Finglass


 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 2011 P. J. Finglass 
 
 
 
 

Unpublished Conjectures on Sophocles 
by Jeremiah Markland 

P. J. Finglass 

COPY of a reprint of Thomas Johnson’s edition of Soph-
ocles in the National Art Library in London’s Victoria 
and Albert Museum1 contains undated autograph notes 

by Jeremiah Markland, that acute but reclusive eighteenth-
century English critic.2 Markland had previously sent notes on 
Sophocles to the printer responsible for this very edition.3 He 
may have transferred the contents of his copy of these notes 
into the margins of the book when it appeared, in which case 
some of the notes would date to before 1758; but others might 
have been entered subsequently, up to his death in 1779. 

 
——— 
I dedicate this paper to the memory of Colin Austin, who so helped 
and encouraged me in my work on classical scholarship. 

1 T. Johnson (ed.), Sophoclis tragoediae septem scholiis veteribus illustratae I–II 
(London 1758). The shelfmark is Dyce 9298. 

2 For Markland’s life and scholarship see C. Collard, “Jeremiah 
Markland (1693–1776),” PCPS N.S. 22 (1976) 1–13 = Tragedy, Euripides and 
Euripideans (Exeter 2007) 213–228 (with additions). He is best known today 
for his work on Euripides and Latin poetry. Collard’s list of Markland’s 
marginalia in the British Library (12 n.34 = 225–226 n.34, supplemented at 
288 nn.34, 36) does not include anything on Sophocles.  

3 “Mr. Markland assisted Mr. Bowyer in an edition of Seven Plays of 
Sophocles, 1758, by the notes which he communicated to him” (J. Nichols, 
Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century; comprizing biographical memoirs of 
William Bowyer, Printer, F.S.A. and many of his learned friends IV [London 1812] 
286). The edition does not attribute any conjectures to Markland; perhaps 
Bowyer for whatever reason was unable to incorporate Markland’s con-
tribution in the reprint. See also Collard (n.2) 3 = 215. 

A 



 P. J. FINGLASS 233 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 

 

The discovery of these marginalia enables us to reattribute 
many conjectures to Markland which modern editions assign to 
later scholars; he also now shares the credit for several put for-
ward by his contemporaries in their marginalia. In the list that 
follows, asterisks and plus signs signify emendations printed 
respectively in the text or the apparatus of the OCT.4 I add in 
brackets the name of the earliest scholar known to me to have 
published each conjecture, together with the date of publica-
tion, if available. I write Π or MS(S) if the conjecture has sub-
sequently appeared in an ancient or a mediaeval manuscript 
unknown in Markland’s day. I do not record emendations 
found in the books which Markland published and which are 
hence already known to be his. 

Aj. 
*54 removes comma after λείας (Schaefer 1810) 
*77 introduces aposiopesis (Brunck 1786) 
*79 οὔκϰουν (Brunck 1786) 
+85 δεδορϱκϰότος (anon. ap. Dindorf 1869) 
194 ποδὶ (πόδα Morstadt 1864) 
*649 χαἰ (Musgrave pre-1780, published 1800) 
*756 ἐθ’ (MS, Bothe 1826) and ἐν (Lobeck 1809) 
*778 ἔθ’ (Lobeck 1809) 
782 ἀφυστερϱήµεθα (Wakefield 1792) 
842 ἐκϰγόνων τ’ (MSS, Musgrave pre-1780, published 1800) 
1009 τε σῶν (M. Schmidt testibus Lloyd-Jones/Wilson 1990) 
*1096 λόγοις· ἐπεί (Mekler 1885) 
*1098 τόνδ’ (MS) 
*1274 ἐντός (MSS) 

El.  
199 µοµφάν (Wakefield 1792)5 

 
4 H. Lloyd-Jones and N. G. Wilson (eds.), Sophoclis Fabulae (Oxford 1990, 

revised 1992). 
5 This reading is partially obscured by the binder’s shears; but the last 

stroke of the mu, as well as the accent on the alpha, suggests that this was 
the original word. 



234 UNPUBLISHED CONJECTURES ON SOPHOCLES 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 
 

*337 ἄλλα (Dindorf 1830) 
363 µὴ ’κϰλιπεῖν (Lobeck teste Jebb) 
+480 κϰλυούσᾳ (MSS) 
950 µόνω (Cobet 1858) 
*1127 σ’ (MS, Brunck 1786) 
*1139 σ’ (MSS, Schaefer 1808) 
*1226 ἔχοις (Valckenaer pre-1775) 
+1341 ἔοικϰέ µ’ (Fröhlich 1815) 
*1420 παλίρϱρϱυτον (Bothe 1806) 

OΤ 
+8 del. (Wunder 1840) 
68 δὲ σκϰοπῶν (Nauck 1867) 
90 σῷ λόγῳ (Nauck 1876) 
+114 ἔφασκϰον (Kousis)6 
*458 αὑτὸς (MS, Burges and Bothe teste Erfurdt 1809) 
*581 οὔκϰουν ...;  (Brunck 1779) 
601 οὔτε δρϱάστης (Hartung 1851) 
628 εἰκϰτέον (Henneberger 1849) 
+634 τήνδ’ (Doederlein 1847) 
725 χρϱῄζῃ γ’, ἔρϱευναν (Eggert 1868) 
849 µεταβαλεῖν (gloss, Blaydes 1859) 
977 οὗ (Blaydes 1859) 
*1025 τυχών (Bothe 1826) 
*1180 αὑτὸς (Heimsoeth) 
*1208b αὑτὸς (Brunck 1779) 
1256 θ’ (Blaydes 1859) 
*1281 del. (Dindorf 1825) 
+1368 ἦσθ’ <ἂν> (Porson pre-1808, Purgold 1802) 

Ant. 
2 οἶσθά τι (Meineke teste Jebb) 
25 θεοῖς (Brunck 1786) 
*48 <µ’> (Brunck 1786) 
*215 νυν (Blaydes 1859) 

 
6 Markland crosses this conjecture out, suggesting that he later rejected it. 

So also with Ant. 599 and Trach. 440, below. 



 P. J. FINGLASS 235 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 

 

263 ἔφυγε τὸ µὴ ’δέναι (Porson 1801) 
296 νόσηµ’ (Pallis teste Jebb) 
*384 ἡ (MS, Brunck 1779) 
*406 ᾑρϱέθη (MS, Schaefer 1811) 
+599 ὅπερϱ (MS, Hermann 1823) [crossed out] 
*742 question mark (Hermann 1823) 
+754 <µ’> (Blaydes 1905) 
+1056 δέ γε (Seager 1813) 
+1238 ἐµβάλλει (Π, Mitchell 1842) 
1305 βάξεις (Heimsoeth 1865) 
1350 µηδέν’ (MSS) 

Trach. 
+71 τλαίη (Walter 1884)7 
+88–89 del. (Hermann 1822) 
+90 µη <οὐ> (Valckenaer pre-1775) 
+93 πύθοιο (Blaydes 1871) 
+98 γᾶς (Schneidewin 1854) 
+114 <ἐν> (Erfurdt 1802) 
+171 ὣς (Blaydes 1871) 
*205 δόµος (Burges teste Dindorf 1885) 
+206 ἐφεστίοισιν (Blaydes 1871) 
302 οἴκϰων (Blaydes 1871) 
313 εἶκϰεν (Schneidewin 1854) 
*326 δακϰρϱυρϱρϱοεῖ (MSS, Brunck 1786) 
*328 αὐτή (MSS) 
344 κϰείνους (Blaydes 1871) 
+356–357 del. (Wunder 1841) 
377 ἡ (Blaydes 1871) 
+440 πεφύκϰασ’ (Nauck 1866) [crossed out] 
*549 τῶνδ’ (Zippmann 1868)  
628 πρϱοσφθέγµατ’ (Hermann 1848) 
*747 κϰοὐ (MS, Valckenaer pre-1775) 
866 εὔσηµον (Hense 1880; noluit Walter 1877) 

 
7 Walter writes τλείη (K. Walter, “Kritische bemerkungen zu Sophokles,” 

Philologus 42 [1884] 266–274, at 274), which is presumably a misprint. 



236 UNPUBLISHED CONJECTURES ON SOPHOCLES 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 
 

968 αἶ ter (Musgrave pre-1780, published 1800) 
*977 γέρϱον (MSS) 
999 del. κϰαταδερϱχθῆναι (Fröhlich 1815) 
1112 <σφ’> εἰσορϱῶ (Blaydes 1871) 

Phil. 
+43 φορϱβὴν (Burges teste Nauck) 
203 <του> before τειρϱοµένου (*after it, Porson 1802) 
242 ὦ ’κϰ φίλης (Blaydes 1870) 
+256 πω (MSS) 
+304 del. (Bergk 1858) 
+369 ὦ σχέτλιοι ’τολµήσατ’ (Valckenaer pre-1775) 
*371 κϰυρϱεῖ (Porson 1801) 
*457 δειλὸς (Brunck 1786) 
478 µέρϱος (Blaydes 1870) 
*491 δερϱάδα (Toup 1780) 
+558 πέφυκϰά γ’, ἀσφαλὴς (Blaydes 1870) 
+572 οὖν (Dissen 1813) 
*614 ἤκϰουσ’ (MSS, Valckenaer pre-1775) 
786 ἐρϱγάζῃ (-ει Wecklein 1869) 
*994 οὔ φηµ’. (Ὀδ.) ἐγὼ δὲ (Gernhard 1803 post Wakefield 
 1794) 
*1035 ὀλεῖσθε (Brunck 1786) 
*1071 λειφθήσοµαι δὴ (Wakefield 1794) 
*1238 ταὐτὰ (MSS) 
+1265 νέον (Schneidewin 1855) 
*1288 del. οὐκϰ (Porson 1801) 
+1330 οὗτος (Brunck 1786) 
*1386 ἐχθρϱοῖσί µ’ (Valckenaer pre-1775, ap. Burges 1833) 
+1406 Ἡρϱακϰλέους (Brunck 1786) 
1422 κϰἀκϰ (Wakefield 1794) 

OC 
*42 ἂν (Vauvilliers 1781) 
+307 ἕρϱπει (Brunck 1786) 
+454 ᾔνεσεν (Wunder 1867) 
+534 αὔτ’ ἄρϱ’ (MSS) 
+572 κϰἀκϰ (Blaydes 1859) 
*644 marks aposiopesis (Brunck 1786) 



 P. J. FINGLASS 237 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 

 

+646 κϰρϱατήσεις (Nauck 1861) 
728 ἐγγενεῖς (Brunck 1786) 
*735 τηλικϰόσδε (Brunck 1786) 
*769a del. (Valckenaer 1768) 
*922 punctuates before βίᾳ (Brunck 1786) 
*1012 θ’ (MS) 
*1121 τὴν (Musgrave pre-1780, published 1800) 
1192 ἔα ’υτὸν (Brunck 1786) 
*1199 βαιὰ (Musgrave pre-1780, published 1800) 
1266 ταῦτα (Elmsley 1813) 
1270 ἔστ’ ἀποστρϱοφή (Blaydes 1859) 
+1345 θέλω (MSS) 
*1361 µεµνηµένῳ (Blaydes 1859) 
+1379 τοιοῦδ’ (Kunhardt 1838) 
+1418 ἂν (Vauvilliers 1781) 
1523 κϰεῖµαι (Blaydes 1859) 
*1562 ἐξανύσαι (Vauvilliers 1781) 
*1698 µηδαµὰ (Brunck 1786) 
*1752 νὺξ ἀπόκϰειται (J. F. Martin) 
1773 ὅσαπερϱ (Blaydes 1859) 

There are also some emendations which I have not seen 
attributed to a later scholar, but which are worth recording in 
case they are of interest to future editors: 

Aj. 
813–814 delendi (“pueriliter”) 

El. 
1210 τέφρϱας 
1449 τοῦ φιλτάτου 

OT 
105 ἀκϰούσας 
308 αὖ 
407 µαντεῖα ῥᾷστα 
1005 µάλιστ’ ἐς 

Ant. 
27 µὴ οὐ 
414 λόγοισι 



238 UNPUBLISHED CONJECTURES ON SOPHOCLES 
 

————— 
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies 51 (2011) 232–238 

 
 
 
 

745 ἦ ...; 
748 οὔκϰουν ...; 
1014 delendus 

Phil. 
55 πλέκϰων 

OC 
1375 ἐξαφῆκϰ’ 

In all, that makes 55 emendations accepted by the editors of 
the OCT, 38 found in their apparatus, and 42 that appear in 
neither. By citing these figures I do not mean to imply that the 
Oxford editors’ assessment of each conjecture is necessarily the 
correct one. But the figures do provide a rough guide to the 
significance of this discovery. Markland’s name has hitherto 
barely featured in the apparatus of critical editions of Soph-
ocles. Now he stands revealed as one of the most prolific and 
successful emenders of his text. Taken with the recent haul of 
unpublished scholarship on Sophocles by (among others) 
Valckenaer and Pierson,8 Markland’s conjectures mean that 
the contribution of the eighteenth century to the purification of 
Sophocles’ text is now far greater than had been imagined. 
This has considerable implications for our understanding of the 
history of classical scholarship on Greek dramatic texts.9 
 
February, 2011     Department of Classics 
    University of Nottingham 
    Nottingham NG7 2RD, U.K. 
    patrick.finglass@nottingham.ac.uk 
 

 

 
8 P. J. Finglass, “Unpublished Conjectures at Leiden on the Greek Dram-

atists,” GRBS 49 (2009) 187–221. 
9 I am grateful to GRBS’s anonymous referee for helpful comments.