Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Antigone

ΣΟΦΟΚΛΕΟΥΣ ΑΝΤΙΓΟΝΗ

I.

ΑΡΙΣΤΟΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ ΥΠΟΘΕΣΙΣ.

“κεῖται ἡ μυθοποιΐα καὶ παρὰ Εὐριπίδη ἐν Ἀντιγόνη: πλὴν ἐκεῖ φωραθεῖσα μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος δίδοται πρὸς γάμου κοινωνίαν καὶ τέκνον τίκτει τὸν Μαίονα”.

“ἡ μὲν σκηνὴ τοῦ δράματος ὑπόκειται ἐν Θήβαις ταῖς Βοιωτικαῖς. ὁ δὲ χοπὸς συνέστηκεν ἐξ ἐπιχωρίων γερόντων. προλογίζει ἡ Ἀντιγόνη: ὑπόκειται δὲ τὰ πράγματα ἐπὶ τῶν Κρέοντος βασιλείων. τὸ δὲ κεφάλαιόν ἐστι τάφος Πολυνείκους, Ἀντιγόνης ἀναίρεσις, θάνατος Αἵμονος καὶ μόρος Εὐρυδίκης τῆς Αἵμονος μητρός. φασὶ δὲ τὸν Σοφοκλέα ἠξιῶσθαι τῆς ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγίας εὐδοκιμήσαντα ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῆς Ἀντιγόνης. λέλεκται δὲ τὸ δρᾶμα τοῦτο τριακοστὸν δεύτερον”.

ΑΡΙΣΤΟΦΑΝΟΥΣ ΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΙΚΟΥ Aristophanes of Byzantium, librarian at Alexandria (flor. 200 B.C.), to whom the metrical argument for the Oedipus Tyrannus is also ascribed in the MSS., but incorrectly: see Oed. Tyr. p. 4. Though the genuineness of this prose “ὑποθέσις” has not such a prima facie case against it as exists against that of all the metrical arguments ascribed to Aristophanes, it must at least be regarded as very doubtful. If the perfect “ἀνῄρηται” in line 2 is sound, it is an indication of much later age, as has been shown in the critical note above. Another such indication, I think, is the phrase “εἰς μνημεῖον κατάγειον ἐντεθεῖσα παρὰ” (instead of “ὑπὸ”) “τοῦ Κρέοντος” (l. 2),—a later (and modern) use of the prep. which does not surprise us in Salustius (Arg. II. l. 11 “παρὰ τοῦ Κρέοντος κωλύεται”), but which would be strange in the Alexandrian scholar of circ. 200 B.C. In the Laurentian MS. this Argument precedes, while the other two follow, the play.

ἐν Ἀντιγόνῃ Only some 21 small fragments remain (about 80 verses in all), and these throw no light on the details of the plot.

τὸν Μαίονα. This reading is made almost certain by the mention of ‘Maion, son of Haemon’ in Il. 4.394, coupled with the fact that L has “Μαίμονα” in the margin (see cr. n.). But the reading “μετὰ τοῦ Αἵμονος” just before is doubtful. If it is sound, then we must understand: ‘having been discovered in company with Haemon, she was given in marriage (to him).’ But I am strongly inclined to think that the conjecture “μετὰ τοῦτο τῷ Αἵμονι” (which would explain the v.l. “τῷ Αἵμονι”) is right. Dindorf differs from other interpreters in supposing that it was not Haemon, but someone else—perhaps a nameless “αὐτουργός,” as in the case of the Euripidean Electra—to whom Euripides married Antigone: and he reads “τίκτει τὸν Αἵμονα”. We have then to suppose that Antigone marked her affection for her lost lover by giving his name to her son by the “αὐτουργός”. At the end of the scholia in L we find these words:—“Ὅτι διαφέρει τῆς Εὐριπίδου Ἀντιγόνης αὕτη, ὅτι φωραθεῖσα ἐκείνη διὰ τὸν Αἵμονος ἔρωτα ἐξεδόθη πρὸς γάμον: ἐνταῦθα δὲ τοὐναντίον”. The contrast meant is between her marriage in Euripides and her death in Sophocles: but the words obviously leave it doubtful whether the person to whom Euripides married her was Haemon or not.

τῆς ἐν Σάμῳ στρατηγίας The traditional “στρατηγία” of Sophocles, and its relation to the production of the Antigone, are discussed in the Introduction.

τριακοστὸν δεύτερον Written “λ_β_” in L. The statement seems to have been taken from Alexandrian “διδασκαλίαι” which gave the plays in chronological order. Sophocles is said to have exhibited for the first time in 468 B.C., aet. 28. See Introd.