On Sophocles, Oedipus Rex 258–264 (original) (raw)
Related papers
Once more the end of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus
Journal of Hellenic Studies 131 (2011) 85-93
This article challenges the conclusion of Kovacs (2009) that Oedipus Tyrannus 1468−1523 is an interpolation, arguing that the evidence he brings is insufficient (except possibly in regard to 1500−02), that his proposal regarding Sophocles' original conclusion to the play is unsatisfactory and that in 1468−1523 several significant features of the play's opening scenes are repeated or reversed.
Andreas Markantonatos, Eleni Volonaki (Eds.), Poet and Orator: A Symbiotic Relationship in Democratic Athens, De Gruyter, Berlin-Boston 2019, pp. 153-180., 2019
«Do you see this, natives of this land?». Formalized speech and Sophocles’ “Oedipus at Colonus” The last drama staged in the fifth century BC was Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus. It is well known that in his late production, Sophocles was inevitably confronted with contemporary Euripidean drama; critics usually highlight the great influence exerted by the rhetorical and sophistic use of deceitful language, especially for the character of Odysseus in the Philoctetes. In the Oedipus at Colonus, however, the audience witnesses a long sequence of speeches in which speakers constantly try to convince and persuade their interlocutors by retelling and partly manipulating the past (as for instance in Polynices’ speech); moreover, some of them echo trial scenes: a few elements of (not only) forensic rhetoric play an important role in the decision-making process and in directing the action. This can be observed especially in the confrontation between Creon and Oedipus (a kind of short agôn), in which modern readers note how such a clever speaker as Creon – capable of using a repertoire of rhetorical techniques to deceive Theseus – is judged negatively because of his deeds. Creon is well aware of the power of language, and his use of logos depends on his peculiar situation: as a foreign emissary, he has to flatter the Athenian community, to defend himself, and to persuade Theseus, whereas his behaviour and language towards Oedipus are rude and more intimate. Theseus himself makes use of the main elements of Athenian propaganda and ideology in blaming Creon’s conduct and in praise of the polis. What is at stake here is the moral evaluation of a well-conceived discourse based on lying statements and weak arguments, whereas in the case of Oedipus’ interventions what seems to prevail is the tone of a ‘truthful tongue’ which gives voice to apologetic speeches, in particular when using the language of probability to account for his parricide.
Soph. Ant. 471 and Aeschylus’ Oedipus. Philologia Classica 2017, 12(1), 4–11.
Zoia A. Barzakh Z. Soph. Ant. 471 and Aeschylus’ Oedipus. Philologia Classica 2017, 12(1), 4–11. , 2017
The article is dedicated to the interpretation of Soph. Ant. 471–2. The main problems posed by these verses are the meaning of the epithet ὠμός, the ambiguous reference to Oedipus and the comparison of Antigone to him. Basing on lexicological analysis and interpretation of the context, the author rejects the understanding of ὠμός as “savage, uncivilized” which became popular in the last decades. Meanwhile, the author assumes that this extravagant explanation has diagnostic value, and supposes that we cannot fully understand the meaning of these lines, since we do not possess the tragedy they refer to. The author explains these verses as a reference to the lost Aeschylus’ Oedipus. In this case, the ὠμότης of Oedipus referred to consists in his curse on his sons, who, according to the testimonies of Aeschylus’ Septem and the Scholia to Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, refused to provide proper maintenance for him when he found himself in helpless state in their care. The author prefers this interpretation of Sept. 778–87 to the alternative one, which understands τροφή not as “care, maintenance”, but as “origin”. Refs 47.
The End of Sophocles' *Oedipus Tyrannus*: the sceptical case reconsidered
An earlier article of mine, Kovacs (2009a), discussed OT 1424-1530, whose genuineness was impugned most recently by Dawe (2001 and 2006). I argued that 1424-67 (which I call A) are genuine, but that 1468-1530 (which I call B) are spurious. Sommerstein (2011), accepting my defence of A, undertook the defence of all but a few lines of B as well, dismantling much of my case against it and adding the argument that the transmitted ending mirrors the play’s beginning and is therefore presumptively Sophoclean. The present article, in part a reply to Sommerstein’s reply, restates some of my earlier arguments and also presents new evidence for the spuriousness of B.