Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Trachiniae

---

---

ἡνίκ᾽ ἢ σεσώσμεθα … οἰχόμεσθ᾽ ἅμα. Verses 83 and 85 are probably right as they stand, while v. 84 is spurious. The original form of the interpolation was, however, I think, “καὶ πίπτομεν σοῦ πατρὸς ἐξολωλότος”, intended to follow “οἰχόμεσθ᾽ ἅμα”, in order to supply the condition opposed to “κείνου βίον σώσαντος”. Then it struck a reviser that the passage would be more forcible if “καὶ πίπτομεν” were changed to “ἢ πίπτομεν”, and v. 85 were omitted.

This view of the original text may be supported by a consideration which does not seem to have been noticed. The very circumstance which prompted the interpolation—viz., the absence of the condition for “οἰχόμεσθ᾽ ἅμα”—is an admirable dramatic touch. For, while Deianeira and her hearers would understand “ἅμα” as meaning, “ἅμα οἰχομένῳ”, her death is really to be linked with his victory.

For a similar piece of textual history, cp. Eur. Andr.6, where the true text is “νῦν δ̓, εἴτις ἄλλη, δυστυχεστάτη γυνή”: but there was another reading, which made two verses of it:—“νῦν δ᾽ οὔτις” (or “νῦν δὴ τίς”) “ἄλλη δυστυχεστέρα γυνὴ” | “ἐμοῦ πέφυκεν ἢ γενήσεταί ποτε”. Of the second v., the schol. there says, “οἱ ὑποκριταὶ τὸν ἴαμβον προσέθηκαν”. See Appendix.

The synizesis in ἢ οἰχόμεσθ̓ cannot be strictly paralleled: but cp. Ant.535“τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι”. I had thought of ἢ κείμεσθ̓, which derives some support from the fact that “ἢ κ” (sic) “οἰχόμεσθ̓” occurs as a variant (cr. n.): but “οἰχόμεσθ̓” is better, and is probably sound.