δὔ αὖ τώδ᾽ ἄνδρ᾽ ἔλεξας, a correction which I published in 1869 (see cr. n.), still appears to me the most probable. Porson's δὔ αὖ τώδ᾽ ἐξέδειξας is founded on the schol. in L, “γρ. δὔ αὐτὼ δ᾽ ἐξέδειξας”, and may be deemed certain so far as the words “δὔ αὖ τώδ̓” are concerned. But no one has justified the use of “ἐξέδειξας”. We see the proper uses of the word in O. C. 1021“ἵν᾽ αὐτὸς ἐκδε<*>ξῃς ἐμοί” (point them out, discover them, to me): El. 348“τὸ τούτων μῖσος ἐκδείξειας ἄν” (‘manifest’). Eur. Hipp. 1298“παιδὸς ἐκδεῖξαι φρένα” | “τοῦ σοῦ δικαίαν”. But here the word is strangely inappropriate, ‘thou hast pointed out,’ instead of, ‘thou hast named.’ And ἔλεξας, the most natural word, is in all the MSS. Eur. Itseems very rash, then, to assume, on the strength of the schol., that “ἔλεξας” is spurious, and “ἐξέδειξας” genuine, especially when we remember the quality of some of the variants which rest on the same authority; e.g., in v. 423, the schol. on “κάκ᾽ ἐξήρυκε” gives “γρ. κἀξεκήρυξεν”. L's reading, δὔ αὔτως δείν᾽ ἔλεξας, with an erasure of two letters after “δείν̓”, may well have arisen from “δὔ αὖ τώδ᾽ ἄν”[“δρ”] “ἔλεξας”. The word “ΔΕΙΝ” would easily have been suggested by “ΔΑΝ” if the “ΔΠ” had from any cause been obscured: or, again, a misreading of “ΔΑΝ” as “ΔΕΙΝ” may have led to the omission of “ΔΠ”. In minuscule writing the process would have been hardly less easy. As to the reading δὔ αὕτως δείν᾽ ἔλεξας, two things seem clear. (1) “αὕτως”, or, as it is better written, “αὔτως”, yields no fitting sense here. It could not mean, ‘in those few words.’ It would rather mean, ‘just as in the former cases.’ Cp. O. T. 931 n. (2) “δύο...δείν᾽ ἔλεξας, οἷν”, would be most awkward, whether rendered (a) ‘thou hast told dreadful news about two persons’ (“δύο” masc.), or (b) ‘thou hast told two calamities concerning persons,’ etc. (“δύο” neut., with “τούτοιν” understood from “ο<*>ν”). δὔ … ἄνδρε: Ajax (415) and Antilochus. Prof. Campbell says that v. 415 is ‘too remote to allow of this’: but vv. 416— 420 form merely a parenthetic contrast suggested by the death of Ajax, and with v. 421 we come to the father of Antilochus. If “δὔ ἄνδρε” are to be Nestor and Antilochus (as Campbell holds), ὀλωλότοιν has to mean ‘desolate’ in the case of the living father, and ‘dead’ only in the case of the son. But surely οἵδε in 428 must include both the men mentioned in 426. ἂν ἠθέλης᾿, as O. T. 1348: so below, O. T. 1239“ἂν...ἐβουλόμην”, O. T. 1278“ἤθελον...ἄν”. Cp. Ai. 88 n.
This text is part of:
Table of Contents: