κἀκ ποίας πάτρας. In judging between this reading and the variant ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ (see crit. n.), the probabilities of corruption must be carefully weighed. Suppose, first, that the poet wrote “κἀκ ποίας πάτρας”. A transcriber who found “ποίας πάτρας” in v. 222 might well assume that there was a fault either there or in v. 220: and since in v. 222 the words fit the construction, he might think that the fault was in v. 220. The substitute, “ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ”, might then be suggested by κατέσχετ̓ itself: cp. Ar. Ran. 1207“ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ” | “Ἄργος κατασχών” (from the Archelaus of Eur. ). Emendations not less arbitrary were sometimes made in early times: see, e.g., on Soph. O. T. 134 and 1529. Next, suppose that “ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ” was the true reading. It is clear and neat. To account for the variant “κἀκ ποίας πάτρας”, we must then suppose either (a) that a scribe wrote those words by an oversight,—his eye having wandered to v. 222; which is the less likely, since v. 222 did not give him “κἀκ”: or (b) that, “ναυτίλῳ πλάτῃ” having been somehow lost, he filled the gap with a clumsy loan from v. 222. Neither hypothesis seems so probable as that a double “ποίας πάτρας” should have led to guess-work in v. 220. Another point, though not a strong one, in favour of “κἀκ ποίας πάτρας” is that the two questions (‘who, and whence?’) are habitually combined in such inquiries: e.g., Soph. El. 779“χαίρετ̓, ὦ ξένοι: τίνες” | “πόθεν πορεύεσθ̓, ἐστέ τ᾽ ἐκ ποίας χθονός”; Her. 1. 35“τίς τε ἐὼν καὶ κόθεν...ἥκων”: id. 2. 115 “τίς εἴη καὶ ὁκόθεν πλέοι”: 4. 145 “τίνες τε καὶ ὁκόθεν εἰσί”. On the other hand, we cannot insist on L's authority as against A's; for L has sometimes lost a true reading which A has kept (as in Soph. Ai. 28). But “κἀκ ποίας πάτρας” in v. 220 and “ποίας πάτρας” in 222 cannot both be wholly sound. The first “πάτρας” might easily be corrected to “χθονὸς” (with Wecklein). It is slightly more probable, how ever, that the second “πάτρας” arose from the eye glancing back. Thus in Ant. 831L has “τάκει” (for “τέγγει”), due to “τακομέναν” in 828. In v. 222 we might conjecture “ποίας πόλεως”. (For “πόλεως” in the 2nd place of the senarius, cp. O. T. 630.) The series of questions in vv. 220— 222 would then correspond with the Homeric “τίς πόθεν ε<*>ς ἀνδρῶν; πόθι τοι πόλις ἠδὲ τοκῆες”; ( Od. 1. 170.）
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.
