previous next

μερίμνας, gen. sing.: οἶκτον, acc. depending on “ἔψαυσας...μερίμνας” as =“ἐποίησάς με μεριμνᾶν”: cp. El. 122τίνα τάκεις ὧδ᾽ ἀκόρεστον οἰμωγὰν τὸν πάλαι ἐκ δολερᾶς ἀθεώτατα ματρὸς ἁλόντ᾽ ἀπάταις Ἀγαμέμνονα”, where “τὸν...Ἀγαμέμνονα” is governed by “τίνα τάκεις...οἰμωγάν” as =“τί οἰμώζεις”; see other examples in n. on 211 f. πατρός and πότμου are objective genitives with οἶκτον.—The objection

to taking “οἶκτον” as acc. in apposition with “ἔψαυσας...μερίμνας” is that this would imply “τό” (“σε”) “ψαῦσαι ἀλγ. ἐμοὶ μερίμνης οἶκτός ἐστιν”: as Eur. Or. 1105Ἑλένην κτάνωμεν, Μενέλεῳ λύπην πικράν”, implies, “τὸ Ἑλένην κτανεῖν Μενέλεῳ λύπη πικρὰ ἔσται”: Aesch. Ag. 224ἔτλα δ᾽ οὖν θυτὴρ γενέσθαι θυγατρός, γυναικοποίνων πολέμων ἀρωγάν”, implies, “τὸ θυτῆρα γενέσθαι ἀρωγὴ ἦν”. Now, if we had, for instance, “ἀνεμνήσθην μερίμνης”, it is conceivable that “οἶκτον”, as acc. in appos., should mean “οἴκτου ἀφορμήν” or “ἔγερσιν”. But when, as here, the subject of “ἔψαυσας” is distinct from the person who makes the lament, it seems impossible that “οἶκτον” should have this pregnant sense.

ἀλγ. μερίμνας is certainly not acc. plur. See on 546 and 961. No Greek hearer of these lyrics could take “μερίμνας” for anything but the usual gen. after “ψαύω”. If Soph. had intended the acc., he would at least have written “ἀλγεινοτάταν...μέριμναν”.—The interpretation given above would admit the reading οἶτον, ‘doom,’ which has, however, less authority (cr. n.). El. 166τὸν ἀνήνυτον οἶτον ἔχουσα κακῶν”. But, as “οἶτον πότμου” is an impossible pleonasm, it would then be necessary to take “τοῦ τε ...πότμου” as depending on “ἔψαυσας”: for “τριπόλιστον οἶτον” could not be a parenthetic acc. in apposition with “ἔψαυσας... μερίμνας πατρός”. This would be very awkward. Further, “οἶκτον” is clearly the right word to introduce the lament “ἰώ”, etc., which actually follows.

τριπόλιστον (“οἶκτον”), a lament which has often been renewed; a thrice-told tale of sorrow. “πολέω”=to turn up the soil with the plough: “ἀναπολέω”, to plough anew: then fig., to ‘go over the same ground’ again. Pind. N. 7. 104ταὐτὰ...τρὶς τετράκι τ᾽ ἀμπολεῖν”: Soph. Ph. 1238δὶς ταὐτὰ βούλει καὶ τρὶς ἀναπολεῖν μ᾽ ἔπη”; No “πολίζω” as =“πολέω” occurs, but Pind. once has “ἀναπολίζω” as=“ἀναπολέω” ( Pind. P. 6. 3). Similarly a poet might well use “τριπόλιστος” as if “πολίζω” existed. It is needless to write “τριπόλητον”. The epic adj. is “τρίπολος.

κλεινοῖς Λαβδακίδαισιν, dat. of interest after πότμου, all the fate for (i.e. appointed for) us, the Labdacidae, instead of the possessive gen., “κλεινῶν Λαβδακιδᾶν”. Cp. Eur. Phoen. 17 Θήβαισιν εὐίπποις ἄναξ”. It is needless to explain the dat. by pressing the deriv. of “πότμος” from “πίπτω” (‘what falls to one’). Cp. on 571, and on 865 (“ἐμῷ πατρί”).

ἁμετέρου (=“ἡμῖν”) is here joined with the dat. of interest, as the possessive pron. is oft. joined with the gen. of the pers. pron. (“τἀμὰ δυστήνου κακά”, O. C. 344).

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.

An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.

hide References (9 total)
  • Commentary references from this page (9):
    • Euripides, Orestes, 1105
    • Euripides, Phoenician Women, 17
    • Pindar, Pythian, 6
    • Pindar, Nemean, 7
    • Sophocles, Electra, 122
    • Sophocles, Electra, 166
    • Sophocles, Oedipus at Colonus, 344
    • Sophocles, Philoctetes, 1238
    • Aeschylus, Agamemnon, 224
hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: