Third Chorus Soph. OT {Ant. 2.} 896-910

Here you can discuss all things Ancient Greek. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Greek, and more.
Post Reply
C. S. Bartholomew
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1259
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 10:03 pm

Third Chorus Soph. OT {Ant. 2.} 896-910

Post by C. S. Bartholomew »

I was doing a little free-association contemplation re: Soph. OT 896-901. It sounds to me like a little bit of post-enlightenment scepticism, something vaguely like: if you can't demonstrate to me how the oracles prediction is fulfilled in a manner that everyman can verify by observation, I will give up participating in the worship … traveling to the temple, oracle whatever. Since academic criticism of Sophocles is foreign territory I looked for an article on this and found several. Posted an excerpt from Philipp Brandenburg (Kiel) 2005. The author's take on this passage was different than what I was day dreaming about. Kind of like a Gentile picking up a commentary by an ancient Rabbi.
Χορός 896-910 {Ant. 2.}
οὐκέτι τὸν ἄθικτον εἶμι
γᾶς ἐπ’ ὀμφαλὸν σέβων,
οὐδ’ ἐς τὸν Ἀβαῖσι ναὸν
οὐδὲ τὰν Ὀλυμπίαν,
εἰ μὴ τάδε χειρόδεικτα
πᾶσιν ἁρμόσει βροτοῖς.
ἀλλ’, ὦ κρατύνων, εἴπερ ὄρθ’ ἀκούεις,
Ζεῦ, πάντ’ ἀνάσσων, μὴ λάθοι
σὲ τάν τε σὰν ἀθάνατον αἰὲν ἀρχάν.
φθίνοντα γὰρ Λαΐου παλαίφατα
θέσφατ’ ἐξαιροῦσιν ἤδη,
κοὐδαμοῦ τιμαῖς Ἀπόλλων ἐμφανής·
ἔρρει δὲ τὰ θεῖα.
No more will I go reverently
to earth's central and inviolate shrine,
no more to Abae's temple
or Olympia,
if these oracles fit not the issue,
so that all men shall point at them with the finger.
Nay, Lord, - if Thou art rightly thus called, -
Zeus, all-ruling, may it not
escape Thee and Thy ever-deathless power!
The old prophecies concerning Laius are fading;
already men are setting them at naught,
and nowhere is Apollo glorified with honors;
the worship of the Gods is perishing.
R. C. Jebb
But if a man moves arrogantly in deed or word, without fear of Justice, and without reverence for the seats of the gods, may an evil fate take him, for his ill-starred pride, if he will not win his advantage justly and keep himself from acts irreverent, or if he wantonly lays hands on things inviolate! In such a case, what man shall ward off the shafts of [. . .]? For if such actions are to win respect, why should we honour the gods with dances?
No longer shall I go in reverence to the inviolate navel of the earth, nor to the temple at Abae, nor to that of Olympia, if these oracles do not accord with truth, so that all mortals may point to them. But o ruler, if you are rightly thus called, Zeus, lord of all, may this not escape you and your ever deathless power! For already the oracles of Laius are fading and are being expunged, and nowhere is Apollo manifest in honour; but the power of the gods is perishing.
LCL 1994 Lloyd-Jones
Again keywords interconnect this strophic pair, σέβων in 886 by 898, and
τίμιαι in 895 by τιμαις in 909. Whereas the antecedent strophe dealt with the evil
and outrageous actions, this antistrophos now deals with the consequences for the
Chorus' faith. They do not want to visit the holy oracles any longer, unless something
(τάδε 901, but what?[43]) is taken for granted by all humans. They turn towards Zeus
and appeal to Him for a reestablishment of Apollo's reputation and, concomitantly, of
his oracular saying to Laius.

At first sight the critical tone in 896-902 and 910 contradicts the faithful
sentences in 872 and 882, but the Chorus differentiate precisely between θεός (the
metaphysical entity) and θεία (the worldly institutions[44] including the oracles). They
want to maintain their faith in God (882) who may probably be identified with Zeus,
but their faith in His worldly representatives is gone (910). This observation can only
be satisfyingly explained in the context of the revolt-hypothesis: Creon is assumed to
deliver forged oracular sayings from Delphi (96-8. HOsq.) and to abuse the faith in
the oracles to foster his intrigue, thus undermining the trustworthiness of the oracles.

[43] Carey, I.e. (n. 3), p. 178: "τάδε here is obscure. [...] Probably the ambiguity is
intended."
[44] The same distinction is made by locaste 712, cf Müller, I.e. (n. 3), p. 271,
Winnington-Ingram, I.e. (n. 3), p. 119 sq. = o.e. (n. 3), p. 180: "Greeks in the fifth century
were not disposed to accept anything [...] from prophets, whose fallibility, not to mention their
venality, was common knowledge or common suspicion."

Philipp Brandenburg (Kiel), The Second Stasimon in Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus. L'antiquité classique, Tome 74, 2005. pp. 29-40
C. Stirling Bartholomew

Post Reply