Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Antigone

μηδ᾽ ἃ μὴ 'θιγες. If this were an instance of “θιγγάνω” with acc., it would be a solitary instance in Soph. , who has “θιγγάνω” with genitive in nine passages; in Soph. Ph. 667“παρέσται ταῦτά σοι καὶ θιγγάνειν, ταῦτα” is nom. Nor is there any authentic instance of “θιγγάνω” with acc. in classical Greek. In H. F. 963, “πατὴρ δέ νιν ι θιγὼν κραταιᾶς χειρὸς ἐννέπει τάδε, νιν” depends on “ἐννέπει”: cp. Ai. 764 “ὁ μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐννέπει: τέκνον”, etc. In Theocr. 1. 59 “οὐδέ τί πα ποτὶ χεῖλος ἐμὸν θίγεν”, the gen. “αὐτοῦ” is understood with “προσέθιγεν”, and “τι” is adv., ‘at all.’ Nor does “ψαύω” govern an acc. below in 859, 961 (where see notes). Krüger (11. § 47. 12. 2) treats ἅ here as a sort of adverb (ib. 11. § 46. 6. 9), i.e., in a case where you did not put your hand (to the deed, sc. “τοῦ ἔργου”); but this is very awkward. Rather, I think, there is an unusual kind of attraction, due to the special form of the sentence. We could not say (e.g.) “ἃ μὴ ἐρᾷ τις, οὐ θηρᾶται”, (“ἅ” for “ταῦτα ὧν”). But here “μηδ᾽ ὧν μὴ 'θιγες ποιοῦ σεαυτῆς” would have been intolerable, on account of the second gen. after “ποιοῦ”. For the sake of compactness, and of clearly marking the object to “ποιοῦ”, the poet has here allowed ἅ to stand for “ταῦτα ὧν”. I do not compare O. C. 1106, “αἰτεῖς ἃ τεύξει”, holding that “ά” there=“ταῦτα ἅ” (not “ὧν”): see n.