The sentence ὢσπερ γxs22EFρ οxs1F31… xs1F04γουςιν as it stands, seems to be unsatisfactory. The meaning is left too vague. We except some such subject as βουκxs22EFλοι or ποιμxs22EFνες after οxs1F31, and the object of xs1F02γουσιν is placed awkwardly next to that of προσεíοντες. We feel that προσεíοντες goes too closely with xs1F02γουσιν to have anything to do with the article. It may be entirely detached by taking it more or less as a parenthetical remark.

πóθεν θράος η Θρενό ηχειρì ΤÈΚνων σÈθΕνΚαρδα τε λήψηδεινàν πpoσáγονσα τóλμαν.

The sentence ὢσπερ γ⋯ρ οἱ… ἄγουςιν as it stands, seems to be unsatisfactory. The meaning is left too vague. We except some such subject as βουκ⋯λοι or ποιμ⋯νες after οἱ, and the object of ἂγουσιν is placed awkwardly next to that of προσεíοντες. We feel that προσεíοντες goes too closely with ἂγουσιν to have anything to do with the article. It may be entirely detached by taking it more or less as a parenthetical remark.

So MSS. For xs03D5ερετε metri causa Scaliger proposed xs03D5ερετι, an emendation rightly accepted by editors. In the preceding line καιδή conceals a corruption.Wilamowitz reads:και μήν παιδωμ ταδε δή.The change,however, is too violent to recommend itself on palaeographic grounds. In his notatio critica Murray says: Fortasse παισι.

As far as I know, Kaibel is the only champion of the soundness of our text in this passage. In his edition of the Electra he has the following note : ‘Zu τòν xs22EFxs025Bxs22EF πατρóς ist, wie Haupt gezeigt hat , der Nominal-begriff aus dem Verbum zu ergäanzen, genau wie in μxs22EFανδικxs22EFζxs025Bιν, διττxs22EFν παxs1FD6σαι u. a. statt des Adjektivs steht das durch den Artikel gestützte Adverbium, vgl. Arist. Ran. 191 νxs025Bναυμxs22EFχηκxs025B τxs22EFν πxs025Bρxs22EF τxs22EFν κρxs025Bxs22EFν und das sprüchwörtliche τòν πxs025Bρxs22EF ψυχ࿆ς (...) τpεXειv. So ist auch der Komikervers ganz in Ordnung εγω Tov αλλov, αvδρεs, εTεθvηkη πáλaι aπavθ', ôv εζηv, wo zu εζηv und also auch zu ετεθvηkη sich ein Nominal-begriff wie βιóv oder χρóvov von selbst ergánzt; denn auf ein bestimmtes Nomen kommt nichts an, da kein Grieche thatsáchlich ein Nomen ergánzte, sondern den Begriff aus dem Verbum heraushörte.’ He concludes: ‘So unzweifelhaft richtig Haupts Erklärung ist, so pflegt man sie neuerdings doch wieder zu ignoriren oder zu verwerfen und die allerungläublichsten “Emendationen” zu bevorzugen.’ With the latter part of his assertion I fully agree, and am prepared to throw all emendations that have been so far suggested overboard. But with due diffidence I beg to try my hand once more at emending this passage, as I firmly believe that Sophocles has not written it as handed down to us. τóv aεì…στεváχovσ' is intolerably weak. It is far more likely that we have here a case of the wrong division of words. In uncials we should have read: HAEKTPATON, which ought to have been transcribed ΉHλεkτρ’. (shrink)

In a previous article I have cited these lines in support of my emendation ‘Ηλεκτρατον for the MS. text Ηλεκτρα τοκν, v. 1075. With Jebb I tacitly agreed that the word-order ωδ’ ακορεστον οίμωγáν was correct. The metre of vv. 138–9 οντε γools ορτε λίταίσιν must therefore be defective.