Soph OT 1183-1185

[C. S. Bartholomew]

Soph OT 1183-1185
Ὦ φῶς, τελευταῖόν σε προσβλέψαιμι νῦν,
ὅστις πέφασμαι φύς τ' ἀφ' ὧν οὐ χρῆν, ξὺν οἷς τ'
οὐ χρῆν ὁμιλῶν, οὕς τέ μ' οὐκ ἔδει κτανών. 1185

The syntax of 1184-85 is interesting.

Bunch of questions:
#0 why ὅστις rather than ὅς ?

#1 is οὐ χρῆν = οὐκ ἔδει ?

#2 πέφασμαι + three participles (φύς, ὁμιλῶν, κτανών) is an extended metaphor from Ὦ φῶς ? Note the metaphor is lost in Jebb and Lloyd-Jones, see below.

#3 why do several translations render φύς τ' ἀφ' ὧν οὐ χρῆν as "born under a curse" or something like that. It isn't obvious how οὐ χρῆν ... leads to a rendering like:

I who have been found to be accursed in birth, [1185] accursed in wedlock, accursed in the shedding of blood. Jebb

I who am revealed as cursed in my birth, cursed in my marriage, cursed in my killing! Lloyd-Jones 1994

#4 οἷς and οὕς plural. Does that mean what it appears to mean that more than one person is in view? (Cooper says it does not. vol 3, 44.3.6.0 p1934). Which leads to a second question:

#5 ξὺν οἷς τ' οὐ χρῆν ὁμιλῶν is a vague way to make reference to his marriage. ὁμιλῶν has a wide semantic range. I may be having a problem with archaic english in LSJ: consort with .

Guy Cooper addresses related questions. The syntax of πέφασμαι + three participles (φύς, ὁμιλῶν, κτανών) is addressed vol. 3, p2547, 56:1-3.0., p2552 56.4.4.A.

[Qimmik]

#0 See LSJ ὅστις:

II. referring to a definite object, prop. only when a general notion is implied, Πολυκράτεα . . , δι᾽ ὅντινα κακῶς ἤκουσε, not the man through whom, but one through whom . . , Hdt.3.120; τελευταῖόν σε προσβλέψαιμι νῦν, ὅστις πέφασμαι φύς τ᾽ ἀφ᾽ ὧν οὐ χρῆν may I see thee now for the last time, I who am one born from sinful parentage, S.OT1184, cf. A.Pr. 38, Ag.1065; but in quite definite sense, “βωμόν, ὅστις νῦν ἔξω τῆς πόλεώς ἐστι” Th.6.3: sts. even with οὗτος or ὅδε as antec., Hdt.1.167, 2.99, 6.47, E.Hipp.943, Theoc.8.87.

"I, someone who . . . "

#1 Yes. There was a recent post on χρῆ and δει -- over time they became interchangeable.

#2 πέφασμαι I think you're right: a metaphor--the light is shining on O.'s transgressions--but also simply "I, someone who am clearly shown/exposed/revealed to . . . "

See Smyth 2106.

#3 "born under a curse" is a stretch. More literal: "begotten from those from whom I shouldn't have been [begotten]."

#4 just a generalizing plural, corresponding to the use of ὅστις instead of ὅς.

#5 ὁμιλῶν is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

duplicate

[C. S. Bartholomew]

#5 ὁμιλῶν is a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Q, Thank you for all the help,

RE: ὁμιλῶν, somehow I didn't see this in LSJ:

ὁμῑλέω
of marriage or sexual intercourse, γυναιξὶ καὶ παρθένοις ὁ. X.An.3.2.25 ; παιδικοῖς Id.Mem.2.1.24, etc. ; σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις S.OT367, cf. 1185 ; cf. Moer.p.276 P.

ὁμῑλία
sexual intercourse, Hdt.1.182, X.Smp.8.22, Mem.3.11.14, etc. ; νυμφικαὶ ὁ. E.Hel. 1400 ; ὁ. τῶν ἀφροδισίων Arist.HA582a26 ; ἡ πρὸς τοὺς ἄρρενας or τῶν ἀρρένων ὁ., Id.Pol.1272a24, 1269b29.

While this is not important for reading Sophocles, I was surprised to find both the verb and noun in the New Testament. It isn't common. It is never used with that connotation.

Luke 24:14 καὶ αὐτοὶ ὡμίλουν πρὸς ἀλλήλους περὶ πάντων τῶν συμβεβηκότων τούτων. 15 καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ ὁμιλεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ συζητεῖν καὶ αὐτὸς Ἰησοῦς ἐγγίσας συνεπορεύετο αὐτοῖς,

Acts 20:11 ἀναβὰς δὲ καὶ κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον καὶ γευσάμενος ἐφ᾿ ἱκανόν τε ὁμιλήσας ἄχρι αὐγῆς, οὕτως ἐξῆλθεν.

Acts 24:26 ἅμα καὶ ἐλπίζων ὅτι χρήματα δοθήσεται αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου· διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον αὐτὸν μεταπεμπόμενος ὡμίλει αὐτῷ.

1Cor. 15:33 μὴ πλανᾶσθε· φθείρουσιν ἤθη χρηστὰ ὁμιλίαι

However, there are examples of that connotation in Ex. 21:10 LXX and Judith (LXX)

Ex. 21:10 ἐὰν δὲ ἄλλην λάβῃ ἑαυτῷ, τὰ δέοντα καὶ τὸν ἱματισμὸν καὶ τὴν ὁμιλίαν αὐτῆς οὐκ ἀποστερήσει.

Judith 12:12 ἰδοὺ γὰρ αἰσχρὸν τῷ προσώπῳ ἡμῶν εἰ γυναῖκα τοιαύτην παρήσομεν οὐχ ὁμιλήσαντες αὐτῇ· ὅτι ἐὰν ταύτην μὴ ἐπισπασώμεθα, καταγελάσεται ἡμῶν.

The use of the noun/verb word group in the early church fathers indicates that the sexual connotation was pretty much lost to them since they use it contexts which would make that connotation blasphemous.

[C. S. Bartholomew]

#2 πέφασμαι I think you're right: a metaphor--the light is shining on O.'s transgressions--but also simply "I, someone who am clearly shown/exposed/revealed to . . . "

See Smyth 2106.

Smyth 2143. φαίνομαι with part in O. O. (2106) = I am plainly; with inf. in O. O. = I seem or it appears (but may not be true) that I. Thus, φαίνεται τἀ_ληθῆ λέγων he is evidently speaking the truth, φαίνεται τἀ_ληθῆ λέγειν he appears to be speaking the truth (but he may be lying). Cp. τῇ φωνῇ . . . κλαίειν ἐφαίνετο lit. by his voice it appeared that he was weeping (but he was not weeping) X. S. 1. 15. The above distinction is, however, not always maintained.

Cooper talks about this several places I have already mentioned. Unfortunately I can't cut an paste it. He says that nominative participles with φαίνομαι, etc. may function as predicate nominatives (Guy Cooper, Greek Syntax, vol. 3, p2547, 56:1-3.0., p2552 56.4.4.A). He also points out the difference between the participle and infinitive mentioned in Smyth 2143 above.

[mwh]

I doubt that a spectator or reader would have directly associated πεφασμαι with φως, though certainly they share the same general imagery, thematized throughout the play. φως is the light of day, standard tragic idiom (more literal than metonymic, and not metaphorical), whereas πεφασμαι is just the perfect of the ubiquitous φαινομαι. Ll-J's “am revealed” seems about right.
The use here, “I am revealed as (i) having been born …” etc. is a little different from the normal use of φαινομαι + pple. (“I am obviously …”, as opposed to φ.+inf., “I am apparently …”). It’s more marked, functioning as properly passive.

ομιλεῖν is a common word, and its use here is in keeping with the riddle-like nature of the three phrases (now that all the riddles have been solved). The euphemistic use is mainly Attic. It doesn’t surprise to find the verb and cognates in NT and koine, without sexual connotation; perhaps slightly surprising to find the noun so used in LXX: a reflex of the Hebrew?

The χρη/δει discussion is http://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-foru ... =2&t=64212. Here it looks as if χρην and εδει are completely synonymous. Perhaps ουκ εδει is used rather than ουκ εχρην as giving a slightly stronger effect as the third item of the trio (it’s the only one with explicit με). Or to avoid excessive repetition and to vary the closing item? Or to avoid mixing augmented and unaugmented forms? I really can’t say, but this well illustrates the semantic merger of the two verbs.