τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε Soph. OT 740-41

Discussion of Greek texts that do not fall into the other categories, including texts in other dialects or texts from other periods.
Forum rules
This is not a beginner's forum, competence in Greek is assumed.
Post Reply
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε Soph. OT 740-41

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

Soph. OT 740-41

Oedipus
Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

This syntax is spare with no wasted words, assuming the text is sound — Jebb[1] had a problem with it. Helma Dik[2] commented on it. My question pertains to the word order τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε. I noted in Jebb's comment: Herm. was inclined to defend as if τίνα φύσιν εἶχε = τίς ἦν φύσιν which is more or less what my question is about. Was Herm's analysis correct?

[1]
[740] I do not believe that Soph., or any Greek, could have written φύσιν ι τίν᾽ εἶχε, φράζε, τίνα δ᾽ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων, which Herm. was inclined to defend as if τίνα φύσιν εἶχε = τίς ἦν φύσιν. Now τίνος would easily pass into τίνα δ᾽ with a scribe who did not follow the construction; and to restore τίνος seems by far the most probable as well as the simplest remedy. No exception can be taken to the phrase τίνος ἀκμὴν ἥβης as = “the ripeness of what period of vigorous life.”
[2] Helma Dik labeled Λάϊον the topic and φύσιν a subtopic. Word Order Greek Tragic Dialogue p159 n44.

some context:
{ΟΙ.} Οἷόν μ' ἀκούσαντ' ἀτίως ἔχει, γύναι,
ψυχῆς πλάνημα κἀνακίνησις φρενῶν.
{ΙΟ.} Ποίας μερίμνης τοῦθ' ὑποστραφεὶς λέγεις;
{ΟΙ.} Ἔδοξ' ἀκοῦσαι σοῦ τόδ', ὡς ὁ Λάϊος
730
κατασφαγείη πρὸς τριπλαῖς ἁμαξιτοῖς.
{ΙΟ.} Ηὐδᾶτο γὰρ ταῦτ' οὐδέ πω λήξαντ' ἔχει.
{ΟΙ.} Καὶ ποῦ 'σθ' ὁ χῶρος οὗτος, οὗ τόδ' ἦν πάθος;
{ΙΟ.} Φωκὶς μὲν ἡ γῆ κλῄζεται, σχιστὴ δ' ὁδὸς
ἐς ταὐτὸ Δελφῶν κἀπὸ Δαυλίας ἄγει.
735
{ΟΙ.} Καὶ τίς χρόνος τοῖσδ' ἐστὶν οὑξεληλυθώς;
{ΙΟ.} Σχεδόν τι πρόσθεν ἢ σὺ τῆσδ' ἔχων χθονὸς
ἀρχὴν ἐφαίνου, τοῦτ' ἐκηρύχθη πόλει.
{ΟΙ.} Ὦ Ζεῦ, τί μου δρᾶσαι βεβούλευσαι πέρι;
{ΙΟ.} Τί δ' ἐστί σοι τοῦτ', Οἰδίπους, ἐνθύμιον;
740
{ΟΙ.} Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.
{ΙΟ.} Μέγας, χνοάζων ἄρτι λευκανθὲς κάρα,
μορφῆς δὲ τῆς σῆς οὐκ ἀπεστάτει πολύ.
{ΟΙ.} Οἴμοι τάλας· ἔοικ' ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀρὰς
745
δεινὰς προβάλλων ἀρτίως οὐκ εἰδέναι.
{ΙΟ.} Πῶς φῄς; ὀκνῶ τοι πρὸς σ' ἀποσκοποῦσ', ἄναξ.
{ΟΙ.} Δεινῶς ἀθυμῶ μὴ βλέπων ὁ μάντις ᾖ.
Δείξεις δὲ μᾶλλον, ἢν ἓν ἐξείπῃς ἔτι.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
cwconrad
Posts: 2112
Joined: May 5th, 2011, 5:52 pm
Location: Burnsville, NC 28714
Contact:

Re: τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε Soph. OT 740-41

Post by cwconrad »

Well, this is not the Classics-L list, and I'm just as happy about that; I am well-pleased, however, that we've apparently settled into a comfort level, of sorts, with non-Biblical Greek texts and with texts from outside of the Koine era. Stirling's query brings back old, old memories. I'm willing to attempt puzzling through this with him, for what it may be worth.
Stirling Bartholomew wrote:Soph. OT 740-41

Oedipus
Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

This syntax is spare with no wasted words, assuming the text is sound — Jebb[1] had a problem with it. Helma Dik[2] commented on it. My question pertains to the word order τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε. I noted in Jebb's comment: Herm. was inclined to defend as if τίνα φύσιν εἶχε = τίς ἦν φύσιν which is more or less what my question is about. Was Herm's analysis correct?

[1]
[740] I do not believe that Soph., or any Greek, could have written φύσιν ι τίν᾽ εἶχε, φράζε, τίνα δ᾽ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων, which Herm. was inclined to defend as if τίνα φύσιν εἶχε = τίς ἦν φύσιν. Now τίνος would easily pass into τίνα δ᾽ with a scribe who did not follow the construction; and to restore τίνος seems by far the most probable as well as the simplest remedy. No exception can be taken to the phrase τίνος ἀκμὴν ἥβης as = “the ripeness of what period of vigorous life.”
[2] Helma Dik labeled Λάϊον the topic and φύσιν a subtopic. Word Order Greek Tragic Dialogue p159 n44.

some context:
{ΟΙ.} Οἷόν μ' ἀκούσαντ' ἀτίως ἔχει, γύναι,
ψυχῆς πλάνημα κἀνακίνησις φρενῶν.
{ΙΟ.} Ποίας μερίμνης τοῦθ' ὑποστραφεὶς λέγεις;
{ΟΙ.} Ἔδοξ' ἀκοῦσαι σοῦ τόδ', ὡς ὁ Λάϊος
730
κατασφαγείη πρὸς τριπλαῖς ἁμαξιτοῖς.
{ΙΟ.} Ηὐδᾶτο γὰρ ταῦτ' οὐδέ πω λήξαντ' ἔχει.
{ΟΙ.} Καὶ ποῦ 'σθ' ὁ χῶρος οὗτος, οὗ τόδ' ἦν πάθος;
{ΙΟ.} Φωκὶς μὲν ἡ γῆ κλῄζεται, σχιστὴ δ' ὁδὸς
ἐς ταὐτὸ Δελφῶν κἀπὸ Δαυλίας ἄγει.
735
{ΟΙ.} Καὶ τίς χρόνος τοῖσδ' ἐστὶν οὑξεληλυθώς;
{ΙΟ.} Σχεδόν τι πρόσθεν ἢ σὺ τῆσδ' ἔχων χθονὸς
ἀρχὴν ἐφαίνου, τοῦτ' ἐκηρύχθη πόλει.
{ΟΙ.} Ὦ Ζεῦ, τί μου δρᾶσαι βεβούλευσαι πέρι;
{ΙΟ.} Τί δ' ἐστί σοι τοῦτ', Οἰδίπους, ἐνθύμιον;
740
{ΟΙ.} Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.
{ΙΟ.} Μέγας, χνοάζων ἄρτι λευκανθὲς κάρα,
μορφῆς δὲ τῆς σῆς οὐκ ἀπεστάτει πολύ.
{ΟΙ.} Οἴμοι τάλας· ἔοικ' ἐμαυτὸν εἰς ἀρὰς
745
δεινὰς προβάλλων ἀρτίως οὐκ εἰδέναι.
{ΙΟ.} Πῶς φῄς; ὀκνῶ τοι πρὸς σ' ἀποσκοποῦσ', ἄναξ.
{ΟΙ.} Δεινῶς ἀθυμῶ μὴ βλέπων ὁ μάντις ᾖ.
Δείξεις δὲ μᾶλλον, ἢν ἓν ἐξείπῃς ἔτι.
First, some comments on the commentary:
1) Although I'm guilty of similar arrogant declarations myself in younger days, I marvel at the sheer audacity of Jebb's "I do not believe that Soph., or any Greek, could have written φύσιν ι τίν᾽ εἶχε, φράζε, τίνα δ᾽ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων." If he really doesn't believe Sophocles could have written it, he ought to obelize the offending words, thereby acknowledging that he deems them inauthentic and beyond repair.
2) I simply don't understand what Jebb is saying in that second comment, where he seems to be saying that line 741 ought to end in τίνος ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων -- but the text he prints is τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

So: the question is how to understand the text and construction of
Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

Here's my take: The context indicates that Oedipus is summoning into full consciousness the memory of the encounter with the stranger who lashed out at him at the pass in Phocis. What did he look like? How old was he? Can Jocasta describe him in a way that will either confirm or dispel his suspicion that it was none other than himself who killed Laius?

That is to say: He tells her: "I'm not ready yet for your questions put to me. I need to know first what you can tell me. τὸν ... Λάϊον is not so much the "direct object" of φράζε as it is an accusative of specification: "About Laius: tell me ... "

τὸν ... Λάϊον is not so much the "direct object" of φράζε as it is an accusative of specification: "About Laius: tell me ... "
φύσιν/ τίν' εἶχε: what physiognomy did he have? What did he look like?
τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων: what peak (ἀκμὴν) of aging (ἥβης) was he wearing/bearing/maintaining (ἔχων)?

It's worth noting, however, that the text as amended by Jebb and printed in his edition with commentary reads as follows for lines 740-741:

Οἰδίπους
[740] μήπω μʼ ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίνʼ ἦλθε φράζε, τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

That's much neater: ἦλθε has replaced εἶχε, while ἔχων governs both φύσιν τίν(α) and τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης.
οὔτοι ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖς ὑπέδειξαν,
ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητέοντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον. (Xenophanes, Fragment 16)

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
Stirling Bartholomew
Posts: 1141
Joined: August 9th, 2012, 4:19 pm

Re: τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν τίν' εἶχε Soph. OT 740-41

Post by Stirling Bartholomew »

cwconrad wrote:Well, this is not the Classics-L list, and I'm just as happy about that; I am well-pleased, however, that we've apparently settled into a comfort level, of sorts, with non-Biblical Greek texts and with texts from outside of the Koine era. Stirling's query brings back old, old memories. I'm willing to attempt puzzling through this with him, for what it may be worth.


First, some comments on the commentary:
1) Although I'm guilty of similar arrogant declarations myself in younger days, I marvel at the sheer audacity of Jebb's "I do not believe that Soph., or any Greek, could have written φύσιν ι τίν᾽ εἶχε, φράζε, τίνα δ᾽ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων." If he really doesn't believe Sophocles could have written it, he ought to obelize the offending words, thereby acknowledging that he deems them inauthentic and beyond repair.
2) I simply don't understand what Jebb is saying in that second comment, where he seems to be saying that line 741 ought to end in τίνος ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων -- but the text he prints is τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

So: the question is how to understand the text and construction of
Μήπω μ' ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίν' εἶχε φράζε, τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

Here's my take: The context indicates that Oedipus is summoning into full consciousness the memory of the encounter with the stranger who lashed out at him at the pass in Phocis. What did he look like? How old was he? Can Jocasta describe him in a way that will either confirm or dispel his suspicion that it was none other than himself who killed Laius?

That is to say: He tells her: "I'm not ready yet for your questions put to me. I need to know first what you can tell me. τὸν ... Λάϊον is not so much the "direct object" of φράζε as it is an accusative of specification: "About Laius: tell me ... "

τὸν ... Λάϊον is not so much the "direct object" of φράζε as it is an accusative of specification: "About Laius: tell me ... "
φύσιν/ τίν' εἶχε: what physiognomy did he have? What did he look like?
τίνα δ' ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων: what peak (ἀκμὴν) of aging (ἥβης) was he wearing/bearing/maintaining (ἔχων)?

It's worth noting, however, that the text as amended by Jebb and printed in his edition with commentary reads as follows for lines 740-741:

Οἰδίπους
[740] μήπω μʼ ἐρώτα· τὸν δὲ Λάϊον φύσιν
τίνʼ ἦλθε φράζε, τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης ἔχων.

That's much neater: ἦλθε has replaced εἶχε, while ἔχων governs both φύσιν τίν(α) and τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης.
Thank you Carl. So it appears that εἶχε is difficult. Goffery Steadman follows Jebb's suggestion and reads ἦλθε and his notes agree with your analysis, "that ἔχων governs both φύσιν τίν(α) and τίνα δʼ ἀκμὴν ἥβης."

Λάϊον is not so much the "direct object" of φράζε as it is an accusative of specification: "About Laius: tell me ... "
I think that is what Helma Dik is saying but of course she uses different language. I find your language easy to understand.
C. Stirling Bartholomew
Post Reply

Return to “Other Greek Texts”