No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
AESCHYLUS, SEPTEM CONTRA THEBAS 780–7
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 March 2017
Extract
In a recent paper, M. Finkelberg has endorsed part of M.L. West's emendation of the fifth strophe of the second stasimon in Aeschylus’ Seven against Thebes (= Sept.). In her opinion, accepting West's emendation also allows adopting earlier emendations proposed by Schütz and Prien, leading to a better understanding of the passage. It is recalled that this is where the chorus relates the disasters that ensued from Oedipus’ discovery of the truth about his marriage. In the following short discussion, I intend to revisit and defend once again the reading, according to which the two acts mentioned in connection with Oedipus’ discovery are gouging out his eyes and casting a curse on his sons, and not murdering his father and bedding his mother.
- Type
- Shorter Notes
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2017
References
1 West, M.L. (ed.), Aeschyli Tragoediae cum incerti poetae Prometheo (Stuttgart, 1990)Google Scholar; Finkelberg, M., ‘Aeschylus, Septem contra Thebas 780–7’, CQ 64 (2014), 832–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 For the discussion, see West, M.L., Studies in Aeschylus (Stuttgart, 1990), 116–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 West (n. 2), 117.
4 West (n. 2), 117.
5 Hutchinson, G.O. (ed.), Aeschylus Seven against Thebes (Oxford, 1985), 172Google Scholar.
6 Hutchinson (n. 5), 172.
7 Soph. OT 1371–4; Ar. Ra. 1182–95. Blinding as punishment for improper sexual behaviour is well known in Greek literature. See, for example, West, S., ‘Phoenix's antecedents: a note on Iliad 9’, SCI 20 (2001), 1–15 Google Scholar.
8 As Finkelberg indeed reads (n. 1), 834.
9 Baldry, H.C., ‘The dramatisation of the Theban legend’, G&R 3 (1956), 24–37 Google Scholar, at 31; Manton, G.R., ‘The second stasimon of the Seven against Thebes ’, BICS 8 (1961), 77–84 Google Scholar, at 82; Hutchinson (n. 5), xxv; March, J.R., The Creative Poet. Studies on the Treatment of Myths in Greek Poetry (BICS Supplement 49) (London, 1987), 143Google Scholar.
10 The replacement of ἀραίας with ἀθλίας was accepted by Finkelberg (n. 1), 833; March (n. 9), 141 n. 116; Hutchinson (n. 5), 172; Sommerstein, A.H., Aeschylus (Cambridge, MA, 2008)Google Scholar.
11 In the Oedipodea version (fr. 1 West), Pausanias says that Jocasta bore Oedipus no children (because of Hom. Od. 9.271-80). This and other sources are discussed in Davies, M., The Theban Epics (Washington, DC, 2015), 21–4Google Scholar.
12 March (n. 9), 144 n. 136: although the curse is not explicit about the sons killing each other, this is implied, especially in line 726, where there is clear mention that this was the result of the curse. Cf. also lines 840–1, where the chorus says: ἐξέπραξεν, οὐδ’ ἀπεῖπε | πατρόθεν εὐκταία φάτις (‘The curse of the father did not fail but has come true’).
13 Thalmann, W.G., Dramatic Art in Aeschylus's ‘Seven Against Thebes’ (New Haven, CT, 1978), 20Google Scholar.
14 Solmsen, F., ‘The Erinys in Aischylos’ Septem ’, TAPhA 68 (1937), 197–211 Google Scholar, at 200. The change was clearly apparent from line 653 on.
15 Cf. LSJ on ἐπίκοτος: ‘in wrath at the sons he had bred’.
16 Similar to the famous difference in the prophecy given to Laius. Aeschylus chose to phrase the prophecy as an implicit warning or as an indirect command and not as fate: ‘… he should die without offspring to save the city’ (748–9). Sophocles chose to make the prophecy more personal, one that regards the father and his son, and not the whole city. He also phrases the prophecy as Laius’ inevitable fate: ‘… that he will be fated to die by the hands of the son that will be born of me [Jocasta] and him …’ (713–14).