Bergk has an ingenious (though, I think, mistaken) theory
concerning this passage. Seeing that v. 1180 resembles v. 1184,
he suggests that 1180 was an inferior variant for 1184: and, on
similar grounds, that 1183 was a feebler substitute for 1179.
That is, there were two different texts of this passage.
(a) In one of them, the better, verses 1180 and
1183 were absent, and the rest stood in this order, 1178, 1181,
1182, 1179, 1184. (b) In the other, verses 1179 and
1184 were absent, and the rest stood in this order, 1178, 1181,
1182, 1183, 1180. The present text arose from an attempt to
harmonise the other two.
We have only to read the dialogue with attention to perceive that
this hypothesis of variants is arbitrary. Verse 1183 expresses
sympathy in a more definite and emphatic manner than v. 1179:
verse 1184 expresses surprise more directly and decidedly than
v. 1180. There is a gradual accentuation of the stranger's
interest and of Electra's perplexity. This development is the
internal proof that our text has not arisen from a dittographia.
καὶμάλ̓: here, as in
1455, the “καὶ”=‘and’; sometimes, however,
maxime (cp. “καὶπολύ, καὶλίαν”), as in Xen.
Cyr. 6. 1. 36“ἀνθρώπους..καὶμάλαδοκοῦνταςφρονίμουςεἶναι”.
Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, with critical notes, commentary, and translation in English prose. Part VI: The Electra. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1894.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
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.