On Schneidewiri 8 Edition of the (Edipus Rex. 325 But I have not less strong objections on the score of syntax. It may not be much (but it is something) to say, that the only optative with which oOovvena is elsewhere found (and in its sense of that, not because) is the future optative. (Ed. Col. 944 : fjbr) b' odovveic avbpa Kai irarpoKTOvov Kavayvov ov Scholar', old' OTOi ydfxot vv6vts evpedtjcrav dvocrioi (fiikcov. But I feel assured that, if a past optative stood in the primary dependence (as this imaginary oyjratvro), then the sub- dependent verbs must be optative also, and not indicative, as eira<Txev> fya are here. Most of my readers are probably aware that the optative of the future is not constructed as other opta- tives (in protasis or apodosis or in subdependent clauses), but stands merely for the indicative of the future in primary depend- ence on historical tenses. For this reason it does not require optatives in subdependence, but indicatives ; (here we have tira- axw-i *8p a > &> *XPB&*f an d in (Ed. Col. 945, evpedrjo-av.) Therefore oOovvata oyfratvTo would be erroneous in subdependence on 6-^oiaro. For these reasons I have no hesitation in rejecting the fictitious oyfraivro, or any other past optative in this place. Render : " speak- ing to this effect ; that they (his eyes) should not see either what evils he was enduring, or what he was doing, but in darkness hence- forth should see those he would not, and not recognize those he would." To interpret minutely the second clause, would be little in accordance with the spirit of Sophocles, who has wrapt the sense in awful mystery. CEdipus, when blind, would not recog- nize his dear living children ; but his darkened eyes would be haunted by unwelcome visitors from the world of darkness. 1463, alv ov 770$' f)p.T) X W P' S eo~Ta6r) ftopas Tpa7T(' avev rovb' dvdpos. That corruption exists here, is next to certain, and probably in the words f)p.r) x oi P LS -> or m wh alone. Schneidewin conjectures otaiv for rjprj. "aAXt; or drfs or rjp&v would any of them be more probable. I have sometimes thought that the two words i;/*j) xopis might be corrupted from ^fiixapis or from an adjective com- pounded of f,p.l, and agreeing with rpcm^a, as fip.ip.eorTo$ or jjp.idovKos. If there were any reason to suppose that dishes went from the parental table to that of the children, we might venture on 77/it/3po)ros (gen.) agreeing with ftopds. This would be in accord- ance with what follows :
