1505-1507
The imperf.
χρῆν,
with
εἶναι, implies
that, though it ought to be so, it is not. The sense is, in
substance, what might be expressed by a conditional sentence,
“
ἥδε δίκη ἦν ἂν τοῖς πᾶσιν, εἰ
τὸ εἰκὸς ἔπαθον.”
εὐθὺς, immediately
after the crime in each case; Aegisthus has enjoyed too long an
impunity.
Cp. 13 f.n.
θέλει is better here
than
θέλοι, since it
suggests more clearly the reference to the actual case of
Aegisthus. The optative is, however, also tenable. It would mark
the generality of the statement, ‘any one who should
wish’; and could follow a present, “
χρή”, no less than “
χρῆν” (cp.
Ant. 666).—
τοῖς πᾶσιν …
ὅστις: cp.
Ai. 760, where “
ὅστις” refers to “
σώματα” in 758:
Ant. 709, where “
οὗτοι” follows “
ὅστις”
in 707:
Eur. El. 933
“
κἀκείνους στυγῶ” |
“
τοὺς παῖδας, ὅστις κ.τ.λ.”:
Plat. Rep. 566 D
“
ἀσπάζεται πάντας ᾧ ἂν
περιτυγχάνῃ”.
πράσσειν γε: “
γε” emphasises, not “
πράσσειν”, but rather the whole sentence, and might
have immediately followed “
ὅστις”,
if metre had allowed: cp.
Il. 3. 279“
ἀνθρώπους τίνυσθον, ὅτις γ᾽ ἐπίορκον
ὀμόσσῃ”. Certainly “
πράσσειν
τι” is no improvement.
κτείνειν, rather than
“
θνῄσκειν”, because the speaker
is himself the executioner. For the emphatic place of the word,
cp. 957
“
Αἴγισθον.”
τὸ πανοῦργον, equiv.
in sense to “
οἱ πανοῦργοι”:
cp. 972 n.:
Thuc. 1. 13“
τὸ λῃστικὸν
καθῄρουν”.—
Shakesp. Meas. for
Meas. act 2, sc. 2, 91:
“
‘Those many had not dared to do
that evil, | If the first that did the edict
infringe | Had answer'd for his
deed.’”
Nicephorus Vasilákes (“
Βασιλάκης”), a professor of rhetoric at Constantinople
in the latter part of the twelfth century, places these three
verses of Sophocles at the head of a short piece in his
rhetorical ‘Exercises’ (“
Προγυμνάσματα”), and makes them the text of a
discourse evidently prompted by the evils of his own time. The
verses remind us, he says, how well Sophocles understood the
function of Tragedy as a “
κοινὴ
παιδαγωγία”, or vehicle of moral teaching. After setting
forth in action the warning example of Aegisthus, the poet here
“
ἀποδίδωσι λόγον ξυνᾴδοντα τοῖς
εἰργασμένοις”,
i.e.,
generalises the lesson. From a literary and aesthetic point of
view the remark deserves the notice of those who, like Dindorf,
think the verses spurious. If the speech of Orestes ended with
v. 1504, the effect would manifestly be too abrupt.
