Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Electra

---

---

ξυνάπτετον, intrans., ‘join,’ as Soph. Ph. 702“ὡς ἐς λόγους ξυνῆψα Πολυνείκει”. Here the modal dat. λόγοισιν takes the place of “ἐς λόγους”.

ὡς ἐνταῦθ̓ κ.τ.λ. See Appendix, where the proposed emendations are classified. The main points are, I think, these.

(1) ἐμὲν as=“ἐσμέν”, found only in Callim. fr. 294, is undoubtedly corrupt. “ἴμεν”, the easiest correction, is excluded by its sense. It could not mean, ‘we are moving in a place where...,’ ‘we are thereabouts’ (Campbell). It would mean, ‘we are going to a place where....’ But he speaks of the present.

(2) Is, then, ἐνταῦθ̓ spurious? That is the crucial question. If it is spurious, then “ἐμὲν” may be a vestige of a longer 1st pers. plur., such as “ἕσταμεν”: but, if “ἐνταῦθ̓” is genuine, all such conjectures are barred. Now, when the usage of Sophocles is scrutinised, two points favour the genuineness of “ἐνταῦθ̓”. (a) It stands as antecedent to “ἵνα” in Ph. 429: to “ἔνθα” below, Ph. 380: and to “ὅπου” in Tr. 800.（b) Sophocles is peculiarly fond of using it in that figurative sense which it would have here, as=‘under these circumstances,’ ‘in that situation’: see, e.g., O. T. 582, O. T. 598, O. T. 720: O. C. 585: Ph. 429, Ph. 433: Tr. 37, Tr. 772, Tr. 936.

(3) Supposing that “ἐνταῦθ̓” is genuine —as seems most likely—no account of the passage is more probable than that the poet wrote “ὡς ἐνταῦθ᾽ ἵνα” | “οὐκ ἔστ᾽ ἔτ᾽ ὀκνεῖν καιρός”, and that “ἔστ̓” dropped out before “ἔτ̓” precisely as in Ph. 23 the words “τόνδ᾽ ἔτ̓, εἴτ̓” have shrunk to “τόνδ᾽ ἤτ̓” in L. Then, Ph. v. 22 being defective, “ἵνα” was shifted to it from the end of v. 21 (cp. O. T. 1264 f., cr. n.); and the gap after “ἐνταῦθ̓” was filled with “ἐμέν”,—a form which the later grammarians, at least, accepted, as will be seen in the Appendix.

ἔργων ἀκμή: cp. 1338: Ph. 12“ἀκμὴ γὰρ οὐ μακρῶν ἡμῖν λόγων”: Ai. 811 “οὐχ ἕδρας ἀκμή” .