Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T08:59:38.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sophocles' Trachiniae: Discussions of some Textual Problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

A. Y. Campbell
A. Y. Campbell
Affiliation:
Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

That after that is just too ghastly. Jebb's citations are no parallels; the difference is that (‘as to which things’—J.) and (‘that prospect’—J.) have both precisely the same reference. Read ‘which reflections … time-honoured as they are’. In this well-known construction a term (often substantive, sometimes adjective) which logically belongs to the antecedent is deferred and inserted in the relative clause—‘for emphasis’ (M. Tierney, rightly, on E. Hec. 771).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 8 , Issue 1-2 , May 1958 , pp. 18 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Generally rather late, as here; but sometimes in the forefront of (yet syntactically within) the rel. clause, as at Tr. 283; and this is the simple explanation of Virgil's (Aen. 1. 573) urbetn quam statuo, uestra est; add it therefore to Jebb's parallels for O.T. 449.

1 Denniston, , op. cit., p. 162,Google Scholar under says that the sense ‘and’ preponderates where no precedes, and in such cases there is no essential difference between and Jebb's ‘but’ here has to be buttressed, in his note by an English supplement ‘but (all the more)’, in his translation by the misleading ‘accurst’ for

2 ‘Its primary function is to bring home to the comprehension of the person addressed a truth of which he is ignorant, or temporarily oblivious’ (Denniston, , op. cit., p. 537).Google Scholar

3 Only two critics have seen that is the source of the trouble, Blaydes (Addenda) and Herwerden; the latter (where?) proposed; but denotes feeling, not behaviour; and I do not believe that could ever be ‘ ’ in this sense.

1 One answer to his defence (C.R. xxxix (1925), 3) is that a parenthetic is not the same thing as a parenthetic vous voyez is not vous regardez. Another is that in the passages quoted the parenthesis has real point; e.g. there is an object to be pointed out, or an object lesson to be enforced.Google Scholar

1 He cites Eur. H.F. 1005 but corr. Nauck

1 I dealt with this briefly in a paper (Oxford Philol. Soc., 1931Google Scholar) summarized in Proc. Camb. Philol. Soc. clx (1935), 5; but I hope to discuss the point more thoroughly later. A neat case is Thuc. 6. 25. 2 ; but read, with Krueger, Google Scholar

3 So Jebb; similarly Cat. 61. 58–59 is not literal.

4 Witness footnote 2 on page 82 of my 1953 ed. of Horace, Odes.

1 Except, naturally, Eur. Tro. 146.

2 Or ?

3 Or ? Augments are omitted at 499. 515, 516.

4 As in the summary referred to (p. 21 n. 2).

5 P.S. I have just noticed that Blaydes in his Addenda wrote: ‘The is evidently not required here.’

1 In making the old man address to the young this breezy British exhortation, Jackson does not seem to have given a thought to the reproachful and despairing tones of all three of the speaker's previous admonitions.