σέ τ᾽ doubled: cp. 1340, O. T. 637.—L's διπλᾶι really favours διπλᾶ rather than Hermann's διπλῇ: for “ι” subscript is oft. wrongly added or omitted (cp. 726 cr. n.); whereas “ῆι” was not likely to become “ᾶι” here. Either word is admissible; but I slightly prefer “διπλᾶ”, for this reason. It is true that the plur. of “διπλοῦς” in poetry usu.=simply ‘two’ (51, 1232, 1320, O. T. 20, 1135). But Soph. has at least one instance of the distributive sense (‘two sets’), viz., O. T. 1249, where “διπλοῦς”=a twofold brood, i.e. Oed., and his children. (I do not add O. T. 288 “διπλοῦς ι πομπούς”, taking it to mean merely ‘two,’ not ‘two sets.’) And in Attic prose the distributive use is not rare: thus in Plat. Legg. 722E “διπλοῖ... νόμοι” are not ‘two laws,’ but ‘two sets of laws.’ We have, then, good warrant for διπλᾶ here as=‘two sets of arguments.’ On the other hand, διπλῇ is strange (though possible) as=‘in two ways,’ i.e. ‘on both sides.’ It usu. means, ‘doubly’ ( Eur. Ion 760 “κεἰ θανεῖν μέλλω διπλῇ”); or ‘twice as much’ ( Plat. Rep. 330C “διπλῇ ἢ οἱ ἄλλοι”). So, here, it would more naturally mean, ‘twice over.’
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.