ὁρῶν μὲν: for the place of “μέν”, cp. 279 n. στυγνόν τε: for “τε” after “μέν”, cp. 1058 n. φῶτ᾽ ἐχθοδοπόν is a periphrasis for “ἐχθρόν” (subst.), hence “ἐχθοδοπόν” can follow “στυγνόν” without seeming weak. ὦ Ζεῦ is Dindorf's correction of Ὀδυσσεύς, instead of which we require a spondee or trochee (=“αἶα” 1162). Cp. the “ὦ Ζεῦ” in O. T. 1198 and Tr. 995: and Ar. Ach. 225“ὅστις, ὦ Ζεῦ πάτερ καὶ θεοί, τοῖσιν ἐχθροῖσιν ἐσπείσατο”. But he might still more fittingly have quoted Dem. or. 19 § 113, where, as here, the indignant invocation closes the sentence: —“πολλοὺς ἔφη τοὺς θορυβοῦντας εἶναι, ὀλίγους δὲ τοὺς στρατευομένους, ὅταν δέῃ”, (“μέμνησθε δήπου”,) “αὐτός, οἶμαι, θαυμάσιος στρατιώτης, ὦ Ζεῦ”. At v. 1181 Ph. appeals to “ἀραῖος Ζεύς”. Reading ὦ Ζεῦ, it is best to adopt Bothe's ὃς for the MS. ὅς᾿, and to make ἀνατέλλονθ̓ intrans.: ‘countless ills, arising from (effected by) shameful arts.’ Next to ὦ Ζεῦ, the most attractive correction of “Ὀδυσσεύς” is Arndt's οὐδείς, which would require us to take ἀνατέλλονθ̓ as acc. sing. masc., with transitive sense, and to keep ὅς᾿: ‘causing countless ills to spring up..., more than any other man ever contrived against me.’ Cp. Il. 22. 380“ὃς κακὰ πόλλ᾽ ἔρρεξεν, ὅσ᾽ οὐ σύμπαντες οἱ ἄλλοι”. But this is far less forcible.
This text is part of:
Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, with critical notes, commentary, and translation in English prose. Part IV: The Philoctetes. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1932.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
