εἰδῶ, which Nauck changes to ἴδω, is in accord with usage (cp. e.g., 678, O. C.889“ὅπως εἰδῶ”: Ph.238“ὡς εἰδῶ”). εἰ τοὐμὸν κ.τ.λ. The constr. is, “εἰ μᾶλλον ἀλγεῖς, ὁρῶν τοὐμὸν λωβητον εἶδος, ἢ” (“τὸ”) “κείνης” (“λωβητὸν εἶδος”) “ἐν δίκῃ κακούμενον”. For the omission of “τὸ” before “κείνης”, cp. 929 “τὸ κεῖσε δεῦρό τ̓” (n.).— κακούμενον as in Ph.228, O. C.261. Cicero represents this passage by a single verse, Iam cernam, mene an illam potiorem putes. Hence Nauck rejects v. 1069. But the inference is most unsafe, as another instance will show. The passage beginning with “ἰδού” (1079) and ending with “ἐξώρμηκεν” (1089) shrinks, in Cicero's version, to three lines and a half, viz., Videte cuncti: tuque, caelestum sator, | Iace, obsecro, in me vim coruscam fulminis! | Nunc, nunc dolorum anxiferi torquent vertices: | Nunc serpit ardor. Thus Cicero wholly ignores vv. 1085 ff.: he ignores vv. 1080—1084 also, except in so far as their general sense is blended with his version of 1088 f., “δαίνυται...ἐξώρμηκεν”. Yet the Greek text there is clearly sound.
This text is part of:
Sophocles: The Plays and Fragments, with critical notes, commentary, and translation in English prose. Part V: The Trachiniae. Sir Richard C. Jebb. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. 1902.
The National Endowment for the Humanities provided support for entering this text.
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.