as against
Lloyd- Jones' {3~[.
Line 9. Of interest is Anaxagoras on rainbows (frg. 19 D) and the entire text
of Schoi. Hom. BT ad P.547, from which the Anaxagoras fragment comes.ll
Line 10. Turner restores VEJ~PWV.
Line 11. Turner's y is right as against Lloyd-Jones' y.
Line 12. Turner's ]a¢>p6vw[ is right as against Lloyd-Jones' ]a¢>povw[.
FRG.2
Line 2. The acute accent over the iota, which appears in the photograph and
is printed by Turner, is omitted by Lloyd-Jones.
Line 4. The acute accent over the final iota, which appears in the photograph
and is printed by Turner, is omitted by Lloyd-Jones.
Line 5. The papyrus reads ]aLvLY/La. /LLCtL¢>[6vos K6PTJ B. Snell ap. Turner.
Line 6. Turner incorporates A. M. Dale's suggestion (VSEV /LEATJ ap. Turner)
and restores as follows: Tolovo' E]~EL1T01}a' :t'4[/L]fT[P' nOEV /LEATJ. Lloyd-Jones
(ad loc.) reports Turner incorrectly: for Jg&[/L]f.T[p' read Jg~[/L]fT[p', And in
his text for ]1TEL1TOVa' Eg read ]~EL1TOiiO" Ef Turner's reading Jg~[/LJfT[P' is
possible but is not an easy one (see Lloyd-Jones ad loc.).
10 Valckenaer, 194.
11 Cited by Valckenaer, 194f.
JOHN VAIO 47
Line 7. Lines 7-10 (not 6-10 as Lloyd-Jones states) contain the riddle of the
Sphinx and appear to be hexameters. 12 Lloyd-Jones in his text omits the acute
accent over the final epsilon, which can be seen in the photograph and is
printed by Turner.
Line 8. Turner's ]vovv is right as against Lloyd-Jones' ]1TOVV.
Line 9. Turner's ]0] is right as against Lloyd-Jones' ]~.
Line 10. Turner's K~[ is right as against Lloyd-Jones' Ka[.
Line 11. The photograph shows an acute accent over the upsilon. Turner's
~V€tS' is right as against Lloyd-Jones' ~V€tS'.
Line l3. The photograph shows a broken oblique stroke, which appears to
be an acute accent, over the final epsilon. The accent is not printed by Turner
(in his preserved text) nor by Lloyd-Jones. Turner's ¥ is right as against Lloyd
Jones'v.
Line 14. Both Turner and Lloyd-Jones read }7TOVV[. Yet of the 1T only a part of
the horizontal stroke at the top of the line can be seen in the photograph.
The letter should be printed with a dot.
II
The relation of POxy 2459 (including Euripides frg. 540N2 and frg.
trag. adesp. 541N2) to the structure of the plot of Euripides' Oedipus is
not certain. Do the fragments come from the prologue or from some
narrative occurring later in the drama? That they are part of a single
speech is highly probable; the two best preserved papyrus fragments
may well come from the same column.13 That the fragments are part
of the prologue cannot be proved impossible, although the wealth of
detail used in narrating what is probably a single event makes more
attractive the hypothesis that the fragments come from a narrative
occurring later in the play.14 The usual Euripidean prologue that fills
in the background of the play is a simple narrative generally utilizing
a minimum of detail. Of interest are the prologues of the Ion and the
12 On the hexameters see Turner (ad 6) and Lloyd-Jones (ad 6); on the riddle, Turner
(loc.cit.) and Lloyd-Jones (ad 6-10 [sic]).
13 See Turner's introduction to his commentary on frg. 2 (p. 86).
14 See Turner, 82. Snell identifies the remains of the first line of Eur. Oed. with frg. trag.
adesp. 378N2 (see n.6 supra) and conjectures 'r€KVOV for Cicero's TI.Kva. The coincidence is
striking. but Turner (ap. Snell) objects that OVK (frg. trag. adesp. 378N2) does not fit the
traces of the papyrus (POxy 2455 frg. 4 col. iv 41f). Unfortunately no photograph of the frag
ment appears in POxy 27, and I have been unable to check the readings. It should be noted
that even iffrg. trag. adesp. 378N2, with Snell's emendation, is the first line of the prologue
of Eur. Oed., POxy 2459 may still be part of the prologue. The speaker, beginning with a
history of the house of Laius, could have told of the arrival of the Sphinx and its conse·
quences.
48 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
Phoenissae. There we see nothing like the detailed narrative of a single
event contained in the Oedipus fragments. Of course the Oedipus
might be a play where the usual procedure was modified. Euripides,
possibly telling of Oedipus' encounter with the Sphinx, could have
described it at unusual length in the prologue.15 To assume, however,
that the fragments are part of a narrative later in the play raises other
questions. Does the narrative relate a contemporary event, i.e. some
event that takes place during the period covered by the action of the
play; or does it relate an event that took place before the action of the
play began ?16
Euripides frg. 543N2 has been taken to imply that when the play
takes place Oedipus is already married to Jocasta and has children,17
If so, it follows that the event related in the fragments under discus
sion precedes the action of the play by a number of years. Yet it can
not be proven impossible that frg. 543N2 is a general maxim without
special reference to Oedipus.18 Furthermore, just what was the event
related in POxy 2459? The Sphinx's arrival at Thebes?19 Oedipus'
solving of the riddle? Or even some other happening? POxy 2459 frg.
3.3 perhaps contains the word aV7'aywV£WTaTO' EvpL7TlST/> 'TTotT/TLKW. Jt€BETO Spap.a 'TT£PL TOU OlSl'TToSo<; KaL T~' 'IoKrtUTT/'
Kat 'Tfj. Etyyoc;. Robert (11.117 n.59) holds that Malalas had not read Eur. Oed. and thus was
"forced to usc" the mythographer Palaiphatos as his source, and that he refers to the prologue
of the Phoen. Such speculation, asserted rather than proved, is unacceptable. And since we
now know that the Oed. was being copied in the fourth century A.D., Robert's view becomes
even less plausible. On the date of POxy 2459, see Turner, 81. See also n.44 infra.
22 The speech could possibly relate both the Sphinx's arrival and Oedipus' victory, for all
we can tell.
23 E. Pottier ap. L. Sechan, Etudes slIr La Tragedie Grecque (Paris 1926) 434 with n.7.
24 E. Vollbehr, De Oedipi Euripideaefragmentis (Progr. Gli.ickstadt 1861) 7; and L. Legras.
Les Legendes Thebaines (Paris 1905) 157.
2. G. Hermann ap. Vollbehr, op.cit. (n.24 supra) 7 n.20. Hermann's view was rejected by
F. G. Welcker, Die griechischen Tragodien (Bonn 1839) 556 n.17; and by Vollbehr, loc.cit.
Welcker's grounds for rejection are weak; he argues that Euripides would not have used
the same character as prologue both in the Oedipus and the Phoenissae. Much the same argu
ment is used by Robert (1.330), who does not cite any of the earlier literature. On Jocasta as
prologue, see p. 50 infra.
26 Robert, loc.cit.
27 See pp. 47-48 with n.14 supra.
28 So Turner, 82. The first person plural in tragedy might be used for the first person
singular (see Kuhner-Gerth, I.83f) but since the context provides no evidence to determine
this one way or the other, it is easier to assume a plural subject for J>.t'TTOP.fV.
29 See also Robert. I.J29f.
50 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
himself as part of a group is less likely than that the speaker is a
servant of the king's house, one of Laius' (}Epa1TovTEs,30 or some other
minor figure. Of the three leading characters proposed Oedipus is the
least likely. Accounts of Oedipus' victory over the Sphinx stress the
fact that he accomplished his feat unaided,3! and it is more difficult to
postulate that Oedipus rather than some Theban was there in the
company of others. Furthermore, if POxy 2459 is part of the prologue
and if the prologue begins with frg. trag. adesp. 378N2 ({/}olfJov 1TOT'
OVK EWVTOS €U1TELpev T€KVOV),32 then Oedipus can hardly be the speaker.
The argument from EAl1TOI-'EV is less compelling when used to decide
between Creon or Jocasta, on the one hand, and a (}Epa1Twv vel sim. on the
other. Nevertheless, it inclines slightly towards the latter.
Turner suggests that the new fragments and Euripides frg. 541N2
are part of the same speech.33 Lloyd-Jones rightly questions this
view.34 It is difficult to see what "resemblance of tone" there can be
between a two line fragment and the papyrus fragments that abound
with difficulties of detail. As Lloyd-Jones states, what it comes to is
that "in both passages the verb is in the first person plural."35 There
is too little evidence for Turner's view to be maintained, and the hypo
thesis is too weak to support a reconstruction of the speech and its
relation to the plot.
Let us consider again what relation the event described in POxy 2459
has to the action of the play. Three fragments clearly attributed to
this play are all we can confidently rely on.36 Two of them (Euripides
frgg. 545N2 and 546N2) deal with the relation between husband and
wife. The third (Euripides frg. 543N2) presents some difficulties of
30 See Eur. frg. 541N2. So Turner, 83. This does not imply acceptance of Turner's hypo-
thesis that Eur. frg. 541N2 is part of the same speech as POxy 2459 (on this see below).
31 See, for example, Eur. Phoen. 1760, Diad. Sic. 4.64.3, and Schol. ad Phoen. 1505 (Schwartz).
32 With Snell's emendation. See n.14 supra.
33 Turner, 83.
34 Lloyd-Jones, 447.
35 Lloyd-Jones, loc.cit.
36 C. F. Hermann first suggested that Eur. frg. 909N2 belongs to Eur. Oed. Cap. L. Deubner.
"Oedipusprobleme," AbhBerl [1942.4] 24). This remains no more than an attractive hypo
thesis. Though the fragment may be included cautiously in a reconstruction of the play, it
cannot be used as a basis for argument to settle points of detail about the reconstruction.
For some doubts about the interpretation of this fragment, see Deubner, op.cit. 24ff. The
attribution of the fragment is called probable by Nauck (p. 654); it is approved by Robert,
1.315 and Sechan, op.cit. (n.23 supra) 437. Turner (82) states that "Wilamowitz (Gr. Trag. 160)
cited a long fragment in trochaic tetrameters (fl'. 909N2) as evidence for the blinding during
the course of the action." The reference which is to Die griechische Tragoedie und ihre drei
JOHN VAIO 51
interpretation. Robert paraphrases lines 2-5 of the fragment as follows:
"ein braves Weib wiegt Kinder, Vaterland und Besitztumer auf ... "37
The first line, he holds, contradicts the rest of the fragment. "Denn
hier [1] heisst es, dass Weib und Kinder einem Manne so viel bedeuten
wie das Konigtum, wahrend dort [2-5] auch die Kinder zu den Gutern
gerechnet werden, die durch ein braves Weib aufgewogen werden."38
But a different translation of 2-4 is possible which avoids Robert's diffi
culty. Let us consider the connectives TE •• • Kat . . . Kat . .. TE (2-4). L51
(s.v. TE A.II.1) state that "sometimes the elements joined by TE •••
Kat . .. are joined in order to be compared or contrasted rather than
simply joined." An example cited by L51 is Aristophanes, Aves 24:
ou TaVTopov TE T~afl-EVm
i<; T()V E7TELTa Xpovov. The passage (2-4) should be translated "for I say
that to miss the mark in one's children is as great a misfortune as (to
miss the mark in) one's fatherland and property, and moreover (to
miss the mark in) one's wife (is as unfortunate)." It is not missing the
mark in children, country, and wealth that is compared to missing
Dichter (Berlin 1923) is probably from Deubner, op.cit. 25, who cites Wilamowitz for the
view that Jocasta remained true to her husband after he was blinded and for the quote" die
den Gatten in seinem Elend nich verHisst." Wilamowitz (loe.cit.) neither cites the fragment
nor uses it to prove anything about the blinding.
37 Robert, 1.312.
38 Loc.cit. So also H. Weil, REG 2 (1889) 339f.
39 See also Kiihner-Gerth, lAB anm. 11.
40 This account is substantially the same as that given by Kuhner in his commentary on
Xen. Mem. (ed. 2 ad 2.3.19). LS1 S.V. Te A.II.3 a state, "Kat . .. Te, both . .. and . .. , is occasional
ly found, as KatfJ-TJ'T"€pa 7raT€pa T' E. Ale. 646." The explanation is not quite so straightforward.
Earle (Eur. Alc. [London 1894] ad 646ff) states, "The irregularity in the connective in 7raT€pa T'
(for Ka~ 7raTlpa) may be explained by the incongruity of sex,-'yes, and father too.'" See also
G. Hermann, EUf. Ale. (Leipzig 1824) ad 657ff.
52 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
the mark in a wife; but missing the mark in children that is compared
to missing the mark in country and wealth with the additional men-
tion of missing the mark in one's wife as a matter of similar import- .'
ance. The thought of the whole passage (1-5) is then "A man's wife
and children are of great importance to him; his children are as im-
portant as his country and wealth together, and so is his wife; for a
man's wife, if he marries a prudent woman, is alone more important
than his wealth for him." The last clause (w~ 1-'-011011 .. . l\a{3n, 4-5) is
added by way of climax and in no way contradicts lines 2-3. If the fore-
going is correct, it obviates Robert's separation of line 1 from the rest
of the fragment. 41
Returning to the question at hand, we note that the fragment con
cerns itself with the importance to a man of his wife and children.
Are these general maxims, or do they have specific relevance to a
character or characters in the play? Of Euripides frg. 545N2 Schmid
states, " ... vermutlich stand diese Erorterung im Zusammenhang mit
der Heirat der Iokaste und des Oedipus."42 Schmid rightly says
"vermutlich" for the assertion cannot be proved. Nevertheless, in the
absence of any evidence to the contrary it is easier to assume that
frgg. 543N2, 545N2, 546N2 refer to the marriage between Oedipus and
Jocasta. Furthermore, if frg. 543N2 refers to a marriage that is at least
a few years old and to the children born to the couple,43 it follows that
the victory over the Sphinx took place a few years before and that
POxy 2459 (with Euripides frg. 540N2 and frg. trag. adesp. 541N2),
whether from the prologue or some later speech, relates an event that
occurred before the action of the play begins.44
We turn to the only certain piece of evidence for Euripides' hand
ling of the Oedipus saga in his Oedipus. The Schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 61
states Ell 8E 7'0 Ol8t7T08, Ot Aatov (}€pa7TOJl7'€~ ETvcpl\waall aV7'01l.45 There
follow two verses of iambic trimeters (= Euripides frg. 541N2):
~I-'-€i~ 8E nol\v{3ov 7Tai8' ;p€taall7'€~ 7T€8cp /;gol-'-l-'-a7'oVI-'-€1I Kat. 8,ol\l\vl-'-€1I Kopa~.
Schmid rightly calls the evidence certain,46 and it is accepted, though
41 Robert, 1.313. A similar separation was made by Wei!, loc.cit. (n. 38 supra).
&2 Schmid-Stahlin, 1.3, p. 590. See p. 48 with n.17 supra.
43 So Robert, I.311ff, and Turner, 82.
44 Malalas' statement (see n.21 supra), though it seems to imply that the Sphinx appeared
on the stage, may merely refer to the long and elaborate description from which POxy 2459
presumably comes.
45 Text from E. Schwartz, Scholia in Euripidem I (Berlin 1887) 258.
46 Schmid-Stahlin, loc.cit. (n.42 supra).
JOHN VAIO 53
interpreted differently, by most critics." Before going on to consider
how the scholium is to be interpreted, let us consider the objections
that have been raised against its authenticity. Schneidewin held that
the name of another poet had originally appeared in the scholiast's
notice before or after Ol8L7T08L. "leh gestehe, dass es mir schwer wird
zu glauben, Euripides habe so weit den Sophokleischen Plan verlassen
und bei oft wiederholter Betrachtung kommt immer von Neuem der
Verdacht, dass bei dem Scholiasten vor Ol8t7TOOL oder nach dem W orte
der Name eines anderen Dichters ausgefallen sein mochte. Denn es
will viel wahrscheinlicher dtinken, dass einer von den spatern Tragi
kern zu einer so grundlichen Umbildung zu greifen sich bewogen
fand, als Euripides,"48 Such arguments are entirely subjective.49 The
only way to prove that the scholiast's text is defective is to discover
independent evidence, e.g. the relevant parts of Euripides' Oedipus.
In default of such evidence the testimony of the scholiast must be
accepted.
Deubner accepts Schneidewin's arguments, and adds one of his
own.50 His argument is based on his analysis of the Schol. ad Eur.
Phoen. 1760 (= FGrHist 16 F 10) who quotes a certain Peisander.51
Deubner's argument is that the first part of the passage is based on
Euripides' Chrysippos and the second part is based on Euripides'
Oedipus,52 but Schol. ad Phoen. 61 cannot be reconciled with the nar
rative of the second part of the Peisander scholium ;53 therefore, the
former does not refer to Euripides' Oedipus.54 It is not the purposeof
this paper to evaluate the arguments Deubner uses to maintain his
47 For example, Robert. l.306tI. Sechan. op.cit. (n.23 supra) 434, and Turner, 83.
48 F. W. Schneidewin, "Die Saga vom 6dipus." AbhGottingen 5 (1851/2) 203f. It should be
noted that nothing can be argued from the absence of the name Euripides in the schol.
entry (see Deubner. op.cit. [n.36 supra] 19 with n.4).
49 Vollbehr's criticism (op.cit. [n.24 supra] 9 n.23) of Schneidewin, in vana abiisse videtur, is
unjustly censured by Deubner, op.cit. (n.36 supra) 21f, who in his attempt to defend
Schneidewin insists that the self-blinding of Oedipus is "ein fundamentaler Zug alter Sage"
(loc.cit.) and quotes Pohlenz (Gr. Trag. 1 I [Leipzig and Berlin 1930] 81f) for support:
"Selbsrmord der Sohnesgattin. Selbstblendung des Vatermorders wurden fruh zu ebenso
festen Punk ten der Sage wie der Vatermord selbst." It should be noted that Pohlenz in
both editions of his Gr. Trag. accepts the evidence of the schol. (ed.!, 1.396; ed. 2 , 1.373).
The arguments of C. Kirchhoff, quoted by Deubner, op.cit. 22. are equally inconclusive.
00 Deubner, op.cit. (n.36 supra) 24.
51 On Peisander see Deubner, op.cit. (n.36 supra) Iff, and Jacohy, FGrHist, Ia.493ff, 544ff .
• 2 Deubner, op.cit. 9ff.
53 Deubner, op.cit. 19.
54 Deubner, op.cit. 24.
54 THE NEW FRAGMENTS OF EURIPIDES' OEDIPUS
thesis that the Peisander scholium is based on the above-named tra
gedies of Euripides, nor is it necessary. In the first place, it is methodo
logically wrong to use what can at best be plausible speculation to deny
the clear statement ofSchol. ad Eur. Phoen. 61. Next, only if it could be
certainly demonstrated that not only is Euripides' Oedipus the source
of the second part of the Peisander scholiuITl, but there is no contaITlin
at ion whatsoever present ii-om another source, could that passage
be used to disprove the statement of Schol. ad Pitoen. 61.55 Since no
such demonstration is possible, the evidence of the latter must be
accepted.
Let us now turn to the interpretation of Schol. ad Phoen. 61. The
passage provides one certain piece of evidence: Oedipus is called the
son of Poly bus and not of Laius. The blinding, therefore, preceded the
anagnorisis and in this sense was not Sophoclean. 56 But when does the
blinding occur, before or during the play? Most critics have held that
it occurs during the course of the action.57 But Turner supposes that
Oedipus was blinded at the time of Laius' murder before the play
opens.58 This view is not unattractive; the meeting of Oedipus and
Laius is an obvious occasion for the presence of OEpa1TOJl7E" Acdov.59 And
it must be admitted that there is no certain evidence which proves this
view wrong. In fact, what evidence there is cannot decide the question
55 Deubner, op.cit. 6f, asserts but does not prove that there is no contamination. For a
more cautious statement regarding the nature of the scholium and its sources, see Jacoby
ad FGrHist 16 FlO.
5S This has long been pointed out; see, for example, Welcker, op.cit. (n.25 supra) 538.
57 Including Robert, 1.306ff, Sechan, op.cit. (n.23 supra) 435f, and Vollbehr, op.cit. (n.24
supra) 8ff. One might compare the blinding of Thamyras on stage-but this was so unusual
that a special and famous mask existed (see especially A. Lesky "Die Maske des Thamyris,"
AA WW 88 [1951J 101ff, and W. M. Calder III, "The Blinding, Oedipus Tyrannlls, 1271-4"
AJP 80 [1959J 301 n.2) and the lack of such a mask for Euripides argues against it. Moreover
the wording ofEur. frg. 541N2, though it does not completely eliminate the possibility of a
blinding on stage, strongly suggests a messenger speech reporting an off-stage incident.
58 Turner, 82f. The blinding at the time of Laius' murder was noted as a possibility by
O. Hofer, Roscher, Myth.Lex., S.v. Oidipus (III.731) and stated as a fact by P. Masqueray,
Sophocle I (Paris 1922) 136; neither specifies the relation of the blinding to the action of the
play, nor are they noted by Turner.
59This view raises certain questions. One might well ask why the ()ep&7I'oVTes did not kill
Oedipus. That ignorance of precise detail gives rise to such doubts does not prove the view
wrong. How do we know how the poet might have handled the business? Deubner, op.cit.
(n.36 supra) 20, notes that a similar doubt applies to any interpretation of the blinding by
the attendants of Laius: "Wie man sich auch immer die Blendung des Oedipus durch die
8epa7l'oVT£s des Laios vorstellen mag: merkwiirdig bleibt auf aIle Bille, dass sie ihn nicht
toreten."
JOHN VAIO 55
either way,60 though the wording of Schol. ad Eur. Phoen. 61, for what
it is worth, implies that the blinding occurs during the course of the
action,61 and Euripides frg. 541N2 suggests a messenger speech re
porting the incident soon after its occurrence.62 No convincing argu
ment has been advanced against this view; Turner's is far from cogent.63
In the present, uncertain state of the evidence, the view that the
blinding occurs during the course of the action remains the more
plausible.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
60 An Etruscan relief (see Robert, 1.307f with fig. 48 and II.I07 n.4) has long been held to
derive from Eur. Oed. This hypothesis, though attractive, cannot be considered proved. The
relief, even if from Eur. Oed., is probably based on a narrative (see n.57 supra) and could as
easily be based on a speech that told of events that had occurred before the play opens. Yet
it should be noted that if the relief does derive from Eur. Oed., it implies that Oedipus'
children are several years old at the time of the blinding and that the blinding did not occur
at the time of Laius' murder. In that case it would be more difficult to assume an occasion
for the blinding prior to the action of the play. Eur. frg. 909N2 (see n.36 supra) does not en
tail that the blinding occurs during the course of the action, even if it belongs to this play
and refers to Oedipus' blinding.
S1 Though it might be interpreted, "in the Oed. (we are told that> the attendants of
Laius blinded him."
62 See n.57 supra.
63 Masqueray, loc.cit. (n.58 supra), does not argue for his view. Turner, loc.cit. (n. 58 supra,
states, "It seems inconceivable that Laius' attendants could play the role ascribed to them
in fr. 541 after Oedipus became king of Thebes; even less conceivable after the passage of
years, the raising of children and whatever it was that led to discovery." I cannot guess what
Turner means by "inconceivable." No more than ten years need pass between Laius'
murder and the action of the play. For one conception of how Laius' attendants might
possibly play this role, see Robert, l.306ff.