Sir Richard C. Jebb, Commentary on Sophocles: Philoctetes

---

---

ἡδὺ γάρ τι κτῆμα (“τὸ κτῆμα”) τῆς νίκης λαβεῖν (“ἐστι”): the possession consisting in victory (defining gen.) is a pleasant possession to win. “κτῆμα”, which, without an art., stands as predicate, has to be supplied, with an art., as subject. So Plat. Theaet. 209 E “ἡδὺ χρῆμ᾽ ἂν εἴη τοῦ καλλίστου τῶν περὶ ἐπιστήμης λόγου”, i.e. (“τὸ χρῆμα”) “τοῦ...λόγου ἡδὺ χρῆμ᾽ ἂν εἴη”, (‘our most successful definition of knowledge would be a pretty affair’): where (“τὸ χρῆμα”) “τοῦ...λόγου” is a mere periphrasis for “ὁ...λόγος”. Eur. Andr. 957“σοφόν τι χρῆμα τοῦ διδάξαντος βροτοὺς” | “λόγους ἀκούειν”, ‘a wonder of wisdom was he who taught’ (etc.), where (“τὸ χρῆμα”) “τοῦ διδάξαντος” is a periphrasis for “ὁ διδάξας”. Sometimes the defining gen. has no art.: Eur. Andr. 181“ἐπίφθονόν τι χρῆμα θηλειῶν ἔφυ”: i.e. (“τὸ”) “θηλειῶν” (“χρῆμα”) “ἐπίφθονόν τι χρῆμά ἐστι”.—The reading “ἡδὺ γάρ τοι” (instead of τι) is preferred by several edd. The combination “ἀλλὰ... γάρ τοι” is unusual (no example occurs in Soph. ); but that matters little, since here “ἀλλὰ γάρ” is not elliptically used (cp. Soph. Ant. 148 n.); i.e. “ἀλλά” goes with “τόλμα”, and therefore “γάρ”, in the parenthetic clause, could be followed by “τοι” as legitimately as if there were no “ἀλλά” in question. The reasons for preferring τι seem to be these: (a) τοι would be bluntly sententious, while τι has a more delicate persuasiveness: (b) τι is elsewhere associated with the peculiar constr. used here: see Eur. Andr. 181, Eur. Andr. 957, quoted above, and ib. 727 “ἀνειμένον τι χρῆμα πρεσβυτῶν ἔφυ”.—（“τὸ κτῆμα”) τῆς ϝίκης: for the defining gen., cp. 159 f., 403 f.: O. T. 1474“τὰ φίλτατ᾽ ἐκγόνοιν ἐμοῖν” (‘my darlings—my two daughters’), Ant. 471“τὸ γέννημα τῆς παιδός.”

λαβεῖν epexeg., as Ant. 439“ταῦθ᾽ ἥσσω λαβεῖν” | “ἐμοὶ πέφυκε”, n. The conjecture λαχεῖν would be as good, but no better.