Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Philoctetes

λέγων refers back to “λέγειν” in 57 (with which, as infin. for imperat., the nomin. is rightly used in the 2nd pers., O. T. 1529 n.). Odysseus leaves the available epithets to his young friend's imagination. Cp. O. T. 1287“βοᾷ διοίγειν κλῇθρα καὶ δηλοῦν τινα” | “τοῖς πᾶσι Καδμείοισι τὸν πατροκτόνον”, | “τὸν μητρός, αὐδῶν ἀνόσἰ οὐδὲ ῥητά μοι”. I. T. 16 “καὶ λέγει Κάλχας τάδε:” | ...‘“παῖδ᾽ οὖν ἐν οἴκοις σὴ Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ” | “τίκτει’— τὸ καλλιστεῖον εἰς ἔμ᾽ ἀναφέρων”— | ‘“ἣν χρή σε θῦσαι.’”

καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, in this context, seems best taken as=“κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ”: for the sing. με so closely following, see n. on Ant. 734“πόλις γὰρ ἡμῖν ἁμὲ χρὴ τάσσειν ἐρεῖ;”

ἔσχατ᾽ ἐσχάτων: cp. O. T. 465“ἄρρητ᾽ ἀρρήτων” n.

66 *“τούτῳ γὰρ” “κ.τ.λ.” The reading τούτων γὰρ οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς is probably that which stood in L's archetype; for the inserted “ν”, by which “οὐδέμ̓” has been made into “οὐδένμ̓”, is due to the first corrector of L, who revised the work of the scribe by comparing the copy with the original. The first question, then, is whether that reading can be kept. It is required to mean:—‘for in regard to no one of these things’ (viz., the “κακά”, taunts) ‘wilt thou pain me.’ But it would properly mean:—‘for thou wilt not cause me any of these pains.’ Cp. 1021 “ἐγὼ δ᾽ ἀλγύνομαι” | “τοῦτ᾽ αὔθ᾽ ὅτι ζῶ κ.τ.λ.”, ‘I feel just this pain,—that I live,’ etc.: Ar. Ach. 2“ἥσθην δὲ βαιὰ”... | “ἃ δ᾽ ὠδυνήθην, κ.τ.λ.”: Soph. Ant. 550“τί ταῦτ᾽ ἀνιᾷς μ̓” (cause me this distress). Before “τούτων γὰρ οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς” could be accepted, it would be needful to show that a cognate acc. (“οὐδέν”) could thus replace an instrum. dat. The next question concerns its origin. It might be suggested that the “οὐδέμ̓” of the 1st hand in L came, not from “οὐδέν μ̓”, but from “οὐδέν̓”, and that the sense is, ‘thou wilt pain no one of them’ (masc.),—so that “καθ᾽ ἡμῶν” in 65 should mean, Odysseus and the Atreidae. But this cannot be; for, here, there has been no direct mention of the Atreidae,—only of “Ἀχαιῶν” generally (59); and so, for contrast with “πᾶσιν Ἀργείοις” (67), the pain denoted by “ἀλγυνεῖς” must be pain to Odysseus. τούτων γὰρ οὐδέν᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς being thus set aside, we have to weigh (1) τούτων γὰρ οὐδὲν ἀλγυνεῖ μ̓,— Dindorf's conjecture; and (2) τούτῳ γὰρ οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς,—Buttmann's. Both being possible, the question is, which of them is most likely to have generated “τούτων γὰρ οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς”. The fact that “ἀλγυνεῖς” precedes “ἐργάσει” diminishes the probability that “ἀλγυνεῖς” arose from “ἀλγυνεῖ μ̓” by assimilation of persons. Further, had “οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς” come from “οὐδὲν ἀλγυνεῖ μ̓”, we might have expected to find a variant, “οὐδὲν ἀλγυνεῖς μ̓”. If, on the other hand, the words “οὐδέν μ᾽ ἀλγυνεῖς” are genuine, we have only to suppose a change of τούτωι into τούτων. On these palaeographical grounds Buttmann's reading appears preferable to Dindorf's.