^{page 189 note 1} ὡς λελοιπ⋯τα | κεῖνον ⋯ε⋯ β⋯οτον⋯ξεπ⋯στασο. Considering the neglect of hyper-baton, itis not surprising that no one (so far as I know) has suggested that ⋯ε⋯ may go with λελοιπ⋯τα (in the sense of εἰσ⋯, for which cf. 1707). True, the displacement would be bold; but there are many bold departures from normality in Sophocles. The speaker is excited, and excitement tends to produce hyperbaton (cf. Longin. De Sublim. 22). Moreover, ⋯ε⋯ seems to have a tendency to forsake (positionally) verbs and cling to nominal elements (cf. 1700 and 1707 of this play, Tr.104, Ant. 166, and passim). Until all these considerations have been weighed and discounted, we should regard the case against the traditional text as not proven.

^{page 190 note 1} I cannot find this meaning of παρ⋯ημι in any of the lexica to Sophocles. But it is confirmed by 1230 ὡς εὓτῒν τ⋯ ν⋯ον πα⋯, κο⋯πας ⋯πρσ⋯νας π⋯ρον, and that itself by the use of παρ⋯ in Rep. 460 e (quoted infra). Jebb quotes the sentence with παρ⋯ from the Republic in connexion with 1230, but fails to see the relevance of the whole passage to our ode. From his note it appears that his feeling was for taking παρ⋯ here from π⋯ρειμι not from παρ⋯ημι, had this been possible. Why did he feel this, even against the Platonic parallel, even against the manifest run of the sense? I suspect it was because, with το ν⋯ον the subject of παρ⋯ (from π⋯ρειμι) and κο⋯πας ⋯προσ⋯νας π⋯ρον in agreement with it the word-order is smooth and easy (to a visual reader construing by proximity)—whereas, with τ⋯ ν⋯ον the object of παρ⋯ (from παρ⋯ημι) the subject of which is another substantive (τις understood), the continuity of τ⋯ ν⋯ον TO with its attribute κο⋯πας ⋯προσ⋯νας phi;⋯ρον is interrupted by the verb governed by this other substantive: there is, in a word, hyperbaton. Further, had κο⋯πας ⋯πρσ⋯νας π⋯ρον carried on the subject, there was a smooth transition to the following line (τ⋯ς πλαγ⋯ πολ⋯μοχθοςἕξωκτλ.) which would then refer to the adjacent idea, i.e. to that subject. Here again, however, there was interruption, since, with the subject of παρ⋯ another substantive, τ⋯ς πλαγ⋯ Κ.Τ.λ. must refer to that substantive, hopping over the accusative κο⋯πας ⋯πρσ⋯νας π⋯ρον, which itself hopped over παρ⋯, to agree with τ⋯ ⋯ον: the order being thus Α-Β-Α-Β! In all this lies the very essenceof hyperbaton. It is worth noting incidentally that repetitions like παρε⋯ς—παρ⋯ are characteristic of Sophocles' choral odes, cf. Tr. 833 and 836 (πρστακ⋯ντος—προστετακώς), El. 215and 224 (ἄτας—ἄτας), 486 and 515 (αἰκ⋯αις—αἰκ⋯), etc.

^{page 190 note 2} For this (understanding a noun in one case from the same noun, when it is adjacent, in another) cf. Ant. 537, 636, 1027, 1119, Aj. 1217, O.T. 117, Hdt. iii. 81 ὠθ⋯ει Τε⋯μπεσὼν Τ⋯ πρ⋯γματα. It is a form of zeugma.

^{page 190 note 3} For the years of life as an allotted portion cf. Aj. 508 πολλμα⋯ν ⋯;τ⋯ν κληρο⋯χον.

^{page 190 note 4} Fitzgerald comes nearest, in spirit, to this translation: ‘Though he has watched a decent age pass by, | A man will sometimes still desire the world.’ The other translators, following the commentators, introduce the false note of impatience, peevishness, e.g. ‘d´daigne la mesure de la vie ordinaire’ (Masqueray), ‘scorning the common span’ (Loeb), ‘ill content with less’ (Penguin).

^{page 190 note 5} The definite articles are classificatory: cf. Aj. 473 αἰσχρ⋯ν γ⋯ρ ῒνδρα το⋯ μακρο⋯χρ⋯ζειν β⋯ου.

^{page 190 note 6} If any of the proposed emendations were accepted, they would represent the only superfluous words in this great ode (for even ζώειν, superfluous in literal sense, is by no means so in poetic meaning: it expresses the clinging-on to life).

^{page 191 note 1} βο⋯λει beginning a line andintroducing a statement is admittedly rare; but there is an example at Eur. Ph. 899.

^{page 192 note 1} Creon's words are specially emphasized by the hyperbatic arrangement—τα⋯τηνποτ' ο΍Κ ἔσ ᾁς κ.τ.λ for οὐκ ἔςθ' ᾁσ τα⋯τηνἔτι ζ⋯σ⋯ν ποτε γαμεῖς. Cf. O.T. 427 f. σο⋯γ⋯ρ οὐ ἔστιν βροτ⋯ν κ´κιον ὃστις ⋯κτριβ⋯σετα⋯ ποτε (the conclusion of Teiresias 'speech: for οὐ γ⋯ρ ἔστιν βροτ⋯ν ὅστις σ⋯κ⋯κι⋯ν ποτε ⋯κτριβ⋯σεται. In both these instances the ordinary hyperbatic device of emphasizing a particular pronoun by transposing it to the beginning of the sentence (for which in prose see Denniston, , Greek Prose Style, pp. 47 f.Google Scholar) is combined with a larger disturbance of the word-order to give weight and impressiveness to the whole sentence. So far as I know it has never been pointed outthat hyperbaton can be used, in poetry, to convey this effect (see, however, Headlam-Thomson, , Oresteia ii. 370 ffGoogle Scholar. for some far-reaching remarks on the use of hyperbaton to select individual elements for emphasis). But there is a very clear and outstanding example at Eur. H.F. 1139. To Heracles' question ‘Am I my wife's murderer?’ Prose Amphitryon replies μιῖς ῕παντα χειρ⋯ς ἔργασ⋯ς τ⋯δε. The natural order, ῕παντα τ⋯δεἔργα (⋯στ⋯) μιῖς χειρ⋯ς, σ⋯ς, would have been not merely common-place, but also unemphatic. By Amphitryon's way of putting it every word is weighted. As the stilldazed Heracles surveyed the bodies displayed upon the eccyclema, the effect must have been telling. A good actor would have taken great pains to secure the full effect, by hi enunciation, of this magnificent line.

^{page 192 note 2} So far, then, 750–1 are practically a doublet of 575–6: Kρ. Ἃιδης ⋯ πα⋯σων το⋯σδε τοὺς γάμους⋯μοί.Xο δεδογμέν', ὡς ἔοικε, τ⋯νδε κατθανεῖν.

^{page 192 note 3} The MSS. σπαγ⋯ν seems sufficiently defended (against the suspicions of Fraenkel and others) by the Euripidean parallel cited by Headlam (Rhes. 790 f. θερμ⋯ς δ⋯ κρουν⋯ςδεσπότου πάρααφαγαῖς|βάλλει με δυσθνήσκοντος αἴματος νέου.) Since hyperbaton has figured so largely in these notes, it may not be irrelevant to point out that the Rhesus lines provide an excellent example of the more involved kind of hyperbaton in Greek poetry, where not just two, but three threads of sentence-material (θερμ⋯ς δ⋯ κρο⋯νοςβάλλει με δεσπότου παρ⋯ δυσθνῄσκοντος, σφαγαῖς αἵματος νέου) are interwoven in a complicated and highly sophisticated pat-tern. But hardly anyone ever says ‘this is hyperbaton’ i.e. a distinct phenomenon in Greek sentence-structure, a figure.) Page, for instance, quoting the Rhesus lines on Ag. 1387, merely says ‘the words must be taken’ in this way.

^{page 193 note 1} Page on Ag. 1387 and Jebb on our passage both translate ⋯ξεῖαν ‘swift’. ‘Swift’ and ‘sharp’ are not perhaps very different in meaning here; but I take the idea to be the ‘sharp spurt’ of blood (like ᾄξας ⋯ξὺςνότος ⋯ς of Aj. 258, which Jebb paraphrases ‘after a sharp outburst—like the wind of the south’).

^{page 193 note 2} So Kamerbeek, except that he gives εἶναι instead of ὂς. Another parallel appears to be Theog. 97 f. ὃς τ⋯ν ⋯ταῖρον|γινώσκων ⋯ργ⋯ν κα⋯ βαρὺν⋯ντα φέρει| ⋯ντ⋯κασιγνήτου, which seems to mean ‘who, when he recognizes his friend to be his friend’ (i.e. makes a friend of a man), ‘puts up with his moods as if he were his brother’. Cf.also Ant. 471 δηλοῖ ⋯ γέννημ' ὠμ⋯ν ⋯ξ ὠμο⋯πατρ⋯ς|τ⋯ς παιδ⋯ς(for δηλοῖ τ⋯ γέννηματ⋯ςπαιδ⋯ς ⋯ξ ὠμο⋯ πατρ⋯ςὠμ⋯ν⋯ν.

^{page 194 note 1} In my belief, Jebb quite misunder-stands these words when he compares with them Thuc. 1. 137. 4 γράΨας τήν τε ⋯κΣαλαμῖνος προάγγελσιν τ⋯ς⋯ναχωρήσεως κα⋯ τ⋯ν Υεφυρ⋯ν,⋯ν ΨΣυδ⋯ς προσεποιήσατο, τότεδι' αὐτ⋯νοὐ διάλυσιν All the words which follow γρ⋯ψας in Thuc. form a true self-contained object to that word. They dell note events which are assumed to have taken place, not to assertions made about those events. The O.T. passage is quite different. The true object of εἴπε is τ⋯*sigmav; Λαΐου διαφθορ⋯ς alone, ⋯μ⋯ς is not (mentally) part of this object, since the speaker (Oedipus) does not accept that the killing of Laius is ‘his’, ⋯μ⋯ς embodies the assertion of Creon that Oedipus is the murderer. It is a predicate that has been incorporated with the object.