What man, what man wins more of happiness than enough to seem, and after seeming to decline? With your fate as my example, your fate, unhappy Oedipus, I say that nothing pertaining to mankind is enviable.
Lloyd-Jones LCL 1994 Harvard UP.
Fascinating passage. Does this chorus reflect more than the opinions of the men in the chorus? In other words how seriously should we take their evaluation of the scenario?
I don’t have a decent commentary on the Play. One which explains in plain english what this Chorus contributes to the story. Does it reflect a synopsis of what the play is all about? I have reasons to doubt this but I really don’t know. Any help would be appreciated.
I’d say this chorus contributes nothing at all to the story; and that it reflects the opinions (or at least the responses) of the men in the chorus at this particular juncture in the drama. It’s not so much an evaluation of the scenario as a reaction to the turn of events, and as such is perfectly in keeping. Of course that’s not all it does, but I think it would be a mistake to see it as encapsulating “what the play is all about,” or as representing Sophocles’ philosophy of life or anything like that.
If Patrick Finglass’s commentary on the OT is out yet, you should read that. And so should I.
Patrick Finglass OT is out there but somewhat newish for in inter lib loan. CORRECTION: I can’t find it on OCLC worldcat so it probably isn’t out there. I got a one time hit offering it both as hard back and paper back with a publishing date of early 2015 but could not reproduce the event.
You’ve got the syntax. τον σον δαιμονα object of εχων, παραδειγμα predicate. The double repetition of τον σον does indeed make a strong impression, though I wouldn’t call it distracting! It’s intensifying, showing how intently focussed the chorus is on Oedipus and how emotionally affected they are. Reiterated words are characteristic of impassioned lyric. — Cf. 1189, τίς γαρ τίς, 1211 πως ποτε πως ποθ’ and 1217 ειθε σ’ ειθε σε.
δαιμων is a tricky concept, and a tricky word to translate. It’s as much “fortune” as “fate.” Oed has turned out to be κακοδαιμων rather than ευδαιμων (cf. 1190).
You see how skillfully the ode is constructed. There’s a pair of stanzas in metrical responsion with one another (strophe and antistrophe), each consisting of three major verses (τὸν σὸν … μακαρίζω being the third in the strophe, ~ εξ οὗ … ἀνάσσων In the antistrophe), and then another such pair (str./ant.β), a little more variegated. Meter and syntax are closely correlated (note the stops at the end of each of the metrically defined major verses). You’ll also notice how the second pair (1204ff.) switches from Oedipus’ glorious past to his wretched present (marked by that pathetic τα νῦν δε).
Choral odes are thought to have been sung (and danced) by the entire chorus. The chorus leader represents the chorus in the spoken dialogue parts. It’s normal for the chorus as a collective entity to sing of itself in the singular: so here. αναριθμω, εχων, μακαριζω, etc. So too in the earlier songs.
Yes, I suspect the semantic domain of δαιμων doesn’t lend itself to English glosses. There are a number of ideas packaged together in δαιμων which would require explanation to a “modern” audience, unless of course you are a millennial who grew up reading vampire novels.
On the subject of syntax, Cooper has several remarks to make about καὶ τὰ μέγιστ’ ἐτιμάθης. Cooper considers τὰ μέγιστα a substantive adjective with a passive verb but also suggests it might be considered an adverb(ial). For whatever reason, he addresses the two arguments associate with ἐτιμάθης under the heading of double accusatives. The first accusative τὰ μέγιστα and the second (argument) being a participle ἀνάσσων clause which doesn’t happen to be an accusative which he explains as well. Cooper’s analysis seems to get high-centered due to working with categories that don’t apply to the sample text under consideration. I don’t see anything particularly difficult about the syntax. But as a learning experience I look up all the references in the index of Cooper and read what he has to say.
Good point, something I was overlooking. Been a while since I listened to Elizabeth Vandiver’s lectures on this.