RESTORATION OF A VERSE IN SOPHOCLES. 505 



The fourth verfe of the antiftrophe made me fufpedt 

 that it had what was wanting in the foregoing ; for he 

 was a whole moloflus longer than his brother in the 

 ftrophe. I wrote eg ccvlpw apart as a beginning of the 

 fifth verfe, and in the ftrophe ftruck away the diasrefis 

 over AVJwvfu. 



To the fifth verfe the antiftrophe returned the tone. 

 For both e£ uvlpw and o^oc^oorov appeared to found 

 purely ; and the fifth verfe of the ftrophe was already 

 fufpicious on account of its rapidity, which feemed to 

 me more incongruous with the foregoing longs, and 

 the ferioufnefs of the contents, than I had expected in 

 fo great a mafter of harmony. Neither did I expect the 

 cacophony caufed by ufing ep twice fo quickly on one 

 another, once in compolition with the adjective, and 

 again as a prepolition. And what is the meaning of 

 /wWs ? That CEdipus never had made a difficult 

 journey to the regions of the dead ? But he was now 

 travelling thither. The fcholiaft pronounces this paf- 

 fage to be corrupt, as in his copy there was Ma poi, 

 which he knew not what to do with. On the whole it 

 appeared that the glofs had flipt into the text. 



In confequence of this difcovery, the firft thing I 

 did was to ftrike out stt* from before -ctovw. It is nothing 

 new among the lyric poets, for the regent of two words 

 to ftand, not before the firft, but before the fecond. 

 TRus : iEfchylus, Prometheus, ver. 689. htsot n%*f*w 



the viii th Nemaean chorus of Pindar, ver. 70. (ro$oi; 

 xvfywv oc c .pQzt$ ev &r/ooioig re wpo; vypocv ociQzpoc. Accordingly, 



the gloffator, in the conftruction, placed the be- 

 fore 



