ηὑρέθησαν. Attic inscriptions nearly as old as the poet's time confirm “ηὑ-” against “εὑ-”: cp. O. T. 546 n. τέκνων has been suspected. The literal meaning of ἀνόσιοι γάμοι τέκνων can be nothing but “"unholy nuptials with children"” (such as Iocasta's with Oed.). But here the sense should be, “"unholy nuptials with parents"”: cp. 978 “μητρὸς...γάμους”. Can τέκνων, then, be defended? Thus, I think. ξυνόντες suggests the consort. Hence “ἀνόσιοι γάμοι τέκνων” is said, with poetical boldness and also with a certain designed obscurity, in this sense:—“"a woman who has made an unholy marriage with her son."” Wecklein takes “τέκνων” as "relative" gen. with “ἀνόσιοι”, in the sense of “παιδουργίας, σπορᾶς”: "a marriage unholy in respect of its offspring." This seems forced. Musgrave's “τοκέων” would be more specious if the gen. of a noun in “-εύς” anywhere else suffered synizesis in this place of the verse. (In 1361 “φονέως” is in the 4th place.) Soph. has “γονέων” El. 146, 241, and “τοκέων” ib. 187, Eur. the latter H. F. 915, Or. 815, and in these 5 places (all lyric) the words are scanned as trisyllables: a fact which, so far as it goes, is against “τοκέων” here. Neither “τέκνοις” nor “τέκνῳ” is a probable remedy; nor is “φίλων”. In my belief “τέκνων” is sound.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.