Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Electra

---

---

δρομων διαύλων. For the attempts to amend this v., see Appendix. The criticism of vv. 690—692 turns upon these points. (1) The word “διαύλων” cannot be right. At each festival there was only one “δίαυλος”. The plur. cannot be defended on the ground that a winner of the “δίαυλος” might have to run twice,— viz., first in one of several groups, and then in the final heat ( Paus. 6. 13. 3). (2) If the sing. “διαύλου” be read, it is still difficult to complete the verse in any probable manner. (3) Omitting “διαύλων”, we might expand “πένταθλ᾽ ἃ νομίζεται” on the hypothesis that the intrusion of “διαύλων” had caused the mischief: e.g., “δρόμων, πόνων τε πεμπὰς ἣ νομίζεται”. Pindar often uses “πόνος” as=“ἆθλος”. (4) But it seems more probable that v. 691 is an interpolation, arising perhaps from a marginal gloss, and intended to explain a general phrase in the text. Thus, if the poet had written simply, “ὅσων γὰρ εἰσεκήρυξαν βραβῆς” | “ἄθλων ἐνεγκὼν” etc., then the reference to the diaulos and the pentathlon in v. 691 might have been prompted by a wish to define “ἄθλων”. And the interpolation would itself account for the change of “ἄθλων” in 692 to “τούτων”. (Some, indeed, think it enough to delete 691, leaving “τούτων”: but the neut. plur. of the pron. seems too vague here.) (5) Nauck's view, that the poet wrote, “ὅσων γὰρ εἰσεκήρυξαν βραβῆς” | “δρόμων ἐνεγκὼν” etc., leaves two difficulties. (a) There would then have been less excuse for interpolating an allusion to the pentathlon. (b) The tone of vv. 688 f. would lead us to suppose that the “ἔργα καὶ κράτη” of Orestes had not been confined to footraces, but had included some feats in the other branches of the “γυμνικοὶ ἀγῶνες”.

On the whole, I should incline to delete 691, and alter “τούτων” in 692 to “ἄθλων”.