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 in- terpretation 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. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/1568525X-12342442Downloaded from Brill.com09/28/2021 05:06:38AM via free access ATΗΣ ΑΤΕΡ. A Note on Sophocles 959 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 ques- tion 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 trans- mitting 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) some- thing/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 fore- shadowing 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 be- cause ‘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 feel- ings 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 pres- ence 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.