ἔν μοι The MSS. have ἐν ἐμοί, making a verse like Soph. Trach. 4, ἐγὼ ι δὲ τὸν ἐμͅόν, καὶ πρὶν εἰς Ἅιδου μολεῖν. But such a verse is rare, and unpleasing. When a tribrach holds the second place in a tragic senarius, we usually find that (a) the tribrach is a single word, as Soph. Phil. 1314 “ἥσθην ι πατέρα ι τὸν ἀμὸν εὐλογοῦντά σε”: or (b) there is a caesura between the first and the second foot, as Soph. OC 26 “ἀλλ᾽ ὅσιτις ὁ τόπͅος”: Soph. Phil. 1232 “παρ᾽ οὖπερ ἔλαβον”: Eur. Tro. 496 “τρυχηρͅὰ περὶ ι τρυχηρὸν εἱμένην χρόα”: Eur. Phoen. 511 “ἐλθόντͅα σὺν ὅπλͅοις τόνδε καὶ πορθοῦντα γῆν,” —if there we should not read ἐλθόντ᾽ ἐν ὅπλοις. On such a point as ἐμοὶ versus μοι the authority of our MSS. is not weighty. And the enclitic μοι suffices: for in this verse the stress is on the verbal notion （ἰδών）, — Creon's supposed insight: the reference to Oedipus is drawn out in the next two verses by the verbs in the 1st person, γνωριοῖμι—ἀλεξοίμην.ἰδών ... ἐν prose would say ἐνιδών, either with or without ἐν （Thuc. 1.95: ὅπερ καὶ ἐν τῷ Παυσανίᾳ ἐνεῖδον: 3. 30 ὃ ... τοῖς πολεμίοις ἐνορῶν）: cp. Hdt. 1.37 “οὔτε τινὰ δειλίην παριδών μοι” （remarked in me） οὔτε ἀθυμίην. ποεῖν; Attic inscrr. of c. 450-300 B.C. omit the ι before ε or η （not before ο or ω）, as L usu. does, when the 1st syll. is short: Soph. Phil. 120 n.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.