previous next

ἀγρίᾳ is followed by ἀγρίῳ in 267. The effect is certainly unpleasing. But with regard to such repetitions it must always be remembered that ancient poetry was far less fastidious than modern: see n. on 88 (“πράσσειν”). On the other hand, Eustathius, the witness for φοινίῳ in 267 (cp. cr. n.), was frequently loose in citation: see Ant., append., p. 249. The recurrence of ἔρημον in 269 offends less, but is noteworthy. It is not surprising that interpolation should have been suspected. Three views have been held. (1) Prinz would reduce vv. 264—269 to three (see crit. note). This reconstruction is too violent to be probable. (2) Nauck would omit the words “ἔρημον, ἀγρίᾳ” | “νόσῳ καταφθίνοντα”. But “ξὺν ” in 268 confirms “ϝόσῳ”: it could not refer to “ἐχίδνης”. And “ξὺν ” would hardly have become “ξὺν ”. (3) Jacob A. proposed to omit vv. 268-70. This would obviate the repetition of “ἔρημον”, and of “ᾤχοντ̓” (273); but it would also suppress the notice of Chrysè; which, however, Ph. would naturally mention, as he supposes that the whole story is new to the youth. I believe that there has been no interpolation, though Soph. has written with some verbal negligence. The point of vv. 264—267 is the putting ashore (“ἔρ-” “ριψαν”): that of 268—270, the desertion (“ᾤχοντ̓”).

hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: