μή μοι, not “μή᾽ μοί”, since the main emphasis is on the verbal notion (‘share not my death,’ rather than, ‘share not my death’): cp. 83 n. The combination “μή μοι...σὺ” has a scornful, repellent tone (cp. O. C. 1441 n.). κοινά, adv.: cp. Ai. 577: O. T. 883 “ὑπέροπτα” (n.). μηδ᾽ ἃ μὴ 'θιγες. If this were an instance of “θιγγάνω” with acc., it would be a solitary instance in Soph. , who has “θιγγάνω” with genitive in nine passages; in Soph. Ph. 667“παρέσται ταῦτά σοι καὶ θιγγάνειν, ταῦτα” is nom. Nor is there any authentic instance of “θιγγάνω” with acc. in classical Greek. In H. F. 963, “πατὴρ δέ νιν ι θιγὼν κραταιᾶς χειρὸς ἐννέπει τάδε, νιν” depends on “ἐννέπει”: cp. Ai. 764 “ὁ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐννέπει: τέκνον”, etc. In Theocr. 1. 59 “οὐδέ τί πα ποτὶ χεῖλος ἐμὸν θίγεν”, the gen. “αὐτοῦ” is understood with “προσέθιγεν”, and “τι” is adv., ‘at all.’ Nor does “ψαύω” govern an acc. below in 859, 961 (where see notes). Krüger (11. § 47. 12. 2) treats ἅ here as a sort of adverb (ib. 11. § 46. 6. 9), i.e., in a case where you did not put your hand (to the deed, sc. “τοῦ ἔργου”); but this is very awkward. Rather, I think, there is an unusual kind of attraction, due to the special form of the sentence. We could not say (e.g.) “ἃ μὴ ἐρᾷ τις, οὐ θηρᾶται”, (“ἅ” for “ταῦτα ὧν”). But here “μηδ᾽ ὧν μὴ 'θιγες ποιοῦ σεαυτῆς” would have been intolerable, on account of the second gen. after “ποιοῦ”. For the sake of compactness, and of clearly marking the object to “ποιοῦ”, the poet has here allowed ἅ to stand for “ταῦτα ὧν”. I do not compare O. C. 1106, “αἰτεῖς ἃ τεύξει”, holding that “ά” there=“ταῦτα ἅ” (not “ὧν”): see n.
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.