Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:16:19.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The second stasimon of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2013

C. Carey
C. Carey*
Affiliation:
University of St Andrews
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first strophe opens with a wish and a syntactical problem:

εἴ μοι ξυνείη φέροντι μοῖρα τὰν εὔσεπτον ἁγνείαν λόγων ἔργων τε πάντων,…

The sentence is often interpreted as though φέροντι were φέρειν: ‘may it be my destiny to possess’. However, for this meaning the infinitive is clearly required; there is no valid parallel for the use of the participle supposed here. Burton offers: ‘may a share of life be my companion provided that I win or possess purity’; purity is a precondition for life. This interpretation is possible but improbable, for the use of μοῖρα as a synonym for βίος would be obscure in this context. It is altogether easier to interpret with Kamerbeek: ‘would that Destiny were with me when I (“so long as I” or the like)’; the chorus hopes for the favour of fate, provided that this is earned by purity of word and deed. The hope thus embraces an intention to avoid all impurity of word or action. Against this interpretation it has been objected that μοῖρα is a constant presence, not a helpful power which might desert. However, συνεῖναι is attested with the sense ‘favour’ (Aesch. Sept. 671, Soph. OT 275); and the notion that fate may favour individuals or groups is attested (Pindar O. 2.35 ff., P. 3.85 f).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Hellenic Studies , Volume 106 , November 1986 , pp. 175 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies 1986

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 So R. C. Jebb in his commentary on the play, ad loc, Winnington-Ingram, R. P., JHS xci (1971) 123 Google Scholar = Sophocles, an interpretation (Cambridge 1980) 185 fGoogle Scholar., Hölscher, U., Wie soll ich noch tanzen?, in Sprachen der Lyrik (Frankfurt 1975) 379 Google Scholar. This is not then a ‘Wunsch nach harmlosen Leben’ (Hölscher 385); contrast Eur. Hipp. 1112 ff.

2 Burton, R. W. B., The chorus in Sophocles' tragedies (Oxford 1980) 159 Google Scholar. Another possibility would be ‘may death find me possessing’, i.e. ‘may I possess throughout my life’; for the manner of expression see e.g. Pind. N. 8.38, I. 7.40 ff. However, this use of μοῖρα would likewise be very obscure in context.

3 WS lxxix (1966) 83 Google Scholar f; cf. Dawe, R. D., Sophocles: Oedipus Rex (Cambridge 1982)Google Scholar ad loc.

4 Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 123 Google Scholar = Sophocles 186.

5 E.g. Jebb in his introductory remarks to this ode, Winnington-Ingram, JHS xci (1971) 122 f.Google Scholar = Sophocles 186, Bowra, C. M., Sophoclean tragedy (Oxford 1944) 205 Google Scholar. See, however, Lloyd-Jones, H.. The justice of Zeus (Berkeley 1971) 110 f.Google Scholar, Hölscher (n. 1) 382 ff.

6 Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 122 f.Google Scholar = Sophocles 186, Hölscher (n. 1) 384 f, Burton (n. 2) 159. Burton says: ‘the noun must be given its precise meaning, purity from physical defilement, for only then will the close connection of the first lines of the stanza with the king's speech 815–30 become fully apparent’; but the presence of the word λόγων prevents us from confining ἁγνείαν to physical purity.

7 This argument is not conclusive, for Oedipus uses ἀσεβἡς of involuntary acts at 1382, 1441. However, εὐσεβἡς/ἀσεβἡς and cognates are elsewhere consistently used by Sophocles of voluntary behaviour, not the presence or absence of ritual purity. In the present passage, unless εὔσεπτον is superfluous it must express subjective piety, for objective purity is expressed by ἁγνεἰαν.

8 It is championed by Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 125–7Google Scholar = Sophocles 189 ff., quoted with approval by Burton (n. 2) 164, and printed by Dawe, in Sophoclis tragoediae (Leipzig 1975)Google Scholar and his Cambridge edition (n. 2).

9 The MSS text is defended by Long, , LCM iii (1978) 49 Google Scholar, Scodell, R., CP lxxvii (1982) 214 ff.Google Scholar, and by Austin, C. F. L., CQ xxxiv (1984) 233 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 The change would also bring the gnome into line with passages such as Solon fr. 6.3, τίκτει γἀρ κόρος ὑβριν. Like Austin I regard this as a disadvantage. With the MSS text we have an arresting, cryptic phrase modelled on the trite genealogical image which Euripides is content to reproduce (frr. 437 and 438N2) but enlivening it by combining abstract and concrete in a bold, imaginative way. To obtain the cliché which Blaydes' conjecture offers we must sacrifice the anaphora ὔβρις…ὔβρις; a poor exchange by any standard.

11 It is however noteworthy that βασιλεὐς and cognates are not so used. At Eur. Bacch. 671 the adjective βασιλικός is used in a periphrastic description of a king's quick temper, but the use there is clearly euphemistic (cf. Dodds ad loc.) not pejorative.

12 Two other interpretations of the MSS text deserve mention. Lloyd-Jones (n. 5) 193 takes τύραννον as a kenning for κόρον. Since κόρος can refer not only to satiety but also to the behaviour inspired thereby it may be described as a child of ὕβρις, insolence, as at Pind. O. 13.10, Hdt. viii 77.1. A reference to κόρος would agree with the verses which follow. But the use of concrete for abstract would be obscure here, where the normal concrete use would fit. Scodell (n. 9) 216 ff., drawing on Solon and Theognis, interprets the ὔβρις in 873 as being that of the people of Thebes, if they abandon the purity desired in the first stanza, since stasis may result, and also that of Laius' murderer, who may exploit stasis in Thebes to make himself sole ruler. It is fatal to this view that there is no reference, explicit or implied, to stasis in this ode.

13 The word is discussed by MacDowell, D. M., Greece and Rome xxiii (1976) 14 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar, and by N. R. E. Fisher, ibid. 177 ff.

14 In favour of her identification of the (potential) tyrant as the unknown murderer of Laius, Scodell (n. 9) 218 points out that Oedipus has consistently scented a conspiracy behind the murder which threatens himself (124 f., 139 f., 385–403, 658 f., 669 f.). But at no point has the chorus indicated that it shares this view, and it has explicitly acquitted one suspect, Creon, 652 ff. Since Jocasta's revelation even Oedipus has ceased to think in terms of a plot.

15 In 876 the MSS ἀκροτάταν εἰσαναβᾶσ' is unmetrical. Wolff's ἀκρότατα γεῖσ' ἀναβᾶσ' is ingenious and may well be correct. But εỉσαναβᾱσ' is unexceptionable in itself (the verb is used with κορυφήν at h.Hom. 19.11) and the change of a single letter (ἀκρότατον) gives perfectly acceptable sense, syntax and metre. I accept the MSS text in 877 (A has ἄποτμον, a manifest error, which was subsequently corrected to ἀπότομον); this necessitates reading Housman's οὐρανίαι 'ν αἰθέρι in 866 f.

16 WS lxxix (1966) 86 Google Scholar.

17 LCM iii (1978) 50 Google Scholar.

18 See further LSJ s.v. and cf. the use of παλαιστής at Soph. Phil. 431 of the arch trickster Odysseus.

19 JHS xci (1971) 125 Google Scholar = Sophocles 190.

20 Winnington-Ingram loc. cit.

21 The phrasing belongs to Jebb ad 879, though he sees an implicit reference to Oedipus. I had toyed with the possibility of referring this sentence too to the downfall of hybris. The ‘throw’ or ‘fall’ (πάλαισμα) which benefits the city would be the punishment of human insolence by the gods; alternatively, the ‘struggle’ (πάλαισμα) which benefits the city would be the struggle of the gods against human wrongdoing. However, it has been pointed out to me that the gods need not ‘struggle’ against a human antagonist; cf. Aesch. Suppl. 100 ff.

22 Long (n. 9) 51, Burton (n. 2) 157.

23 Both text and punctuation in this stanza are uncertain. In 894 Musgrave's εὔξεται for MSS. ἓρξεται gives satisfactory sense with minimal change (for the present infinitive cf. e.g. Aesch. Suppl. 674 ff., Cho. 212, Soph. Ant. 641 f. [‘pray’], Horn. Il. 23.669 [‘boast’]). In 893 MSS. give φυμῶι/θυμοῦ βέλη. The former is meaningless; θυμοῦ βέλη can be taken as ‘shafts of passion’ (Lloyd-Jones [n. 5] 194, Hölscher [n. 1] 387); i.e., if crime goes unpunished, what man will curb his desires? But θυμοῦ would be obscure in close proximity to ψυχᾶς. θυμῶι/θυμοῦ βέλη is glossed in some MSS. with τὴν θείαν δίκην, whence Hermann's θεῶν βέλη which I would (hesitantly) accept. In 891 Blayde's θἰξεται is desirable, though MSS ἑξεται yields an acceptable, if inferior, sense. The structure of the antistrophe suggests that we should place a full-stop after χλιδᾱς and a comma after ματἀιзων, for we have a strong pause after βροτοῖς 902 (ἀλλά 903) and a weaker pause after ἀρχάν 905 (γάρ 906); however, this is not conclusive.

24 Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 128 Google Scholar.

25 Thus Winnington-Ingram loc. cit. states: ‘Our essential task is to examine the stanza phrase by phrase and see how its terms relate to Oedipus’.

26 LCM iii (1978) 52 Google Scholar.

27 Gellie, G. H., AJP lxxxv (1964) 121 Google Scholar.

28 JHS xci (1971) 129 f.Google Scholar = Sophocles 197.

29 Winnington-Ingram loc. cit. replies that a sexual reference is justified in this stanza by ‘the intricate relevance of the detailed content of this stanza to the state of Oedipus’. But none of the other crimes listed in this stanza has been committed by Oedipus; there is therefore no good reason to suppose that this clause refers to him. The ‘intricate relevance’ discerned by Winnington-Ingram means even on his own view that none of what the chorus says in this stanza is an accurate description of Oedipus' behaviour. Just how difficult it is to force a sexual suggestion into this sentence is shown by Burton (n. 2) 165, who finds that parricide and incest ‘are so faintly suggested in 890 f. that the reference only becomes apparent in retrospect’.

30 For the sense of τί δεῖ see Stevens, P. T., Euripides: Andromache (Oxford 1971)Google Scholar ad v. 765.

31 Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 131 Google Scholar = Sophocles 198.

32 See Hom. Od. xxiv 351 f., Aesch. Ag. 1578 f., Eur. El. 583 f., Suppl. 731 f., fr. 577N2, adesp.fr. 465N2, and especially Soph. El. 245 ff. A number of these references were brought to my attention by Dr G. A. de Grouchy.

33 Clearly I cannot accept the statement of Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 125 Google Scholar = Sophocles 189: ‘on any interpretation the antistrophe is somewhat tangential to the strophe (just as Ant. β is tangential to Str. β)’.

34 Winnington-Ingram, , JHS xci (1971) 133 Google Scholar = Sophocles 202, Said, S., La Faute tragique (Paris 1978) 401 Google Scholar; cf. Müller, G., Hermes xcv (1967) 269 ffGoogle Scholar.

35 This note is an abridged version of a paper delivered at one of the Scottish Universities Greek and Roman Drama Seminars at Glasgow University in April 1983 and, with significant changes and corrections, at a meeting of the Oxford Philological Society in March 1985. I am grateful to all those who commented on both occasions, and particularly to Professor Hugh Lloyd-Jones.