Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Oedipus at Colonus

κατάμεμπτα, neut. pl. as adv.: cp. on 319.

βαίνειν does not occur elsewhere in a strictly similar use, for we cannot compare the perf. “εὖ βεβηκώς” （El. 979) as=“"placed well,"” “"prosperous."” But there is at least some analogy in such figurative uses of it as Eur. Her. 625 “ἁ δ᾽ ἀρετὰ βαίνει διὰ μόχθων”, the path of virtue lies through troubles; H. F. 630 “ὧδ᾽ ἔβητ᾽ ἐπὶ ξυροῦ;” “"had ye come into such peril?"” Ph. 20 “σὸς οἶκος βήσεται δι᾽ αἵματος”, “"will pass through deeds of blood"”:—where a certain course of fortune is expressed. Indeed, the metaphor is so easy and natural as hardly to demand special warrant in the case of “βαίνω”: e.g. O. T. 883 “εἰ δέ τις ὑπέροπτα χερσὶν ἢ λόγῳ πορεύεται” (“"walks haughtily"”). I hold, then, that no suspicion of the text can fairly be founded on ἔβητον.

But the scholium in L is:—“οὔτοι κατάμεμπτος ἔβη”: “οὐκ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις ἔσται” [Elmsley “ἐστὲ”] “ὥστε καταμέμφεσθαι: ἤτοι ὡς ἂν ἐπικουφίζοντος αὐταῖς τὴν συμφορὰν τοῦ βασιλέως” (Theseus). “ἢ οἷον, οὐκ ἐν χείρονι νῦν ὑμῖν ἔσται τὰ πράγματα”. Does the lemma point to another reading? I do not think so. Papageorgius points out (Krit. und palaeogr. Beiträge z. d. alt. Sophoklesscholien, p. 59) that “ἔβη” was probably a mere slip, by the scholiast who copied the old scholia into L, for “ἔβητ” (“ἔβητον”), while “κατάμεμπτος” was a like error for “καταμέμπτως”. On the strength of this schol., however, (1) Nauck conjectured οὔτοι κατάμεμπτος αἶσα: (2) Hartung, οὔτοι κατάμεμπτ᾽ ἔβη γάρ: (3) M. Schmidt, οὔτοι κατάμεμπτ᾽ ἀπέσβη, which Wecklein adopts, citing Bekk. Anecd. 422 “ἀπέσβη: ἐσβέσθη ἢ ἐπαύσατο, τέθνηκεν”. But the word would ill suit the swift passing of Oed.: it rather suggests a gradual extinction of life: cp. Eur. Med. 1218 “῾αφτερ α λονγ δεατηαγονψ̓ χρόνῳ δ᾽ ἀπέσβη καὶ μεθῆχ᾽ ὁ δύσμορος ι ψυχήν”.