οὔτ᾽ ἔρξας τιν̓, οὔ τι νοσφίσας. A partial reminiscence of Od. 4. 690“οὔτε τινὰ ῥέξας ἐξαίσιον οὔτε τι εἰπών”, as Eustathius saw (p. 763, Od. 2): “Ὁμηρικὸν δέ τι καὶ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Φιλοκτήτῃ τὸ οὔτε τι ῥέξας, κακὸν δηλαδή: οὕτω γὰρ νοεῖται, εἰ καὶ παντελῶς ἐκεῖ σιωπᾶται τὸ ῥεχθέν”. Here the last three words prove two things,—viz., that Eustath. read “οὔτε νοσφίσας”, and that “οὔτε τι ῥέξας” in his citation of Sophocles was a mere slip for “οὔτ᾽ ἔρξας τιν̓”: since, if his text of our verse had really contained “τι”, he could not have said, “σιωπᾶται τὸ ῥεχθέν”. (He has other such slips: see Appendix on Ant. 292.) Schneidewin's emendation, οὔ τι for οὔτε, appears certain. “ἔρδειν τινά τι” can mean, ‘to do a wrong to a man’: “ἔρδειν τινά”, without “τι”, could not possibly mean it. Ought we, then, to write οὐκ (for “οὔτ̓”) “ἔρξας”? Probably not. Cp. Ant. 249“οὔτε του γενῇδος ἦν” | “πλῆγμ̓, οὐ δικέλλης ἐνβολή”, and O. C. 972 n.— νοσφίσας, robbed, defrauded. We find not only “νοσφίζειν τινά τινος”, but also “νοσφίζειν τινά τι” (as Pind. N. 6. 64“σέ τ᾽ ἐνόσφισε”... | “κλᾶρος...ἄνθἐ Ὀλυμπιάδος”); and this is the constr. here. The antithesis is between “βια” (ἔρξας) and “δόλος” (νοσφίσας): Ixion had murdered his father-in-law, and had sought to steal the love of Hera.
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.
