previous next

ἔμπρησον: the omission of “με” is somewhat bold here: but cp. 769, 1368: Ai. 496ἀφῇς”, O. T. 461λάβῃς” (sc.με”). If we read πυρί μ̓ |, the “ἐπισυναλοιφή” might be defended by the elision of “δ̓, τ̓”, and once “ταῦτ̓” ( O. T. 332) at the end of a verse ( O. T. 29 n.). But the fact seems to be that συλλαβὼν in 799, which at once suggests “με”, excuses the absence of the pron. here.

hide References (5 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (5):
    • Sophocles, Ajax, 496
    • Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 29
    • Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 332
    • Sophocles, Oedipus Tyrannus, 461
    • Sophocles, Philoctetes, 769
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: