σύ τοι … ἀπὸ μείζονος. In this passage I adhere to the MS. text, merely writing, with Wecklein, κοὐκ for οὐκ. The words ἄλλοθεν ἔχει τύχᾳ τᾷδ̓ cannot be metrically reconciled with the corresponding words in the antistrophe (1118 f.), ἔσχ᾽ ὑπὸ χειρὸς ἐμᾶς. Dindorf assumes that the latter words are sound, and that the fault is in the strophe. He therefore writes “ἄλλοθεν ἁ τύχα ἅδ̓ ἀπὸ μείζονος”, and thus obtains a dactylic tetrameter, answering to “ἔσχ᾽ ὑπὸ χειρὸς ἐμᾶς: στυγερὰν ἔχε”. This alteration is, however, extremely bold, since it eliminates ἔχει without attempting to account for it. On Dindorf's view, I should prefer to conjecture “κοὔ ς᾿” | “ἄλλου ἔχει τύχα ἅδ̓ ἀπὸ μείζονος”. The traditional “τύχᾳ τᾷδ̓” would thus be explained; it would have arisen from the ambiguous “ἔχει”, after “κοὔ ς᾿” had become “κοὐκ”. But, on the whole, it appears safer to suppose that the fault is in the antistrophe. A very slight change will bring the words “ἔσχ᾽ ὑπὸ χειρὸς ἐμᾶς” into agreement with “ἄλλοθεν ἔχει τύχᾳ τᾷδ̓”. We have only to write, with Bergk, “ἔσχεν ὑπὸ χειρὸς ἀμ”|“ᾶς”. (Wecklein obtains the same metrical result by conjecturing “ἔσχε παλάμαις ἐμαῖ”|“σιν”.)—See Appendix. κατηξίωσας, hast thought it right (to have it so). Cp. O. T. 944“ἀξιῶ θανεῖν”: Plat. Rep. 337D “τί ἀξιοῖς παθεῖν;” ἔχει τύχᾳ τᾷδ̓: cp. Ai. 272“οἷσιν εἴχετ᾽ ἐν κακοῖς.” ἀπὸ μείζονος, explaining ἄλλοθεν: for this “ἀπό”, cp. O. C. 1533 ff. n.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: