Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Electra

στάζει θυηλῆς: the gen. depends on the notion of fulness; cp. O. C. 16“βρύων” | “δάφνης”: fr. 264 “ἀραχνᾶν βρίθει”. (There is no other example of “στάζω” in this constr., for in fr. 491, “ὀπὸν..στάζοντα τομῆς”, the sense is, ‘sap dripping from the cleft wood.’）— The “θυηλή” is “φόνος”. Cp. Shakesp. H. IV., pt. 1, act 4, sc. 1, 113, “‘They come like sacrifices in their trim, | And to the fire-eyed maid of smoky war | All hot and bleeding will we offer them.’”

ψέγειν, Erfurdt's correction of λέγειν, deserves the favour which it has found with almost all editors from Hermann onwards. If “λέγειν” be sound, the sense must be, ‘utterance fails me,’—at a moment so terrible. But “οὐδ᾽ ἔχω λέγειν” is not equivalent to “οὐδ᾽ ἔχω φωνεῖν”, nor, again, to “οὐδ᾽ ἔχω τί λέγω” (or “τί φῶ”). It ought to mean rather, ‘nor can I describe’ (what I see): which would be strange here. Hermann suggested that “οὐδ᾽ ἔχω λέγειν” might be an unfinished sentence,—‘but I cannot tell..’ (whether the avengers have accomplished their deed). This, however, as he allows, would be frigid. So also would “ψέγειν” be, if explained in his way (‘I cannot complain that they have not well dyed their swords’). Taken, however, in its natural sense, ‘nor can I blame the deed,’ “ψέγειν” is forcible enough. In Aesch. Ch. 989 the converse corruption took place, “λέγω” becoming “ψέγω”.