In

writers occasionally recalled them for the sake of ornament or variety. place of araúguros, which Eschylus, Agam. 252, has employed in the Chorus, Aristophanes, Lys. 217, 218, has preferred to use åravgárn in the senarius. The same writer, Pac. 978, has employed oλvriμnrn, but elsewhere, as at Thesm. 293, Toλuríμnte Ańμntig. In Esch. Agam. 1534, τὴν πολύκλαυτίν τ' Ιφιγένειαν ἀνάξια δράσας, erase the useless conjunction, and read moλvnλaúrny. In Soph. Ai. 499, Aldus has douλion for dovaíu, in opposition to the metre." Again, in Præf. ad Hek. XV.: “It is true, that the Attics most commonly give to adjectives of this class (derivatives and compounds, as ¿zóßλsæτos, Eur. Hek. 355) but one form for the masculine and feminine genders. Yet the ancient authors do not invariably observe this rule. Theogn. init., "Agreμi Ongopóvn; Pind. Nem. 3. 3, πολυξέναν Αἰγίναν ; Athen. XIII. p. 574. Α, πολύξειναι νεάνιδες.” Lobeck has cited a great number of similarly inflected epithets of the goddesses; 'Heróλn, Anth. V. 228; Togyopóvn, Eur. Ion. 1478 (add Γοργολόφα, Ar. Eqq. 1177) ; Ἱπποσόη, Pind. Οl. 3. 27; Δημήτηρ πολυPogßn, Hes. Th. 912; Moura ¿ygovóun, Meleag. Anth. VII. 169; "Hçα Ηνιόχη, Paus. 9. 39. 4; Φοβεσιστράτη, Ar. Eqq. 1173; Εγερσιμάχη, Anth. Pal. VII. 122; Zwwdíva "Agreμis, Inscr. Bœot. n. 1595; which may be compared with the proper names of women, Αστυνόμη, Ηγησάνdea, Asvoßía, Evgvdíxn, etc. Our form being, then, regarded as legitimate, Elmsley would, in the passage quoted above from the Iphig. in Tauris, correct Tavgozóan éráv, since the common reading exhibits an anapæst of a very peculiar kind. See the Edinb. Rev., Vol. XIX. p. 70. On the particles used interrogatively, consult Dindorf to Ar. Pac. 114; Brandreth to Hom. I. 5. 416; and cf. v. 902 below, where Ellendt, Adsignificatur consideratio rei indignæ et vix expectandæ."

66

기

173. Ω μεγάλα φάτις. SCHOL. : διὰ μέσου ἡ ἀναφώνησις· ὦ θαυμαστὴ φήμη, ἥτις ἐγέννησάς μοι ταύτην τὴν αἰσχύνην· κακὴ γὰρ φήμη ὑπῆρξε περὶ τοῦ Αἴαντος. In refutation of Musgrave's conjecture, ὦ μογερὰ φάτις, O infelix rumor, Erfurdt aptly cites Esch. Agam. 1492, Choeph. 479, Pers. 903, in order to prove that the adjective μiyas is frequently used by the Tragedians in the same signification as devós. With the expression μᾶτερ αἰσχύνας ἐμᾶς, compare Philokt. 1360, οἷς γὰρ ἡ γνώμη κακῶν μήτηρ γίνηται ; Æsch. Theb. 225, πειθαρχία ἐστι τῆς εὐπραξίας μήτηρ ; Eur. Troad. 1222, σύ τ ̓ ὦ ποτ ̓ οὖσα καλλίνικε μυρίων μῆτερ τροπαίων, Εκτοgos pinov σános. So, too, even in prose: Xen. Œk. 5. 17, Thy geweɣiar τῶν ἄλλων τεχνῶν μητέρα καὶ τροφὸν εἶναι ; Plutarch. V. Alc. 6, τυραννὶς μήτηρ ἀδικίας.

175. πανδάμους.

SCHOL. : ἢ τὰς παντὸς τοῦ δήμου, ἢ τὰς συνηγμένας.

The former is the true interpretation. With βοῦς ἀγελαίας, Wesseling compares Hom. Od. 17. 181, ἵρευον δὲ σύας σιάλους καὶ βοῦν ἀγελαίην.

176. Η που. Lobeck, whom Wunder follows, ή που, i. e. ἴσως, εἰκός τως, from his own conjecture. In the words which follow, ἀκάρπωτον is constructed with xάg, by an enallage of cases very frequently met with in the Tragedians, instead of with νίκας. Compare below, v. 818; Antig. 794, τόδε νεῖκος ἀνδρῶν ξύναιμον ; Ibid. 852, ματρῷαι λέκτρων ὦται ; Æsch. Choeph. 40, τοιάνδε χάριν ἄχαριν μὲ ἰάλλει ; Eur. Iph. Τ. 566, κακῆς γυναικὸς χάριν ἄχαριν ἀπώλετο ; Soph. Trach. 485, κείνου τε καὶ σὴν ἐξ ἴσου κοίνην χάριν ; Plat. Legg. 853. Ε, ὧν δὴ χάριν οὐκ ἄχαριν λέγοιμ ̓ ἂν νόμον. Similar instances abound in Latin writers; as in Cic. N. D. 2. 39. 38; Tac. Hist. 1. 12; Hor. Od. 2. 3. 8; and other passages quoted by the critics. The whole expression is well translated by Wunder : ob non perceptum fructum alicujus victoria, i. e. as Matthia, Gr. Gr. 576, accurately explains, διὰ τὸ μὴ κεκαρπῶσθαι νίκην τινά.

178. Ψευσθεῖσ', ἀδώροις. The manuscripts, old Edd., and the Scholiast, ἦ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρων ψευσθεῖσα δώροις εἴτ ̓ ἐλαφηβολίαις. Lecapenus in Matthia's Lect. Mosq. I. p. 79, ψεύδομαι καὶ τὸ ἀπατῶμαι καὶ ἀποτυγχάνω, συντασσόμενον γενικῇ, ὡς παρὰ Σοφ. ἐν Αἴαντι· ἦ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρων ψευσθεῖσα δώρων, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀποτυχοῦσα. TRICLINIUS: πρῶτον μὲν εἰς αἰτιατικὴν συνέταξε ψευσθεῖσα χάριν (which construction is followed by Neue) εἶτα πρὸς δοτικὴν ἐπλαγίασε, ψευσθεῖσα δώροις. If the reading of the common copies is retained, it will be better to connect ἦ ῥα κλυτῶν ἐνάρων with the preceding words, and ψευσθεῖσα with δώροις εἴτ ̓ ἐλαφηβολίαις by a syntaxis similar to ψευσθῆναι γνώμη, Her. 7. 9. 3, upon which consult Bernhardy, Synt. p. 101. Hermann more correctly refers δώροις and ἐλαφηβολίαις to ὥρμασε ; an te instigavit, decepta ob dona a spoliis vel ob venationem. Lobeck, Dindorf, Wunder, and most recent editors, have received the exceedingly felicitous emendation of Musgrave, ψευσθεῖσ ̓, ἀδώροις εἴτ ̓ ἐλα. φηβολίαις, ob cervos jaculo confiros nullo postea munere deæ oblato. On the dative, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 397. the correctness of the collocation

"Bothe has expressed a doubt as to and T. To remove this it will be merely necessary to cite Eur. Alk. 114, ἢ Λυκίας εἴτ ̓ ἐπὶ τὰς ̓Αμμωνιάδας ἕδρας Iph. Τ. 273, εἴτε Διοσκόρων ἢ Νηρέως ἀγαλμάτα; Plat. Legg. 862. D, εἴτε ἔργοις ἢ λόγοις. See Schäfer, Mel. Cr. p. 5.” LOBECK.

179. Η χαλκοθώραξ ἢ τιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. SCHOL. : διαστέλλει τὸν Ἄρεα ἀπὸ τοῦ Ενυαλίου ὡς ἕτερον δαίμονα ὑπουργὸν τοῦ μείζονος θεοῦ, καὶ δῆλον ἐκ τῶν συνδέσμων· δηλοῦται γὰρ ὁ Αρης ἐκ τοῦ χαλκοθώραξ. ἢ καὶ ὁ Αρης

μεμφόμενός σοι, ὡς ἀπαρχὰς δορὸς οὐ λαβὼν, ἐτίσατό σε τῆς λώβης, τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν γενομένης λήθης· ἐτίσατο δὲ ἐννυχίας μηχαναῖς ἐπὶ σοῦ ταύτης τῆς νυκτός. πιθανῶς δὲ πλείονας αἰτίας τιθέασιν ἀποροῦντες· οἱ γὰρ στοχαζό. μένοι οὐ καθ ̓ ἐν ἵστανται. "The first interpretation, as Brunck justly observes, is absurd. Even if we allow Mars and Enyalios to have been different deities, we cannot suppose that the poet would designate Mars by a single word, which is equally applicable to Enyalios. Brunck has adopted the emendation of Johnson, "Η χαλκοθώραξ ἥντιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. So, also, Bothe and Lobeck. This emendation ought not to be admitted, unless it can be proved that ὅστις is capable of being used instead of τις, aliquis. Reiske proposes σοί τιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. Erfurdt reads ὁ χαλκοθώραξ ἤ τιν Ενυάλιος, Hermann (to Eur. Heh. 991) ή τιν' Ενυάλιος, Musgrave μή τιν' Ενυάλιος. The object of all these conjectures is to get rid either of the first or second ἤ, so as to connect the adjective χαλκοθώραξ with the substantive Ενυάλιος. A better mode of accomplishing this end than any which we have mentioned is to read "Η χαλκοθώραξ εἴτιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. So ν. 879 (841), Τίς ἂν δῆτά μοι . . . . τὸν ὠμόθυμον εἴ ποθι πλαζόμενον λεύσε σων ἄπυοι ; Philokt. 1204, ξίφος εἴποθεν, ἢ γένυν, ἢ βελέων τι προπέμψατε. This pleonastic use of i, which the editors of Sophokles do not appear to have understood, has not escaped the observation of Weiske, whose words we subjoin (p. 115, ed. Oxon.): Offendit particula si adjuncto pronomine τis, ut apud Zonaram, v. 8, Εὐτρόπιος δὲ πάντος, ὧν εἴτις λόγος (qui aliquo essent numero), ἐκποδὼν καταστῆσαι βουλόμενος, etc. Sed sic imminuunt Græci τὸ τις et τινὲς, aliquis, nonnulli, ut dubitationis notam, εἰ, structura minus accurata, præponant. Loca in Xenoph. Jud. sub εἰ monstravi.' These words might pass for a note on the passage before us, according to our representation of it." ELMSLEY. The emendation of Johnson received by Lobeck, who subjoins the following explanation, Αρης ἐξέμηνεν αὐτὸν ὀργισθεὶς δι ̓ ἥντινα δὴ ὀλιγωρίαν τῆς συμμαχίας, is sufficiently set aside by the acute observation of Elmsley, that such an employment of the pronoun is is altogether alien to the practice of the Tragedians. It is, moreover, equally opposed to the sense of our passage, for ἥντινα μομφὰν ξυνοῦ δορὸς ἔχων must signify cherishing some dissatisfaction, whatever it may be, on account of his (unrecompensed) assistance in the battle. Such an interpretation might, perhaps, stand, if the poet had not, by the genitive limiting μομφάν, intimated a specific reason for the discontent of Enyalios. Hermann is now disposed to receive the suggestion of Elmsley, but remarks rightly that it is highly incorrect to describe this use of as pleonastic, since it is in fact elliptic, and requires that

we should supply

from the participle xwv, in the following sense : μομφὰν ἔχων, εἴ τινα εἶχεν. Yet this explanation, from dissatisfaction, if he has entertained any, seems entirely opposite to the meaning of the Chorus, who would not have enumerated Enyalios among the deities hostile to Aias, had it entertained so decided a doubt upon the subject. A more satisfactory use of Elmsley's emendation is that suggested by Lobeck, who proposes that we should connects with the primary verb, "Agns irioaro λúßny, aut Mars si forte ultus est injuriam, for on this point the Chorus was involved in some uncertainty. In the midst of all this doubt, we have thought it best, although with considerable hesitation, to follow Dindorf in admitting Hermann's original correction' into the text, but cannot avoid expressing a wish that the conjecture of Reiske, σoi riv', was sustained by some manuscript authority. Another difficulty has arisen from the circumstance that Homer represents Ares as fighting for the Trojans, whilst Aias is intimated in our passage to have received assistance also from this deity. Lobeck supposes that the aid referred to was bestowed in an expedition against Teuthras, or some adjacent town. Yet it appears improbable that Ares, whilst friendly to the Trojans, should have lent support to their enemies in their attacks upon towns which were friendly to the cause of his allies. Although it is undisputed that 'Evváλos is used in the Iliad as a frequent epithet of Ares, or as a proper name for Ares, (cf. I. 17. 211; 2. 651; 7. 166; 13. 519; 17. 309; and many other places,) seems equally clear, from the language of the Schol. Ven. to Il. 17. 211, that, in later times, the Athenians honored Enyalios as a distinct deity; and the same inference may be drawn from Ar. Pac. 457; Dionys. A. R. 3. 48; Eustathius, p. 944. 55; and the form of the oath taken by the Attic Ephebi : ἵστορες θεοί, Αγραυλος, Ενυάλιος, "Αρης, Ζεύς. Eustathius 1. c. represents him as a son of Saturn and Rhea, and this legend probably induced the Scholiast to speak of Ares as his rougyos and inferior in dignity; others, again, describe him to have been the πάρεδρος of Ares, παρέπεσθαι αὐτῷ τὸν Ἐνυάλιον, ὡς ̓Αθήνῃ τὴν Νίκην καὶ 'Agréμidi Thy Exárny, Etym. Gud. p. 188. 12; whilst a third tradition, narrated by Eustathius, p. 673. 22, derives the appellation from a Thracian king slain by Ares on account of his inhospitality. For more detailed information see Creuz. Symb. II. 611, and the long and learned note of Lobeck to this line.

180. Μομφὰν ἔχων. "Elektr. 897, 1176, 1283; Philokt. 1309; Æsch. Prom. 445, λέξω δὲ, μέμψιν οὔτιν ̓ ἀνθρώποις ἔχων ; Eur. Οr. 1062, πρώτά σοι μομφὴν ἔχω ; Phen. 773, ὥστ ̓ ἐμοὶ μομφὰς ἔχειν. The sense is

somewhat different in Pind. Isthm. 3. 54, μομφὰν ἔχει παιδέσσιν Ελλάνων, invidiam facit, and in Eur. Herakl. 969, πολλὴν ἄρ ̓ ἕξεις μέμψιν, subibis.” NEUE. With ξυνοῦ δορός, here equivalent to ξυμμαχίας, and to which δόρυ μονοστόλον, δόρυ μονομάχον, are opposed in Eur. Phan. 759, 1356, compare Eur. Andr. 525, δόρυ σύμμαχον. Lobeck is in error when he asserts, that, besides the present passage, ξυνός, which is a mere dialectic variation of κοίνος from the root ΚΥΝ, is found only in Æsch. Theb. 379, Suppl. 370, since it occurs also in Ed. Kol. 1752, unless Hermann's emendation ξυναπόκειται should be admitted there, and is used as an epithet of Ενυάλιος by Homer, Il. 18. 309. The general sense of the entire passage is as follows: Or is it that Enyalios with brazen breastplate, feeling indignant on account of his assisting spear (i. e. on account of some enterprise in which he lent you a support you never gratefully acknowledged), has avenged the insult by means of (i. e. by leading you into) these nightly machinations.

182. φρενόθεν, propria mentis impulsu, of your own free will. SCHOL. : φρενόθεν· ἤγουν οἴκοθεν, ἀπὸ οἰκείας γνώσεως. Compare Æsch. Choeph. 107, ἐκ φρενός ; Agam. 1515, φρενὸς ἐκ φιλίας ; Soph. Αntig. 492, φρενῶν ἐπήβολος . . ἐπ' ἀριστερά. SCHOL. : οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀφρονεῖς, ὡς ἄνευ αἰτίας ἐμπεσεῖν τοῖς ποιμνίοις. ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ μωρὰ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν, δέξια δὲ τὰ συνετά. Passow renders du wichest linkshin, d. i. vom Rechten

ab, but see Liddell and Scott, s. v.

184. Τόσσον. Some manuscripts and Suidas Τόσον ἐν ποίμναισι.

Τόσσον

See Monk to Eur. Alk.

is read in Æsch. Agam. 140. Below, v. 369, ixéoras; Antig. 1223, μέσση ; 1236, μέσσον ; Philoht. 1163, πέλασσον. 234; Wellauer to Esch. Agam. 138; and the numerous examples cited by Lobeck to this line. It is doubtful whether we should join τόσσον with the preceding words, ἐπ ̓ ἀριστερὰ ἔβας, or with those which follow, ἐν ποίμναις πίτνων. The Scholiast appears to sanction the former course, and so Hermann, who inserts a comma after the pronoun.

185. Ηκοι γὰρ ἄν. SCHOL.: ἔοικε γὰρ εἶναι θεῖα νόσος. θεῖα δὲ ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ κατασκήψασα εἰς αὐτόν. τὴν δὲ νόσον αὐτοῦ φήμην ̓Αργείων ὠνόμασεν. With the expression θεῖα νόσος compare v. 137, πληγὴ Δίος. "In this clause, as also in the preceding, οὔποτε . . . . πίτνων, a reason is advanced for the opinion expressed in the strophe. Hence the particle yág is placed at the commencement of both sentences, in opposition to our own usage, which would demand the employment of an adversative particle in the last. Similarly in Æsch. Αgam. 538, seq.: τὰ δ ̓ αὖτε χέρσῳ καὶ προσήν, πλέον στύγος· εἶναι γὰρ ἦσαν δηΐων πρὸς τείχεσιν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γὰρ κἀπὸ γῆς λειμώνιαι δρόσοι κατεψέκαζον” WUNDER.