{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035686578743211794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.04034134988363072, 'mean_word_length': 4.972222222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A TRANSPOSITION OF STANZAS IN THE PARODOS OF OEDIPUS TYRANNUS?

In 1858 Friedrich Haase argued that the final strophe (190–202) and antistrophe (203–15) of the parodos (150–215) should be transposed. Few have noticed Haase’s suggestion and fewer still have taken it seriously. R.D. Dawe mentioned it in the apparatus criticus of his third Teubner edition of Oedipus Rex (1996).1 In a subsequent article (1999) Dawe wrote that in that 1996 Teubner edition he came very close to putting Haase’s proposed transposition into his text; in his recent ‘Green and Yellow’ Cambridge commentary on Oedipus Rex (2006), a substantial revision of his 1982 edition, he actually does so.2 Were it not for Dawe’s deserved standing as one of the world’s pre-eminent textual critics of Sophocles and for the widespread use of his ‘Green and Yellow’ edition and for the possibility that this radical textual alteration might make its way into a future Teubner edition of all the plays (the second Teubner edition of Dawe’s Sophoclis Tragoediae was published in 1984), refutation of Haase’s proposal might be unnecessary. It has been neglected for 150 years and with good reason.3 Nevertheless, given the three aforementioned reasons, it is worth refuting Dawe’s resurrection of Haase’s proposal.4 In order to