hide
Named Entity Searches
hide
Matching Documents
The documents where this entity occurs most often are shown below. Click on a document to open it.
Document | Max. Freq | Min. Freq | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus | 3 | 3 | Browse | Search |
A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith) | 2 | 2 | Browse | Search |
View all matching documents... |
Browsing named entities in Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus. You can also browse the collection for 160 AD or search for 160 AD in all documents.
Your search returned 3 results in 3 document sections:
Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus, commLine 195 (search)
Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus, commLine 683 (search)
Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus, commLine 698 (search)
fu/teum). fi/teum), which Blaydes prefers, occurs only once in trag. (Aesch. Ag. 1281, of Orestes); it seems more appropriate to a "scion" (child) than to a plant.
a)xei/rwton was read here by Pollux (2. 154), and is thus carried back to about 160 A.D.; it is also in A and a majority of our other MSS.; while L's a)xei/rhton is clearly a corruption. The question is whether a)xei/rwton means (1) "unvanquished," the only sense in which it occurs elsewhere, as Thuc. 6.10 oi( *xalkidh=s...a)xei/rwtoi/ ei)si: or (2) a)xeirou/rghton, as Pollux takes it, "not cultivated by human hands." xei/rwma usu. meant "a conquest," or "a violent deed"; yet Aesch. could say tumboxo/a xeirw/mata (work of the hand in mound-making) Theb. 1022. A bold artist in language might similarly, perhaps, have ventured on a)xei/rwtos as ="not hand-wrought." My reason for preferring "unvanquished" is the context. While blasto/n (697) refers to the miraculous creation of the olive by Athena, au)topoio/n refers (I think