ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. a Note on Sophocles, Antigone 2-6

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975

brill.com/mnem

ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles, Antigone 2-6

Mauro Agosto Lateran University, Dept. of History of Law [email protected]

Received March 2017 | Accepted September 2017

Abstract

In this paper the author deals with Sophocles’ Antigone 2-6 suggesting two slight changes in Ant. 3 (ὁμοῖον pro ὁποῖον) and Ant. 4 (οὖσ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ pro οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ) and he argues in defence of the transmitted words ἄτης ἄτερ. He also discusses Earle’s interpretation of τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (l. 2) and the translation of νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν τελεῖ (l. 3). In addition, he points out the exact attribution of some conjectures.

Keywords

Sophocles – Antigone 3-4 – textual criticism

ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ἰσμήνης κάρα, ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅ τι Ζεὺς τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου κακῶν ὁποῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν τελεῖ; οὐδὲν γὰρ οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὔτ᾽ἄτης ἄτερ οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμόν ἐσθ᾽, ὁποῖον οὐ τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν οὐκ ὄπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν. S. Ant. 1-61

2. ὅ τι libri : ὅτι Hermann, Lloyd-Jones et Wilson (1997), def. Willink : οἶσθά τι Madvig | post Ζεὺς subdistinctionem ponit Dawe | τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου libri : τῶν τ’ ἀπ᾽ Dawe : τοῖς ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (=τοῖς Οἰδίπου τέκνοις) Earle : τοῖν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (subaud. τέκνοιν) ausim proponere (de ortu erroris cf. Ant. 911) | 3. ὁποῖον libri : ὁμοῖον ego : ὅμοιον Krüger, Bury : ἆ, ποῖον

1 Text of the paradosis.

Lloyd-Jones et Wilson : inter cruces Willink : ἐπεῖγον Toti (GIF n.s. III, 2012, 9-28) | 4.-6. del. Paley, 5. del. Dawe, 6 del. Nauck | 4. οὔτ᾽ … οὔτ᾽ libri : οὔτ᾽… οὖσ’ ego : οὐκ … οὐδ᾽ Hermann ap. Erfurdt, Dawe : οὐκ … οὔτ᾽ Wex (qui post ἄτερ fortiter interpungit), Lehrs : οὖν … οὐδ᾽ Willink | ἄτης ἄτερ libri, inter cruces ponunt Dawe, Lloyd-Jones et Wilson : οὔτ᾽ ἀτήριον Brunck, dubitanter probat Griffith : ἄγης ἄτερ Korais | verba iam Didymus in quaestionem vocaverat.

Several problems of both textual and non-textual (interpretative) nature are involved in these lines. As some aspects of these problems are entangled with one another we prefer to begin from some interpretative uncertainties raised by the sense of τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (l. 2) and ἔτι ζώσαιν (l. 3).

Some Problems of Interpretation (Ant. 2-3)

1. Doubts were raised by Dawe about the real sense of ll. 2-3: “If the ills in question stemmed from Oedipus, and were transmitted to the next generation in the ordinary way familiar to all students of Greek Tragedy, the words ‘while we live’ would be at best languid, and superfluous, for there is no point in transmitting ills to a generation that is already dead. There ought to be a contrast between ἔτι ζώσαιν and something else.”2 All the same, Dawe “notes a further difficulty, that in τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου κακῶν the preposition is surprising”3 and asks: “Would ἐπ᾽ Οἰδίπου help?—the ills that were current in time of [emphasis original] Oedipus, with perhaps the secondary sense of weighing upon him.”4 2. Consequent upon this, Kovacs maintains that “the reference must be to the curse of Oedipus against his sons. The surprising fact to which Antigone

2 Dawe 1978, 99. 3 So Kovacs 1992, 11. Kühner and Gerth 1898, 458 (malorum ab O. profectorum) fails to persuade, as the other quotations in the same section have to do with feelings inspired by (ἀπό) something/someone (fear, beauty inspiring war), not with states of things caused by someone else. 4 Dawe 1978, 99. I find less persuasive the argument of Dawe 1978, 99 that the transmitted ἔτι ζώσαιν hardly could mean ‘still living’ (i.e. not yet dead), as “[a]t this stage a contrast between the live sisters Antigone and Ismene, and the dead brothers Polyneices and Eteocles, cannot be intended, for the exposition of the plot has not yet progressed beyond line 3”. The words are placed in such a thrilling way that Willink 2000, 668 n. 26, is perhaps right when he says that “we may surely allow the anticipation, as an allusiveness of a kind appropriate to a con- versation between two sisters aware of being the sole survivors of a disaster-afflicted family.… There may, however, be a certain ambivalence in this phrase.” It would be an example of foreshadowing and suspense (on which see Stuart 1918) and “distributed exposition” (as called by Harsh 1944, 93), a favorite device of Sophocles.

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 960 Agosto alludes here is that this curse, designed by Oedipus for the destruction of his ungrateful and unfilial sons, works on those who are still alive as well.”5 This statement has a good chance of being right, but Kovacs gives no reason for his supposition. 3. An argument in favor of Kovacs’ statement could be found in the repeat- edly affirmed principle that Oedipus was innocent (OC 521ff.; 960). Antigone speaks of ‘unintended deeds’ of her father, who could not escape his fate because ‘the gods were leading him to ruin’ (OC 240-254). In OC 548, Oedipus proclaims, ‘I am innocent before the law’.6 Founded upon such considerations, I am inclined to believe that Zehlicke was not wrong when writing: “Non igitur tam fuerit invenustus atque inverecundus Sophocles, ut, qui numquam nisi de invitis Oedipi delictis loquatur, hoc loco filiam, et piam illam, nulla cogente necessitate de patris flagitiis querentem inducat.”7

Earle’s Proposal

1. At this point, an almost forgotten comment of Earle is very interesting and it strongly affects the present understanding of Ant. 2-3 (not to say of a good deal of the plot). In l. 2 Earle8 makes a case for understanding the words τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου as ‘of Oedipus’ sons’ instead of the conventional interpretation ‘bequeathed by Oedipus’. He maintains that οἱ ἀπό with the genitive of the patronymic is a Greek idiom9 meaning ‘the sons of’ and as he noticed, “[w]e find the phrase used in the natural sense and in the same position in the verse Ant. 193 (ἀστοῖσι παίδων τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου πέρι)”.10 After all, it is impossible to escape from genetic ἄτη (Ant. 597),11 and it would be much easier to under- stand Antigone’s complaint, if she were speaking of ‘collateral’ calamities, which though not capable of being transmitted horizontally (from brothers to sisters), yet withal can hurt with no less violence because of the strong feelings of attachment and affection that one person (for instance, the sisters) has

5 Kovacs 1992, 11-12. 6 On the legal implications of the wording καθαρòς νόμῳ, see Giordano 2009. 7 Zehlicke 1826, 14. 8 Earle 1902, 3 = Earle 1912, 66. 9 See for instance X. HG 3.1.6, 7.8.18 and Montanari 2004, 282. 10 Earle 1902, 3 = Earle 1912, 66. Far from running counter to Earle’s interpretation, the presence of παίδων (S. Ant. 193) actually enhances it by ensuring that the verb understood is γεννηθέντων or anything like that. This may hold true also when παίδων is not expressed. 11 See Giordano 2009.

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 961 towards another (e.g., the brothers). Sophocles shows interest in this matter also elsewhere (for instance in Aj. 496-524, especially 512-513) and in our case reference should be made to those τοῖν [σοῖν] δυσμόροιν παίδοιν κακά (OC 365) originating from the curses (ἀραί) ἃς Οἰδίπους ἐφθέγξατ’ εἰς ἡμᾶς ποτε, to use Euripides words in Ph. 475 (and cf. S. OC 421-430; 951f.).12 The curses of Oedipus have now been fulfilled, but they directly affect the innocent Antigone as well as her unhappy brothers.13 2. These cases were traditional and well known to people at large and they were part of that “audience’s omniscience”14 which was inherent to Attic

12 In OC 360-384, which ideally (not chronologically, of course) comes before Antigone’s plot, the evils of the two brothers are presented as being of so serious a nature, that they cause Ismene to pass over in silence the sufferings that she went through because of her own father (and see also OC 594-601). What are, then, those evils? The clash with Creon (OC 367-370), the fratricidal struggle (371-373), the ensuing war between the two brothers (374), Polyneices’ dethronization and exile (375), his alliance with Argos (378) threaten- ing to destroy the Cadmean plain (380-381), the trouble of finding a dwelling-place for Oedipus (383-384), the hatred of the father towards his sons (418-419), Antigone’s effort to restore peace (1275-1279), the curses launched by Oedipus (1383-1396), the promise that Antigone would bury Polyneices with all due funeral rites (1408-1410), further complicat- ed by Creon’s edict (in Antigone), whence the plot of our tragedy is taken. There’s enough to rationalize Antigone’s complaint in the opening scene of the drama named after her. 13 This implies νῷν ζώσαιν is to be read as a dative depending on τελεῖ, but this point is highly controversial and cannot be accepted without discussion. The whole issue is summed up by Wex 1829, 97: “God. Hermannus (the reference is to Hermann and Erfurdt 1830, 12) cum scholiasta dativos tuetur, dicens: Hic ut potuerint genitivi poni, aptiores sunt dativi. Nos contra dixerimus, debebant genitivi poni, quia non locus erat dativis. Nam si dativi essent, videretur Jupiter puellis potissimum illis poenas infligere voluisse, alienis illis ab omni culpa: Jupiter autem explere modo voluit Labdacidarum fata, quae si Antigonae et Ismenae tempore evenirent, factum est id non puellarum caussa, sed casu fortuito sive rebus sic ferentibus.” I believe that the best answer is contained in Kaibel 1897, 10-11: “non narrantis” says the scholar “vel deliberantis haec verba sunt sed incusantis et acerbe litigantis. … fervet Antigona ira dolore odio, verbis utitur ferocibus iniquis impiis: ‘nostro capite, inquit, cum solae superstites simus, patris culpam perlui dei voluerunt’.” Any con- cerns of theodicy are foreign to her soul and many parallels (S. Ant. 922-923; 1074-1076; OT 1329-1330; 1365; OC 998; Ph. 681-690; Il. 24.527-533, which we will discuss below) are sufficient, I believe, to support this statement. Wex argues that this is mere coincidence in time and denies that misfortunes have been poured directly onto the two unfortunate sisters, which seems to be far too tame for this place. In fact, Antigone is speaking of ills which, though affecting primarily the guilty members of her γένος, yet are having reper- cussions, no less heavy and equally tormenting, on her and her sister due to the love they have for their father and brothers. 14 Finkelberg 2002, 177.

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 962 Agosto tragedy and “was recreated at every performance”.15 Therefore there is no fear that the audience could be confused on what ‘the evils of Oedipus’ sons’ might be. On the contrary, “[t]he Athenian audience, schooled in epic and well ac- quainted with drama, can reasonably have been expected to know the story of Oedipus’ curse on his sons”.16 3. But we may perhaps venture to object that the audience would not un- derstand the sense we are supposing because of a quite cumbersome accu- mulation of genitives.17 In other words, they would naturally connect τῶν with κακῶν to perceive ‘what of Oedipus’ evils’ instead of ὅ τι κακῶν τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου, ‘what of the evils of Oedipus’ sons’.18 But against this objection I maintain that on the ground of parallels like E. Hec. 585 (οὐκ οἶδ᾽ εἰς ὅ τι βλέψω κακῶν),19 S. OT 149620 and Ar. Lys. 714 (ὅ τι πεπόνθαμεν κακόν)21 the idiomatic construction seems to be without article. Native speakers would easily separate the two entangled expressions (ὅ τι κακῶν and τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου), difficult as it may seem to us today.22

15 The presence of this theme (Oedipus’ curses and the ensuing evils) in every poetical genre (epic, lyric, drama) before Sophocles is too vast to be summed up in a footnote. Hence, I refer the reader to both the discussion and further bibliography contained in Cingano 2000; Bizzarri 2014. 16 Bowman 2007, 17. 17 I would not rule out an intended ambiguity. There is a similar case in OT 1, on which see Stella 2010, 169-171. 18 One might mitigate the problem, if it feels like a problem, by writing τοῖν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου (with τέκνοιν understood). A normalization from τοῖν to τῶν is well represented by the indirect tradition in S. Ant. 911 and the immediate context in our passage could fully justify such a hypothesis. Still, I am not utterly persuaded of the necessity of this change. 19 Incidentally, the tone of this passage (585-590) is quite close to S. Ant. 2-8. The earliest passage, as far as I know, where we read ὅ τι τῶν κακῶν is Flavius Josephus, AJ 19.2.2.173 (οὐκ ἔστιν ὅ τι τῶν κακῶν οὐ διέτριψεν τὴν πόλιν). 20 To the extent of my knowledge, the phrase τί τῶν κακῶν does not appear before Luc. Gall. 23. Passages like S. El. 1117 or OT 1432 do not seem to be relevant given the different syntac- tic nature (indefinite pronoun vs interrogative pronoun). 21 With slight syntactical change. Cf. also Ar. Pl. 855 (τί ποτ’ ἐστὶν ὅ τι πέπονθεν ἅνθρωπος κακόν;). 22 In this respect, we could make a comparison with a modern language having a case- based syntax like German. Glottological analysis shows that speakers and listeners can use prosodic information and other suprasegmental patterns to clarify the meaning of syntactically ambiguous sentences. Cf. Bögel 2013. As far as the Greeks are concerned, an indirect proof of this ability is available and can be obtained from the famous incident that involved Hegelochus, an actor in Euripides’ Orestes, which was performed in 409 bc. Because of an imperfect articulation (connected perhaps with the relationship between

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 963

4. For these reasons, I believe that Earle’s interpretation may deserve closer attention.23

Textual Issues

With these observations, the discussion can move to the textual issues analysis.24 1.a. Firstly ll. 2f. are rendered obscure by the anomalous25 presence of both ὅ τι (or ὅτι)26 and ὁποῖον in the same clause as two indirect question-words.27

stress accent and vocalic identity) the same (for us) sequence of letters ΓΑΛΗΝΟΡΩ (in line 279) was perceived to mean ‘I see a weasel’ instead of the correct ‘I see a calm sea’. His error was ridiculed by Aristophanes in Ran. 303. Sources and discussion in Stephanis 1988, 192-193. 23 A further remark: in all the other six extant tragedies of Sophocles the opening verses involve words evoking the relation ‘father-son/daughter’ (Aj. 1; El. 1-2; OT 1; Tr. 6; Ph. 4; OC 1). Antigone would be the sole exception. 24 I will not deal in this paper with some problems arising from the use of a double negative (οὐ, οὐκ) in ll. 5-6. 25 See Willink 2000, 666 n. 19. For an almost complete list of previous proposals, see Semitelos 1887, 385-389. 26 This construction was defended by Boeckh 1843, 4 who on the following page translates: ‘weisst du, dass Zeus der Leiden uns von Oedipus keins unvollendet schon bei unserm Leben lässt?’ The same syntax is supported by Willink 2000 also on the basis of Ar. Av. 1246 (ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅτι Ζεὺς), whence it is clear that this idiom means more or less ‘be assured that’. In this shape, we could translate Boeckh’s words as follows: ‘be assured Zeus does not leave us unfinished one of the sufferings of Oedipus already in our lives’. Grammatically speaking we would have two unconnected direct questions. See Boeckh 1843, 207-208: “Gleich von vorn stellt der Dichter sie (Antigone) in voller Leidenschaft dar, und lässt sie lauter emphatische Wendungen gebrauchen; … So setzt sie statt ὁποιονοῦν in höch- ster Lebendigkeit eine neue Frage, welche mit der von ἆρ᾽ οἶσθα in gar keiner Verbindung steht.” The problem is that, as opposed to the authors of other literary genres (Semitelos 1887, 395), the tragic poets never use ὁποῖος in direct questions, as Porson 1802, 273 (ad E. Hec. 892) noted: “Tragici … neque simpliciter interrogant per ὁποῖος”. Finally, Aristophanes’ wording is not completely binding, as it is a free-associative parody (see Dunbar 1995, 627), not a direct quotation. 27 Cf. Griffith 1999, 120: “The syntax is rather confused, as ὁποῖον redefines and amplifies ὅτι (both of them objects of τελεῖ in indirect q.).” Cf. Vollgraff 1918, 73: “In his versibus nihil sanae rationi grammaticaeve officere videtur, nisi quod ὁποῖον legitur ubi ποῖον exspecta- mus.” Cf. also Bury 1901, 331: “The only tolerable explanation of the construction of ll. 2, 3 is that (adopted by Jebb and Bellerman) which understands ἐστι with ὅ τι (the correction of MSS ὅτι). But it is far from satisfactory. Ζεύς following ὅ τι assures the ear that ὅ τι is object; and it is a shock to discover, on reaching ὁποῖον, that it is not object, but subject.”

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 964 Agosto

As ὅ τι … κακῶν seems to be a highly idiomatic construction (see above) to be preserved,28 I assume that ὅ τι is correct and I locate the corruption in ὁποῖον (l. 3). Moreover, I believe that it is important for conjectures to bear some lit- eral resemblance to the transmitted text to the greatest possible extent and that they should necessarily explain the rise of the corruption.29 However, Wieseler’s ὀλοιόν ‘perniciosum’ sounds really “matt und überflüssig”.30 Lloyd- Jones and Wilson31 attempted a scarcely satisfactory emendation of line 3 (ἆ, ποῖον).32 1.b. I propose a possible solution for l. 3: (a) ὁποῖον. In my opinion, there is only one feasible solution: ὁποῖον in l. 3 should be considered a corruption of an initial ὁμοῖον.33 It could be interpreted, in principle, either as an accusative predicate adjective modifying ὅ τι, or as an adverb (LSJ s.v.), but the second option is more suitable, as we find it also in Ant. 586.34 The origin of the corruption lies either in an acoustic mistake (whether from inner speech or external source, I am not able to determine) or in an anticipation from l. 5. In either case, the meaning should be ‘in equal measure/alike/in the same amount’. Hence, setting apart for a moment the question raised by Earle (see

28 For this reason I cannot adopt Dawe’s 1996 conjecture τῶν τ᾽ (l. 2) as it is one that destroys this delicate structure. 29 Only in the event that all efforts to identify and define the forms of textual corruption have failed, we could venture to claim that a major damage (for instance, if a gloss dropped the original first word) forbids any solution based on the textual information and opens the door to virtually any reasonably proposed conjecture. On these problems see Wettlaufer 2013, 61-78. For this reason I believe that changes like Dindorf’s ἐλλεῖπον are too invasive. Moreover, it sounds like a wedge inspired by German expressions like ‘da fehlend’ or ‘übrig gelassen’. 30 So Krüger 1874, 191 n. 1. 31 Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1990. 32 This conjecture has incurred much disapproval (cf. West 1991, 300; Brown 1991, 325; Zimmermann 1993, 106; Kopff 1993, 156; Kirkwood 1993, 29. The only exception is Renehan 1992, 362: “(it) deserves to be taken very seriously”). Cf. also: Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1997, 66-67, where the editores Oxonienses both offer new reflection prompted by the study of the reviews quoted above (they changed ὅ τι into ὅτι) and proceed with further advocacy of their own conjecture. 33 With minor differences (ὅμοιον, adjective) this conjecture was proposed by Krüger 1874 and Bury 1901. When I came up with that conjecture, I was unaware of them. I owe the alert to the first reviewer of this paper, whom I thank. 34 But it was deleted by Seidler, followed by Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1190. For a similar adverb (ὁμοῖα), see A. Eu. 240.

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 965 above),35 these lines should mean: ‘is there, of the ills springing from Oedipus, one left that Zeus will fail to bring on us alike?’ The picture that emerges is very Sophoclean, far from “the romantic, even Christian, sentimentalism that has collected about the interpretation of the play”.36 Lines 2-3 contain the complaint for the endless quantity of suffered misfortunes37 ‘where no evil fails’,38 consequent upon Oedipus’ ills,39 of which god is the perpetrator,40 and whose effects concern the father and the two daughters41 in equal42 measure.43 In OC 1670-1676, Antigone expresses these ideas in a very effective way: the two sisters did not pick up one or two (οὐ τὸ μέν, ἄλλο δὲ μή) of Oedipus’ misfortunes, but all of them. Hence, we may say that they took part of them ὁμοῖον, ‘in equal measure’. This passage seems especially remarkable when one considers the dual form νῷν (as in Ant. 3) and the similar progression of the ideas in both groups of verses: they twain (the use of the dual is of absolute importance in the poetical economy)44 have suffered all

35 The following interpretation could easily be adapted to Earle’s explanation. 36 To use the words of Calder III 1968, 389. 37 It is a topos and it can be found, e.g., in S. El. 1188; OT 1232-1235; 1496; OC 1230-1239. 38 Cf. OT 1496 τί γὰρ κακῶν ἄπεστιν; and Ant. 584-585 ἄτας οὐδὲν ἐλλείπει. 39 Cf. OT 1496-1499; Ant. 49-54. To that, one must add the grievance suffered by Oedipus on account of his sons’ unfair treatment, on which see OC 595-598. 40 Ant. 623-625; 922-923; 1074-1076; OT 1329-1330; OC 998. To appreciate the point of view im- plicit in this religious belief, we should bear in mind the ‘Homeric’ teaching in Il. 24.527- 533. According to OT 1365, Oedipus was spared no pain or misery. Specifically on Zeus’ action and responsibility see OT 738. On the characterization of god see also OT 828-829. Founded upon these passages (especially OT 738), I believe that the deletion of Zeus proposed by Kovacs 1992 is out of the question. 41 See OT 1486-1507. 42 OT 1495 (ὁμοῦ). The meaningful verb (ἐξ)ισόω ‘to make identical/to bring to the same level’ appears twice in OT 425 and 1507. The second occurrence is less problematic and the sense is unquestionable. Oedipus begs Creon for his own daughters: ‘do not bring them to the same level of my woes!’ It is well-known that Creon did not keep his promise and as a consequence Oedipus’ daughters were partakers of their father’s ills at the same level. As to the first occurrence, Agosto 2016 defends the paradosis with slight spelling changes (ἅ σ᾽[= σὰ, cf. OT 405] ἐξισώσῃ [-ει in mss.] σοί τε καὶ τοῖς σοῖς τέκνοις, ‘the bulk of miseries that, although they are only yours, you are going to pour on yourself and on your children in equal measure’). 43 On this whole issue, see Curi 2002, especially 13-27. 44 On which, see Greco 2011, 343: “Uno degli espedienti sintattici utilizzati per dare espres- sione al tema della specularità e della duplicità dei discendenti di Labdaco è rappre- sentato dall’uso del duale: nell’Antigone questo corrisponde ad una precisa strategia drammaturgica che include nel o esclude dal viluppo incestuoso della stirpe. Ad una marcata presenza del duale ad inizio di tragedia (riferito a Eteocle e a Polinice; poi ad

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 966 Agosto the ills of their father seemingly without exception, but, as misfortune never stops, the announcement of an even bigger disaster immediately takes place.45 (b) νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν. As a result of this emendation implying the idea of ‘giv- ing’ to different subjects equally, I take νῷν ζώσαιν as a dative depending on τελεῖ.46 I am aware of objections like Wex’s47 and Dawe’s,48 but the feasibility for a dative like ζώσαιν to support this meaning is fully proved by passages like Pl. Cra. 395d (ἔτι ζῶντι), R. 365a (ἔτι ζῶσιν), Hdt. 4.94.3 (ἔτι ζῶντι), which all demonstrate that it can hardly be interpreted as anything other than ‘to us while we are still alive / before our death / in our lifetime’. The construction of νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν as dative governed by τελεῖ and its translation, too obvious to be noticed, does not “imply that some of the evils were expected to happen to the maidens after they were dead, which is out of the circle of thoughts in this play, and in the tragic poets generally”,49 as Wex50 and Boeckh51 insisted in support of the genetive absolute. Antigone only wonders if misfortune and loss are her

Antigone e a Ismene), segue una rarefazione (viene riferito a Edipo e a Giocasta) al punto che, verso la fine del dramma, consumata la distruzione del γένος, si dissolve e viene usato non più in riferimento ai componenti della famiglia tebana, ma ad oggetti ‘doppi’, quali le rupi Cianee o alle parti del corpo ‘doppie’, come le mani, gli occhi, etc.” From this perspective, the adverb ὁμοῖον cold convey also an additional undertone (which does not rule out the first significance, but enriches it) as indicating that Antigone and Ismene are equal partakers of the same ills. We would detect here a well-known rhetorical device, which is normally applied at the prologue of a speech in order to excite the benevolence of the audience (or of the interlocutor, as is done in our case), aliqua coniunctionis causa significanda (Cic. Part. 8.28), by mentioning a common disaster. This meaning is reflected in line 6 τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν ‘yours as well as mine’. 45 In OC 1675-1678 the announcement of Oedipus’ death, in Ant. 7-10 Creon’s decision to issue an edict against Polyneices’ burial. Another example of this device is OT 1232-1235. 46 This verb normally means ‘pay, present’ (LSJ s.v.) when governing the accusative and the dative. The second sense (‘present/give as a present’) is very much to the point and, if we accept the dative, it conveys the sense of bitter irony underlined by Antigone’s words. 47 Wex 1829, 97: “si dativis usus esset, scripsisset νῷν ταῖν ζώσαιν. … Atque ne contra moneas, articulum licere tragicis hoc in genere omittere, adverte animum ad adverbium tempo- rale ἔτι (cf. Trach. v. 305) quod efflagitat, ut ζώσαιν suam retineat participii (that is to say, genetive absolute) non adsumat adiectivi naturam.” On the dual form ταῖν, see Cooper III 1972. 48 Dawe 1978, 99: “If τοῖν ἔτι ζώσαιν had been written here, there would be no problem; yet for obvious reasons one would not suggest it as an emendation.” 49 Woolsey 1841, 63. 50 Wex 1829, 97: “quasi etiam post mortem calamitates quemquam ferire possent.” 51 Boeckh 1843, 209: “weil ihnen, waren sie todt, nicht leicht Uebel begegnen konnten.” Add Dawe 1978, 99: “the words “while we live” would be at best languid, and superfluous, for there is no point in transmitting ills to a generation that is already dead.”

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 967 lot in life and if she will ever recover. She does not think of punishments in the afterlife in any way. She only asks ‘why me’, and wonders if Zeus will ever give rest to her and her sister before their death. Antigone does not ask Zeus to stop executing her family’s destiny forever, but to delay his justice till her and Ismene’s death. This was quite possible, as we learn from mythology: Gyges’ usurpation of the Lydian throne caused the events in the reign of Croesus, his descendant, much later, in the fifth generation.52 What is more, we find a similar petition in S. Tr. 303-306, where Deianeira prays to Zeus not to let her live to see her children in sorrow and pain:

ὦ Ζεῦ τροπαῖε, μή ποτ᾽ εἰσίδοιμί σε πρὸς τοὐμὸν οὕτω σπέρμα χωρήσαντά ποι, μηδ᾽, εἴ τι δράσεις, τῆσδέ γε ζώσης ἔτι.53 οὕτως ἐγὼ δέδοικα τάσδ᾽ ὁρωμένη. S. Tr. 303-306

In other words, Antigone says that she would prefer to be dead rather than see other ills affecting her life. Such a request is not foreign to other Sophoclean characters, as we see in Ph. 1348-1349:

ὦ στυγνὸς αἰών, τί μ᾽ ἔτι δῆτ᾽ ἔχεις ἄνω βλέποντα, κοὐκ ἀφῆκας εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν; S. Ph. 1348-1349

2. Line 4 contains “the most famous crux in the text of Sophocles”,54 as it has been called. This is a locus conclamatus55 where we can only make guesses, as many issues are involved in it. As a matter of fact, “the transmitted οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ gives diametrically the wrong sense between οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν and οὔτ᾽

52 Hdt. 1.13. Postponement of divine punishment is fully envisaged in Il. 4.160-162: εἴ περ γάρ τε καὶ αὐτίκ᾽ Ὀλύμπιος οὐκ ἐτέλεσσεν, / ἔκ τε καὶ ὀψὲ τελεῖ, σύν τε μεγάλῳ ἀπέτισαν / σὺν σφῇσιν κεφαλῇσι γυναιξί τε καὶ τεκέεσσιν. It is fully presented by Solon in the Elegy to the Muses (1 G.-P.2 = 13 W2, ll. 29-32) and became later the heart of Attic tragedy (See e.g. A. Ag. 58-59, 367-384, 1460-1461, 1497-1512, Ch. 61-64, S. Ant. 1074-1076, E. Ba. 882-896, Ion 1615, Or. 419-420). 53 This genetive absolute does not contradict my argument at all, as it only depends on the lack of a verb governing dative in the given context. 54 Renehan 1992, 335. 55 Cf. Cataudella 1978, 189: “L’aporia è vecchia, l’aveva rilevata anche Didimo: Δίδυμός φησιν ὅτι ἐν τούτοις τὸ ἄτης ἄτερ ἐναντίως συντέτακται τοῖς συμφραζομένοις.”

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 968 Agosto

αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμόν”56 and the difficulties of this passage, as a whole, “may be even greater than we had imagined”.57 Solutions proposed so far are varied: a. Attempts at interpreting without changes have failed to convince.58 Schneidewin and Nauck59 were pleased with that which is essentially Triclinius’ solution (μόνον δὲ τὸ ἄτερ λέγε),60 “so dass ἄτερ adjektivisch steht, wie oft χωρίς, ἑκάς u. ä.”.61 The meaning would be: ‘nothing (either it is grievous or [a piece of] ἄτη) is away/is missing’. The construction is not impossible,62 but 1) the syntactical variatio sounds too crude, 2) the parechesis /ate/ points to a linked phrase, 3) the split between the two groups of conjunctions (l. 4 and l. 5) is awkward and 4) a stronger punctuation mark would be needed after ἄτερ. Boeckh63 (with whom Wex64 agrees) marks these words as parenthetical and gives to ἄτερ the sense of ‘apart from, to say nothing of’. This sense is not attested for ἄτερ and it should be drawn from his pretend synonyms ἄνευ, χωρίς. What is more, the double οὔτε both before and after the parenthesis remains unmatched. b. Many changes (cf. the apparatus) have been suggested to solve the problem but nothing has conclusively convinced the critics yet. To name only the most important ones, Brunck wishes to read ἀτήριον,65 a word unknown to the tragic poets. Korais’ ἄγης ἄτερ seems to be far too bland for this place. Moreover, they affect a word like ἄτης, which is of absolute importance in ancient tragedy.66 Concerning this I agree overall with Kamerbeek’s67 comment: “Conjectures which do away with ἄτη are precarious because the presence of ἄτη in the opening words of this play where ἄτη’s rôle is so important is hardly

56 Willink 2000, 662. 57 Dawe 1978, 99. 58 For a full picture of the situation with complete reference to all conjectures or interpreta- tions proposed in the literature of the past three centuries, cf.: Semitelos 1887, 389-392; Lloyd-Jones and Wilson 1997, 66; Willink 2000; Schwab 2006; Schwab 2010. 59 Schneidewin and Nauck 1869. 60 Edited by Brunck 1786, 171. 61 Schneidewin and Nauck 1869, 34. 62 Cf. S. Ant. 584-585 ἄτας οὐδὲν ἐλλείπει. 63 Boeckh 1843, 4-5. 64 Wex 1829, 97: “in excerptis Boeckhianis”. 65 On which see Schneidewin-Nauck 1869, 34: “freilich ermangelt der Vorschlag ἀτήριον statt ἄτης ἄτερ durchaus der Wahrscheinlichkeit”. 66 See Natoli 2004, 109-113. On ἄτη within the central core of the plot, see Cairns 2013, ix-liv; Cairns 2014a; Cairns 2016. 67 Kamerbeek 1978, 38.

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 969 to be tampered with (cp. L. 17). So I can not admire G. Müller’s ἀτημελές.”68 Moreover, in my view, the parechesis /ate/ sounds too expressive to have come about by accident.69 To my knowledge, the only solution which would have deserved more attention was proposed by Wex, who tentatively proposed it but gained no mention either in contemporary or in subsequent critical editions of Sophocles’ Antigone, with the partial exception of Dawe 1996,70 who adopts it partly but attributes it to Lehrs71 instead of Wex. Wex’s solution is inspired by Hermann’s conjecture (see apparatus above) but is more refined than it.72 For the sake of simplicity, I will sum up Wex’s hypothesis in its shortest possible form. His text of Ant. 4-6 reads as follows:

οὐδὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἀλγεινὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ. οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμόν ἐσθ᾽, ὁποῖον οὐ τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν οὐκ ὄπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν.

For73 nothing (is there) without pain, nor without ruin. No shame, no dishonour exists that I have not seen among your sufferings and mine.

It produces a suitable text at the cost of very slight changes. This notwithstand- ing, I feel it is a bit too mechanical for a moment of great intensity in this prologue and the split into two different groups of negative conjunctions sounds

68 The reference is to Müller 1967, 29.The same holds true for ἀτήσιμον (Dindorf) and many others of the same shape. 69 See Schneidewin and Nauck 1869, 34. 70 Dawe 1996, 2. 71 Lehrs 1902, 214. Lehrs’ proposal is identical to Wex’s. 72 Wex 1829, 99: “Si pro οὔτ’ ἀλγ. legeris οὐκ ἀλγεινόν, possis ita explicare locum: οὐδέν, ὧν Ζεὺς τελεῖ, οὐκ ἀλεινὸν (sic!) οὔτ’ ἄτης ἄτερ ἐστί, iam fac poetam transiisse ad alteram constru- endi rationem: οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρόν (τι) ἐστιν, οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμον (τι), ὁποῖον οὐ cett. Nihil eorum, quae expertae sumus, non triste est, nihil non infaustum; neque turpe quidquam aut ignominiosum est, quin expertae simus (emphasis original). Quidquid perpessae sumus, eorum nihil est quin triste sit, nec turpe quidquam est, quin id perpessae simus.” 73 Γάρ ‘for’ connects to the lines above in order to form an aetiologia, with the sense being: ‘is there, of the ills springing from Oedipus, one left that Zeus will fail to bring on us? (I say that) for there is nothing without pain, nor is it without ruin.’

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 970 Agosto unusually rigid to me. Avoiding this split by deleting l. 5 (as Dawe 1996 does) is not the solution.74 c. Proposal of the present paper: ἄτης ἄτερ. In short, I will argue here that there are good reasons to regard the words οὔτ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ as corruption of an initial οὖσ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ, with οὖσ(α) being an adverbial participle of concession75 depending on the subject of ὄπωπ(α) in l. 6.76 The origin of the mistake should be supposed either in a contextual assimilation (attraction) due to the presence of several οὔτ(ε) around our passage or in the graphic similarity of letters and ensuing confusion. For that matter, in the oldest papyrus preserving scraps of Antigone’s text (P.Mich.inv. 6585a, 1st century bc—early 1st century ad)77 we can observe the regular use of the square sigma, which could be confused with a tau under certain circumstances. The use of scriptio plena would not, by itself, be an argument to be opposed to this hypothesis, since it is known that a common practice of the papyri “is to elide before the same vowel”.78 Less prob- ably, it could be an acoustic mistake. The combination of ἄτερ with ‘to be’ can be found elsewhere.79 The threefold repetition of οὔτε is regularly allowed by Sophocles80 and the parechesis of the quadruple /u/ in l. 4 is fully preserved, although at the expense of the quadruple anaphora οὔτ(ε). But this is an advantage rather than otherwise, as the repetition of four οὔτε or more is likely avoided by Sophocles.81 The insertion

74 Moreover, with l. 4 ending in a period and l. 5 into square brackets, the whole syntax is rather puzzling. 75 The use of a concessive participle without any introductory conjunction (like καίπερ) is well attested in Sophocles. See Moorhouse 1982, 252. 76 Why should Antigone recall only her own innocence, not her sister’s? For the same reason for which later she uses the singular form ὄπωπ(α). As Kaibel 1897, 11-12 explains it, “nihil aliud voluit poeta nisi ut ferox Antigonae ingenium cum miti sororis lenitate compara- tum eo clarius eluceret et emineret”. Antigone burns with indignation, while Ismene is resigned to her fate. In other words, Kaibel 1897, 11 says: “eadem omnia passa est Ismena sed alio omnia fert animo”. The first words of the latter sentence justify our ὁμοῖον, the second clause accounts for the singular οὖσ(α). 77 Image available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/apis/x-2884/6585 (Retrieved: March 10, 2017). 78 Diggle 1984, 65 n. 75 [= Diggle 1994, 296]. On this subject, see Pordomingo 2016. 79 For instance, A. Ch. 338 where the verb is understood but unambiguous. I must not, however, disguise the fact that this case is not exactly identical because of the not human subject. Currently I am not able to provide a better example with corresponding properties and values (human subject + preposition + abstract concept). 80 See Ellendt and Genthe 1872, 579 (ter ponitur). 81 Pace Schneidewin and Nauck 1869, 34 (“Die Bitterkeit wird durch die Allitteration der Negationen … geschärft”), concerning only cases where 4 negations occur, 1) they appear

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 971 of a subordinate clause causing an interval which separates the first from the second οὔτε can also be found elsewhere, for instance in S. Aj. 1073-1075.82 The strong prolepsis83 (with regard to ὄπωπα) helps the dialectical inversion of theme, from the pathetic enumeration of the misfortunes to the tragic doubt concerning their origin. The sense of the clause should be: ‘although I am not harming’.84 Consequently, according to my reconstruction and interpretation, lines 2-6 would be as follows:

ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ἰσμήνης κάρα, ἆρ᾽ οἶσθ᾽ ὅ τι Ζεὺς τῶν ἀπ᾽ Οἰδίπου κακῶν ὁμοῖον οὐχὶ νῷν ἔτι ζώσαιν τελεῖ; οὐδὲν γὰρ οὔτ᾽ ἀλγεινὸν οὖσ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ, οὔτ᾽ αἰσχρὸν οὔτ᾽ ἄτιμόν ἐσθ᾽, ὁποῖον οὐ85 5 τῶν σῶν τε κἀμῶν οὐκ ὄπωπ᾽ ἐγὼ κακῶν.

O kindred head of my own sister Ismene,86 do you know which of the ills [springing from Oedipus]/[of Oedipus’ sons] Zeus will fail to present87 to us twain alike during our lives?

in lyrical sections only, 2) they show a loosening of the repetition either through a consid- erable space between the repeated words (Aj. 1199-1203; OT 485-490), or through sound alterations (Ant. 952-953: οὔτ’ [2x], οὐ, οὐχ). Things look similar with regard to Tr. 1058-1060 (lyr.): 5 negations with sound variation. This is not fortuitous, as it corresponds to the classical devices used to avoid fastidium in multiple anaphora/repetition, as can be seen in Lausberg 1967, 110, §630, 113, §636. On the contrary, the threefold repetition containing an interposed phrase (οὖσ᾽ ἄτης ἄτερ) corresponds to a very effective template (initium + medium + finis expanded by means of a pathetic amplification), as clarified by Lausberg 1966, 370, §443). 82 S. Aj. 1073-1075: οὐ γάρ ποτ᾽ οὔτ᾽ ἂν ἐν πόλει νόμοι καλῶς / φέροιντ᾽ ἄν, ἔνθα μὴ καθεστήκοι δέος, / οὔτ᾽ ἂν στρατός γε σωφρόνως ἄρχοιτ᾽ ἔτι. 83 See Budelmann 2000, 31-39. 84 This on the basis of the most frequent meaning of ἄτη in Sophocles (‘harm, ruin’), on which see Cairns 2013, Cairns 2014a, Cairns 2014b. This meaning is clearly reflected in l. 17 (on which see Hsch. s.v. ἀτωμένη∙ βλαπτομένη), just as ἀλγεινόν is. Paradoxically, Antigone’s statement (partially echoed by l. 523) is reversed by Creon in l. 533, where Antigone and Ismene are precisely designated by the term ἄτη. 85 In defence of the transmitted text (οὐ—οὐκ) I would quote S. Aj. 725-727. 86 I put aside every issue involved in the translation of l. 1 since it does not form the object of the present paper. See, however, Greco 2011. 87 Taking for granted that a present is a gift you get undeservedly, without any particular reason, Antigone, through her resentful and sarcastic use of the verb τελεῖ, is underlining

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 972 Agosto

For nothing is there sorrowful, however harmless I may be, nor is there anything base, or fraught with shame, but I have seen it in thy woes and mine.

Antigone should complain about her innocence in sorrows and pains. This is what has been called ‘the motif of the suffering just man’88 and it has been discussed at length by M. Lombardi89 in a stimulating recent paper. Her con- clusions seem sound and provide a concrete perspective on the functional significance of my proposal. Hopefully my investigation will enhance our understanding of the original meaning of Ant. 2-6 in their text-linguistic arrange- ment as well as in their function within the poetical tissue of the whole drama.

Bibliography

Agosto, M. (2016). Sophoclis Oedipus Rex. Recognovit Maurus Augustus. Moscoviae. Bizzarri, E. (2014). Frammenti di Edipo. La figura di Edipo nei frammenti poetici di età arcaica e classica. In: M. Mazzocut-Mis and G. Mormino, eds., Edipo. Re e vittima, Milano, pp. 9-33. Boeckh, A. (1843). Des Sophokles Antigone, griechisch und deutsch herausgegeben von A. B. Berlin. Bögel, T. (2013). A Prosodic Resolution of German Case Ambiguities. In: M. Butt and T. Holloway King, eds., Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, pp. 131-151. Bowman, L.M. (2007). The Curse of Oedipus in Oedipus at Colonus. Scholia n.s. 16, pp. 15-25. Brown, A. (1991). Notes on Sophocles’ Antigone. CQ 41, p. 325. Brunck, R. (1786). Sophoclis quae exstant omnia, Volume 1. Argentorati. Budelmann, F. (2000). The Language of Sophocles. Communality, Communication and Involvement. Cambridge. Bury, J.B. (1901). Two Passages in Sophocles. Hermathena 11, pp. 331-334.

that she is receiving so many evils undeservedly, without any good reason, despite the fact that she is innocent. 88 The theme is particularly relevant inasmuch, for instance, Sophocles ideally sets the in- herited sufferings of Antigone (l. 856 πατρῷον δ’ ἐκτίνεις τιν’ ἆθλον) against Creon’s volun- tary mistake (ll. 1259-1260 οὐκ ἀλλοτρίαν / ἄτην, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸς ἁμαρτών) as reasoning on two different kinds of sorrows. The same theme appears also in OC 239-240; 266-267; 270-274; 987-988. Special mention is deserved by S. Ant. 23-25 and Ph. 681-690. 89 Lombardi 2010, with the bibliography quoted therein. I would like to refer also to Loades 1993, 277-294.

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 973

Cairns, D., ed. (2013). Tragedy and Archaic Greek Thought. Swansea. Cairns, D. (2014a). From Solon to Sophocles. Intertextuality and Interpretation in Sophocles’ Antigone. Japan Studies in Classical Antiquity 2, pp. 2-30. Cairns, D. (2014b). λόγου τ’ ἄνοια καὶ φρενῶν Ἐρινύς. Atê in Sophocles’ Antigone. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Symposium on Ancient Greek Drama, Cyprus, pp. 37-54. Cairns, D. (2016). Sophocles. Antigone. London. Calder III, W.M. (1968). Sophocles’ Political Tragedy, Antigone. GRBS 9, pp. 389-407. Cataudella, Q. (1978). ATHΣ ATEP. Sophocl. Ant. v. 4. In: E. Livrea and G.A. Privitera, eds., Studi in onore di Anthos Ardizzoni, Volume 1, Roma, pp. 189-195. Cingano, E. (2000). Tradizioni su Tebe nell’epica e nella lirica greca arcaica. In: P. Angeli Bernardini, ed., Presenza e funzione della città di Tebe nella cultura greca. Atti del convegno internazionale (Urbino, 7-9 luglio 1997), Pisa, pp. 127-161. Cooper III, G.L. (1972). In Defense of the Special Dual Feminine Forms of the Article and Pronouns τά, ταῖν, ταύτα, ταύταιν κτλ. in Attic Greek. TAPhA 103, pp. 97-125. Curi, U. (2002). Endiadi. Figure della duplicità. 2nd ed. Milano. Dain, A. (1949). Les manuscrits. Paris. Dawe, R.D. (1978). Studies on the Text of Sophocles, Volume 3: Women of Trachis, Antigone, Philoctetes, Oedipus at Colonus. Leiden. Dawe, R.D. (1996). Sophoclis Antigone. Stuttgardiae/Lipsiae. Diggle, J. (1984). On the Manuscripts and the Text of Euripides Medea. II: The Text. CQ 34, pp. 50-65. Diggle, J. (1994). Euripidea. Collected Essays. Oxford. Dunbar, N. (1995). Aristophanes, Birds. Oxford. Earle, M.L. (1902). The Opening of Sophocles Antigone. CR 16, pp. 3-5 [= Earle 1912, pp. 65-69]. Earle, M.L. (1912). The Classical Papers of Mortimer Lamson Earle with a Memoir. New York. Ellendt, F., and Genthe, H. (1872). Lexicon Sophocleum. 2nd ed. Berolini. Finkelberg, M. (2002). Religion and Biography in Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus. In: D. Shulman and G.G. Stroumsa, eds., Self and Self-Transformation in the History of Religions, Oxford, pp. 173-182. Giordano, M. (2009). Edipo a Colono II. Contaminazione e ereditarietà della colpa. SemRom 12, pp. 231-251. Greco, G. (2011). Αὐτάδελφος nell’Antigone di Sofocle. AOFL 6, pp. 342-354. Griffith, M. (1999). Sophocles Antigone. Cambridge. Harsh, P.W. (1944). A Handbook of Classical Drama. Stanford/London [repr. New York 1960]. Hermann, G., and Erfurdt, K.G.A. (1830). Sophoclis Tragoediae, Volume 1: Antigona. 3rd ed. Lipsiae.

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access 974 Agosto

Humphreys, M.W. (1891). The Antigone of Sophocles. An Introduction, Notes and Appendix for the Use of Students in Colleges. New York. Kaibel, G. (1897). De Sophoclis Antigona. Gottingae. Kamerbeek, J.C. (1978). The Plays of Sophocles. Commentaries, Volume 3: The Antigone. Leiden. Kirkwood, G.M. (1993). Review of Sophoclis Fabulae and Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. BMCRev 2, pp. 22-31. Kopff, E.C. (1993). Review of Sophoclis Fabulae and Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. AJPh 114, pp. 155-163. Kovacs, D. (1992). Notes on Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus. ICS 17, pp. 9-22. Krüger, G. (1874). Zu Sophokles. RhM 29, pp. 189-191. Kühner, R., and Gerth, B. (1898). Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache, Volume 2.1: Satzlehre. Hannover/Leipzig. Lausberg, H. (1966). Manual de retórica literaria. Fundamento de una ciencia de la lite- ratura, Volume 1. Madrid. Lausberg, H. (1967). Manual de retórica literaria. Fundamento de una ciencia de la lite- ratura, Volume 2. Madrid. Lehrs, K. (1902). Zur Litteratur von Sophokles Antigone. In: K. Lehrs, Kleine Schriften, ed. A. Ludwich, Königsberg i. Pr., pp. 212-228 [first published 1862]. Lloyd-Jones, H., and Wilson, N.G., eds. (1990). Sophoclis Fabulae. Oxonii. Lloyd-Jones, H., and Wilson, N.G., eds. (1997). Sophocles. Second Thoughts. Göttingen. Loades, A. (1993). Simone Weil and Antigone. Innocence and Affliction. In: R. Bell, ed., Simone Weil’s Philosophy of Culture. Readings Toward a Divine Humanity, Cambridge, pp. 277-294. Lombardi, M. (2010). L’apologia del giusto sofferente in Soph. Ant. 891-928 e nella let- teratura biblica (Job. 31). Hermes 138, pp. 131-151. Madvig, J.N. (1871). Adversaria critica ad scriptores Graecos et Latinos, Volume 1: De arte coniecturali. Hauniae. Mervyn Jones, D. (1995). Sophocles, Antigone 2-3. CQ 45, p. 237. Montanari, F. (2004). GI = Vocabolario della lingua greca. 2nd ed. Torino. Moorhouse, A.C. (1982). The Syntax of Sophocles. Leiden. Müller, G. (1967). Sophokles Antigone. Heidelberg. Natoli, S. (2004). L’esperienza del dolore. Le forme del patire nella cultura occidentale. 2nd ed. Milano. Pordomingo, F. (2016). Scriptio plena vs. élision dans les papyrus littéraires. Les papyrus ptolémaïques avec des textes poétiques. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Congress of Papyrology, 29 July-3 August 2013, Warsaw, pp. 1113-1136. Porson, R. (1802). Euripidis Tragoediae ad fidem manuscriptorum emendatae. Volume 1: Hecuba, Orestes, Phoenissae, Medea. Editio altera. Lipsiae.

MnemosyneDownloaded from71 (2018) Brill.com09/28/2021 958-975 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 975

Renehan, R. (1992). The New Oxford Sophocles [Review of: Sophoclis Fabulae and Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson]. CPh 87, pp. 335-375. Schneidewin, F.W., and Nauck, A. (1869). Sophokles, Volume 4: Antigone. Berlin. Schwab, G. (2006). Gegen die Anfechtung des überlieferten Wortlauts von Sophokles, Antigone 2-3. ACD 42, pp. 21-34. Schwab, G. (2010). Sophokles Antigone 4-6. Eine konjekturlose Erklärung. Mnemosyne 63, pp. 94-109. Semitelos, D.C. (1887). Σοφοκλέους Τραγῳδίαι. Ἀντιγόνη. Athens. Skeat, T.C. (1956). The Use of Dictation in Ancient Book Production. PBA 42, pp. 179-208. Stella, M. (2010). Sofocle. Edipo Re. Introduzione, traduzione e commento di M.S. Roma. Stephanis, I.E. (1988). Διονυσιακοὶ Τεχνῖται. Herakleio. Stuart, D.C. (1918). Foreshadowing and Suspense in the Euripidean Prolog. SPh 15, pp. 295-306. van der Valk, M.H.L.M. (1957). On the Edition of Books in Antiquity. VChr 11, pp. 1-10. Vollgraff, G. (1918). Ad Sophoclis Antigonam. Mnemosyne 46, pp. 73-82. West, M.L. (1991). The New OCT of Sophocles [Review of: Sophoclis Fabulae and Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson]. CR 41, pp. 299-301. Wettlaufer, R.D. (2013). No Longer Written. The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James as a Case Study. Leiden/Boston. Wex, C. (1829). Sophoclis Antigona. Lipsiae. Wieseler, F. (1872). Conjecturae in Hesiodi Theogoniam et Sophoclis Antigonam. Gottingae. Willink, C.W. (2000). The Opening Speech of Sophocles’ Antigone. Mnemosyne 53, pp. 662-667. Woolsey, T.D. (1841). The Antigone of Sophocles. Boston. Zehlicke, J. (1826). De aliquot Antigonae locis. Greifswald. Zimmermann, B. (1993). Review of: Sophoclis Fabulae and Sophoclea. Studies on the Text of Sophocles by H. Lloyd-Jones and N.G. Wilson. Gnomon 65, pp. 100-109.

Mnemosyne 71 (2018) 958-975 Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access