227. ήλυθε. This Homeric form is very rarely met with in the tragic senarius, as at Eur. Rhes. 662, Troad. 378, Elektr. 602. See Elmsley to Eur. Med. 1077; Meineke, Quæst. Menandr. I. p. 35.

228. τὴν μέν. Such is the reading of the MSS. Laur. a. Γ. Harl. and others, with Aldus. Brunck has received rà μív from the Triclinian copies. The former, without doubt the genuine writing of Sophokles, has given offence to editors and transcribers, in consequence of the transition from the feminine singular to the neuter plural in the verse that follows. Supply ποίμνην with the Scholiast, and compare Trach. 548, ὁρῶ γὰρ ἥβην.... ὧν ἀφαρπάζειν φιλεῖ ὀφθαλμὸς ἄνθος ; Elektr. 142, ἄλγος . . . ., ἐν οἷς ἀνάλυσίς ἐστιν οὐδεμία κακῶν ; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 296; Hoogeveen ad Vig. Ρ. 56.

....

229. Τὰ δὲ ἀνεῤῥήγνυ. Alias medias dirumpebat, costas dissecans. The Scholiast explains πλευροκοπῶν· κατὰ τῶν πλευρῶν τύπτων ; Ellendt, more correctly, latera scindens. With the sense assigned to ἀναῤῥήγνυναι, compare the similar use of the German verb aufbrechen in the language of the chase.

230. "Critics differ greatly in opinion as to the individuals specially alluded to by the poet in the words δύο δ ̓ ἀργίποδας κριοὺς ἀνελών, το which one Scholiast has noted ἴσως τὸν μὲν ἕνα ἐνόμιζεν Οδυσσέα, τὸν δὲ ἄλλον Νέστορα ἢ Μενέλαον, whilst a second comments as follows upon the verse immediately succeeding: τοῦ μὲν κεφαλὴν καὶ γλῶσσαν ἄκραν ῥίπτει θερίσας· ἴσως τοῦτον ἐνόμιζε Νέστορα, ὡς ψευδομαρτυρήσαντα κατ ̓ αὐτοῦ. Hermann considers Agamemnon to be referred to by τοῦ μέν, and suggests that he was in all probability so punished on account of the judgment he had given in the contest respecting the armor of Achilles. And that Agamemnon, or, as the Scholiast supposes, Menelaos, is to be understood in preference to Nestor, is shown by many passages in this tragedy, and with peculiar distinctness in vv. 289 sqq. : λόγους ἀνέσπα τοὺς μὲν ̓Ατρει δῶν κάτα, τοὺς δ ̓ ἀμφ' Οδυσσεῖ, συντιθεὶς γέλων πολὺν, ὅσην κατ ̓ αὐτῶν ὕβριν ἐκτίσαιτ' ἰών. The accurate interpretation of our passage by Zenobius, when explaining the meaning of the proverbial expression Αιάντειος γέλως, has escaped the notice of the commentators. He observes, 1. 43, that it is used ἐπὶ τῶν παραφρόνως γελώντων. ὁ Αἴας γὰρ παραφροσύνην φρονήσας καὶ μανεὶς διὰ τὸ προτιμηθῆναι τὸν Ὀδυσσέα εἰς τὴν τῶν ̓Αχιλλείων ὅπλων κατοχὴν κατὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων ξιφήρης ὥρμησε, καὶ κατὰ τῶν βοσκημάτων προνοίᾳ θεῶν τραπεὶς ὡς ̓Αχαιοὺς ταῦτα φονεύει. δύο δὲ μεγίστους κριοὺς κατασχὼν ὡς ̓Αγαμέμνονα καὶ Μενέλαον δεσμεύσας ἐμάστιξε καὶ κατεγέλα τούτων μαινόμενος, ὕστερον δὲ σωφρονήσας ἑαυτὸν κτείνει. Hence,

વેદે

then, by iv Sophokles designates Agamemnon, and by idi, not Odysseus, but Menelaos, whilst the duo ágyírodes ngioi represent both the Atreidæ, whom Aias calls dirrάgxas Baridus, v. 369, and subsequently associates in express terms as the authors of the unjust judgment which had deprived him of the arms, v. 420 : νῦν δ' αὔτ ̓ (sc. ὅπλα) 'Ατρείδαι φωτὶ πανουργῷ φρένας ἔπραξαν ἀνδρὸς τοῦδ ̓ ἀπώσαντες κράτη.” DINDORF. Δύο, although in the dual number, is frequented constructed with a plural substantive, as in the present passage. Cf. Esch. Agam. 1395, xáv dvoiy οἰμώγμασιν ; Εumen. 597, δυοῖν μιασμάτων ; Plat. Rep. p. 614. C, δύο χάσματα ἐχομένω ἀλλήλων ; Π. 9. 4, ἄνεμοι δύο ; Od. 12. 73, οἱ δὲ δύω xório; Theokr. 5. 47, xgăvas dúa. Elmsley, however, to Eur. Med. 798, pronounces the expression duîv raidwy, Ed. Kol. 531, ungrammatical. See Osann. Syll. Inscript, p. 86, not. 47; Göttling to Arist. Polit. pp. 367 sq.; Poppo to Thuk. 5. 84.

66

232. Ρίπτει. So Hermann, upon the authority of the MSS. Mosq. b. Heidelb. and others, in preference to pirs, which is retained by Lobeck and other editors. Elmsley to Eur. Herakl. 150 observes that prev is not used by the Tragedians, an opinion which is rejected by more recent critics. The Scholiast to Eur. Orest. 116 has remarked, wagà Zoponλsĩ καὶ γλῶτταν (sic) ῥιπτεῖ θερίσας ; in opposition to whom we read in the scholion to Epictet. Enchir. 34. 236, ed. Heyne, ῥίπτω, ῥιπτήσω, παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ῥίπτει θερίσας τὴν ἄκραν γλῶτταν, καὶ τύπτω τυπτήσω. On the difference in signification, Hermann writes, piru, nisi fallor, est jacere, iT autem jactare." The old grammarians, also, represent these verbs to differ in meaning, but in another way. Thomas Magister, p. 327, Etym. Gud. p. 647, and our own Scholiast : ῥίπτω τὸ ἁπλῶς ῥίπτω, ῥιπτῶ δὲ τὸ μετὰ σφοδρότητος. In Trach. 780, μάρψας ποδός νιν ῥιπτεῖ, Eur. Hel. 1096, ὠλένας πρὸς οὐρανὸν ῥιπτοῦντες, Herakl. 149, ἐς κίνδυνον ῥιστοῦν75, Elmsley and Hermann have restored, partly with and partly without authority from the manuscripts, the uncontracted form, which is also found in Esch. Prom. 994, 1045, Eur. Troad. 729, 764, and frequently elsewhere. For much additional information of the most valuable kind, see Lobeck's note, from which the preceding observations have been principally taken.

....

234. Miyav παίει. SCHOL. : διπλώσας τὸν χαλινὸν παίει τὸν κριόν, ὡς λιγυρᾷ καὶ ὀξυφώνῳ μάστιγι. ἱπποδέτην δὲ ῥυτῆρα, χαλινὸν μέγαν· μέγαν δὲ πρὸς τὸ πικρότερον καθάψασθαι τοῦ ἐχθροῦ. Ἱπποδέτης, used by Pausanias, 9. 26. 1, as an epithet of Herakles at Thebes and Onchestos, from the circumstance of his having been the first to instruct

men in the training of horses for the purposes of draught, is here employed in an active signification. So ravgodirns Búgra, Anth. Pal. VI. n. 41. That adjectives with this termination were used also in a passive sense is evident from such expressions as indérns oripavos, Pind. Fragm. XLV.; κηροδέτης σύριγξ, Euphor. ap. Athen. p. 184. Α ; συνδέτην ἔχων ἁλύσει μα nga Baστágyny πevráτnxvv, Posidon. ap. Athen. p. 213. A. On the dia paori, or double scourge, see Blomfield to Esch. Agam. 600; Klausen to Choeph. 356. "From this passage the title of the play has been derived, nor is there any reason to suppose, with Harles. ad Fabr. B. Gr. p. 196, that this appellation is a mere figment of the commentators. The names of plays were frequently selected from trivial, and, so to speak, secondary circumstances; Ιππόλυτος στεφανίας, καλυπτόμενος. If this tragedy had been exhibited, as stated by the author of the 'Troticis, under the title of AIAZ only, or, as Dikaiarchos testifies, under that of ΑΙΑΝΤΟΣ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΣ, it could not possibly have been distinguished from Aias the Lokrian. Eustathius, at p. 757. 16, and again at p. 1139. 61, calls it simply ròv μartıyopógov, and conjectures, from a comparison of the expression wλnyà Aiós (v. 137 supra) with the Homeric phrase s μάστιγι, δαμέντες, that Aias is so termed ὡς θεομηνία περιπεσόντα. Clemens (in Strom. 6. 470), Athenæus (VII. 277. C), and Zenobius (Cent. IV. 4) term it Aïavra μartıyopógov, whilst the ancient grammarians, and especially Stobæus, call it more briefly Alavra, for reasons that will be obvious to every reader. The precise time at which it was brought forward for public rehearsal is disputed. Böckh, de Trag. Pr. p. 137, suspects, from the language of Odysseus at the close of this play, that it was produced before the 'Philoktetes,' i. e. before the 92d Olympiad." LOBECK.

236. δεννάζων. SCHOL. Bλaronμv. On the accusative, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 566. 2. Saipar. "Musgrave rightly interprets 'malus genius.' The poet refers in these words to the insanity of Aias as the effect of divine interposition. In the same way, δαιμόνων τις and οὐδεὶς ἀνδρῶν are opposed in the Ed. Tyr. 1258 : λυσσῶντι δ ̓ αὐτῷ δαιμόνων δείκνυσί οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἀνδρῶν, οἳ παρῆμεν ἐγγύθεν.” DINDORF. For further information on this subject, see Apuleius, De Deo Socratis, and Plutarch, De Genio Socratis and De Defectu Oraculorum. There is, however, considerable reason to mistrust the applicability of this explanation to the present passage, since the superstition which connected the lives and fortunes of men with demons was not prevalent among the Greeks in the times of the

τις

Tragedians. Hence it seems preferable to understand by daiμws the deity hostile to Aias. See Lobeck to this line.

τιν

238. Ωρα τιν' ἤδη. Senor. : καιρός ἐστιν ἤδη τινά, τουτέστιν ἕκαστον, ἡμῶν κρυψάμενον καλύμμασι τὴν κεφαλὴν, ἀρέσθαι κλοπὴν διὰ τῶν ποδῶν, ἤγουν φεύγειν διὰ τῆς ξηρᾶς, ἢ ἑζόμενον κατὰ τὸν ταχὺν ζυγὸν τῆς κωπηλα. σίας μεθεῖναι ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀπολῦσαι διὰ νηὸς ποντοπόρου. Almost all the manuscripts, with Eustathius and Aldus, ga riv' nồn ngãra, whilst a few, amongst which we must name the MS. Laur. a., insert ro after non. In Eur. Phan. 1360, ἐπὶ κάρα τε λευκοπήχεις κτύπους χεροίν, the greater number of the manuscripts exhibit ngara. On the pronoun ra, placed here for us, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 659. 2. That the ancients were accustomed to shroud their faces with a veil, under the influence of sorrow or for purposes of concealment, is evident from Hom. Od. 8. 92, ä‡ 'Odvσεὺς κατὰ κρᾶτα καλυψάμενος γοάασκεν ; infra, v. 1089, ὑφ ̓ εἵματος nguosis; Plaut. II. 2. 89, cave respexis, fuge, et operi caput; Sueton. Calig. c. 51, nam, qui deos tantopere contemneret, ad minima tonitrua et fulgura connivere, caput obvolvere, ad vero majora proripere se e strato sub lectumque condere solebat.

240. Ποντοπόρῳ να μεθεῖναι. SCHOL. : μετιέναι, φεύγειν. ἕκαστον ἡμῶν, φησὶ, δεῖ μεθεῖναι, τούτεστι ῥῖψαι ἑαυτὸν ἐν νηῒ καὶ φεύγειν. Brunck accepts this explanation, and renders the entire passage jam tempus est ergo, ut quisque obvoluto capite clam pedibus fugam arripiat, aut pontivagam insiliat in navem, insideatque celeris remigationis transtro. Hermann observes that it is harsh to understand avrov, and thinks that it would be more conformable with sound interpretation to supply the ellipse from the words θοὸν εἰρεσίας ζυγόν. He asserts that there is some confusion in the connection of ideas, and that, while the poet intended to say sięsoíav vai μɛOsiva, solvere, liberum facere remorum usum, he also wished to add ¡Cóμevov, and hence combined both expressions in the phrase foὸν εἰρεσίας ζυγὸν ἑζόμενον, which is equivalent to ἐν τῷ θεῷ ζυγῷ ἑζόμενον, εἰρεσίαν μεθεῖναι τῇ va. Against this view it may reasonably be urged, that the expression sigioíav μsteivas is found in no Greek writer, and that it is extremely difficult to explain satisfactorily the meaning of the dative vnt. For vnt sigeclav pestiva can mean nothing else than to give up, or let go to the ship, which is in direct opposition to the sense that is most evidently required. Lobeck supposes that the phrase va seva is used in the same sense as that expressed by Virgil, Æn. 6. 1, classi immittit habenas; Ovid, Trist. 1. 4. 16, aurigam video vela dedisse rati; Oppian. Hal. 1. 255, πρύμνῃ ἐπὶ πάντα χαλινὰ ἰθυντὴς ἀνίησιν ; i. e. that μεθεῖναι means to give

the oarage

sails. Neue compares Plat. Protag. p. 338. A, obgía ipivra, where iQīvai is employed in the same absolute signification. "I believe that a literal and exact rendering of the whole passage will show most clearly what substantive must be supplied to μεθεῖναι. The Chorus says, Now it is time that we, with veil-enveloped head, should make our escape on foot, or, sitting on the swift seats of the rowers, intrust (our flight) to the sea-traversing ship. As the words θοὸν εἰρεσίας ζυγὸν ἑζόμενον, sitting upon the swift rowing-bank, are opposed to the thought conveyed by the expression modo xλoràv agiolaι, on foot, or by running, so is the second idea contained in the words do nλoñàv ågśola. (with which compare Eur. Rhes. 54. 126), I mean quy άgéobar, to take flight, or make one's escape, placed in antithesis to that found in the words ποντοπόρῳ νηῒ μεθεῖναι. Can it, then, be doubted that the substantive κλοπάν, i. e. φυγήν, should be supplied to Melevaι? Such an explanation removes all difficulty. The Chorus says, We must now either make our escape stealthily on foot, or, sitting on the rowing-bench, resign (or commit) it to our ships. Had the poet substituted ποσὶν φυγὰν ἀρέσθαι for ποδοῖν κλοπὰν ἀρέσθαι, no other interpretation would have been thought of. But that the two expressions are identical in meaning must be evident to all." WUNDER. With the accusative after ἑζόμενον, compare Æsch. Eum. 3, ἣ δὴ τὸ μητρὸς δευτέρα τόδ ̓ ἕζετο μαντεῖον ; Agam. 983, egóvov; ibid. 190, oiλμæ ñμśvwv; Eur. Iph. Aul. 141, μή νυν μήτ' ἀλσώδεις ἵζου Κρήνας μήθ ̓ ὕπτῳ θελχθῇς.

241. igiσrovov åжuλás. "Compare infru, 1267; Antig. 158; Philokt. 1135." NEUE.

242. λιθόλευστον "Αρη, equivalent to θάνατον λεύσιμον οι λιθόβλητον Covov, death by stoning. Cf. infra, 521, 598; Antig. 36; Ed. Kol. 434 ; Esch. Theb. 183. The MSS. Laur. a. T. and others exhibit "Agny. Dindorf asserts that this form was not employed by Attic writers. Yet we read in Demetr. Phal. de Eloc. CLXXVII. ὅλως τὸ ν δι ̓ εὐφημίαν ἐφέλnovra di 'ATTIxo, and in Æsch. Theb. 45 the metre requires "Agny. Porson to Eur. Phan. 950 observes, "As usual, manuscripts fluctuate between "Ag" and "Agn. For the future, I shall always adhere to "Agn", without noticing it to the reader." See Matth. Gr. Gr. 91.

243. αἶσ ̓ ἄπλατος. SCHOL. : ἀντὶ τοῦ μεγάλη μανία. The MS. Aug. B. rλaros; the MS. Ien. λros; the MS. T. and Suidas λαστις ; and the two MSS. Barocc. ἄπλητος. Brunck renders quem fati vis inexpugnabilis urget. "Απλατος (abbreviated for ἀπέλατος) denotes strictly that which one cannot or dare not approach, and is thence used in the collateral sense of immense, monstrous, terrible. Compare Hes. Opp. 147,