previous next



The MSS. give here ποῖ δὲ βάσει πῶς δέ μοι τἀντεῦθεν, and in the corresponding v. of the antistrophe (850), κεῖνό μοι, κεῖνο λάθρᾳ. The want of a verb for “πῶς δέ μοι τἀντεῦθεν” suggests some corruption: we cannot well take “βάσει” with both clauses by changing “πῶς δέ” (as Hermann proposed) to “πῶς τε”. Nor, again, is it satisfactory to expand v. 850 by adding “τούτου” or “τἀνδρὸς” after “λάθρᾳ”, or by repeating “λάθρᾳ” itself. Wecklein, leaving “κεῖνό μοι κεῖνο λάθρᾳ” untouched, writes here “ποῖ δὲ τἀνθένδε βάσει” (omitting “πῶς δέ μοι τἀντεῦθεν”). But then,—granting that a dittographia was the cause of error,—it is hard to see how “μοι” could have crept in between “πῶς δέ” and “τἀντεῦθεν”. I prefer to read ποῖ δέ μοι τἀνθένδε βάσει here, and to insert “δή” (this with Hermann) after the first “κεῖνο” in 850. The MS. reading may have arisen thus. A transcriber, whose eye chanced to pass over “μοι τἀνθένδε”, wrote “ποῖ δὲ βάσει”. Then, perceiving that he had missed two words, he preferred to begin anew, and wrote the whole verse right, but either forgot, or failed to mark clearly, that his original “ποῖ δὲ βάσει” should be deleted. (A similar case occurs in L's text of the metrical “Ὑπόθεσις” to this play: see p. 3.) A successor, finding “ποῖ δὲ βάσει ποῖ δέ μοι τἀνθένδε βάσει”, deemed it obvious that the secondβάσει” should be omitted. The verse thus became, “ποῖ δὲ βάσει ποῖ δέ μοι τἀνθένδε”. But the metrical context showed that a long final syllable was needed; and nothing seemed easier than to correct “τἀνθένδε” into “τἀντεῦθεν”. Lastly, as a verb such as “πράξεις” seemed to be understood with “τἀντεῦθεν φροντίδος”, the second “ποῖ” was altered to “πῶς”.—Join ποῖ with φροντίδος (partit. gen.): cp. O. C. 170ποῖ τις φροντίδος ἔλθῃ;

τἀνθένδε, adverbial: cp. 895.


hide Display Preferences
Greek Display:
Arabic Display:
View by Default:
Browse Bar: