Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

horam, rò λvxvxov (see Voss. de Vit. Serm. 3. 21), the precise time being somewhat more accurately stated by Galen. de Prænot. ad Epig. 11. 638, Τ. XIV., ὥρας ἐννάτης ἄρτι λύχνων ἡμμένων. In the more advanced hours of the night, these lights either went out spontaneously, or were extinguished : περὶ πρωτὴν φυλακὴν, ἐν ᾧ τῆς ὥρας οἱ πλεῖστοι τὰς ἑσπερίους σβεννύντες δᾷδας τῇ τῶν ὕπνων ἡγεμονίᾳ τὸ τῶν βλεφάρων ἐκδιδόασι στάSov, Nikeph. Greg. Hist. 15. 8, unless for purposes of convivial enjoyment in lucem proferuntur vigiles lucerna, Hor. Od. 3. 8. 14, which period is denoted by the phrase extrema lucernæ, Propert. El. 3. 8. 1. From these considerations, it is evident that Aias did not start upon his expedition prima nocte, as Schäfer asserts, but when the night was considerably advanced, or περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον, as the Scholiast explains and supports by the additional circumstance that this was an appropriate time for the consummation of his plot, as then all would be buried in deep sleep." LOBECK. Cf. infra, 278, ἀλλὰ νῦν γε πᾶς εὕδει στρατός ; Dissen to Pind. Pyth. 11. 17; Klausen to Esch. Agam. 737. "From the mere mention of the λaμτnges or foculi, we have therefore ample proof as to the time at which Sophokles intended to represent the foray of Aias to have taken place. So Quintus Calaber, 5. 352 sq., distinctly testifies that Aias sallied forth during the night for the purpose of destroying the leaders of the army, and that upon the dawn of day, discovering the mental delusion by which the execution of his project had been defeated, he laid violent hands upon himself. Pindar, Isthm. 4. 58, whilst making no allusion to the slaughter of the cattle, states that he destroyed himself ¿ią iv vuxTí, which expression, according to the Scholiast to that passage, may mean either the close of day, quum noctescit, or midnight, or the still further advanced period of the night. The last of these explanations is, however, supported by the testimony of Arktinos, who narrates that Aias destroyed himself Tegi Tòv öfgov. Other writers, as Ovid, Met. 13. 391, represent Aias to have fallen upon his sword in the assembly convened for the purpose of adjudicating the arms of Achilles, and Parrhasius has followed this representation in Armorum Judicio, Plin. XXXV. c. 5. The attack made upon the flocks, which is inconsistent with this statement, is expressly mentioned by Lesches, Excc. Proculi, p. 10, ἡ τῶν ὅπλων κρίσις γίνεται καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς κατὰ βούλησιν ̓Αθηνᾶς λαμβάνει, Αἴας δὲ ἐμμανής γενόμενος τήν τε λείαν τῶν ̓Αχαιῶν λυμαίνεται καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖ, as also by Lycophron, v. 454 ; Hor. Serm. 2. 3. 211; Hygin. Fub. CVII., and others. The same myth is adopted by Sophokles as essential to the integrity of the plot, but the mental delusion is kept carefully separate from his death. The poet

thought it more consistent with the dignity of the hero that he should be portrayed as seeking death, not from the blind impulse of madness, nor in the mere impotence of despair and rage, but from the free and unfettered decision of his own intellect and will." LOBECK.

274. κενάς, bootless, vain. SCHOL. : κενάς· τὰς οὐκέτι χρησίμως γενομένας. Cf. Antig. 749, κενὰς γνώμας ; infra, v. 453, ὅστις κεναῖσιν ἐλπίσιν θερμαίνεται ; Elektr. 403, τὸ θηρᾶσθαι κενά.

275. ἐπιπλήσσω, reprove, or chide. Cf. Ed. Kol. 1727, rí ród' iTiπληξας ; Plat. Protag. p. 319. D, τούτοις οὐδεὶς τοῦτο ἐπιπλήττει, where this verb has the construction usually found with verbs expressing similar notions ; Hdt. 3. 142, τὰ τῷ πέλας ἐπιπλήσσω ; Æsch. Prom. 80, τραχύτητα μὴ 'πίπλησσέ μοι. At Plat. Protag. p. 327. A, πãs kávтa nai ἐδίδασκε καὶ ἐπέπληττε τὸν μὴ καλῶς αὐλοῦντα, Stallbaum observes, that, 66 as no other instance has yet been found in which the verb izikát is constructed with an accusative of the person, I prefer to regard the accusative as dependent upon the more remote verb." The example he requires may be found in Il. 23. 580, καί μ' οὔτινά φημι ἄλλον ἐπιπλήξειν Aavaav, where this verb is joined, in the same way as uiuocoda, with the accusative, without the notion of transmission of blame.

276. Alas. Hermann has edited Alay from the MS. Par. 1 and Suidas. See note to v. 89, supra. τί τήνδ' .... ἀφορμᾶς πεῖραν. The MSS. Par. 1, г. . Aug. C. Lips. 1. 2, and apparently the MS. Laur. 1, with Suidas, exhibit the reading in the text; the other manuscripts pogpas, which is approved by Brunck. Hermann, while admitting that the latter verb might stand, has preferred apoguas, "quia de abitu Aiacis intempesta nocte sermo est." So, too, Lobeck, who remarks that í rúvde πεῖραν ἐφορμᾷς would signify τί ἐπί .... πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς, as πρᾶξιν ἐφ ̓ ἣν guaro, Elian. H. Ann. 10. 34, and that Tekmessa, merely seeing Aias making preparations to leave his tent, could not, in her ignorance of his purpose and intention, have said τί ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς; The Scholiast, misled by v. 274, incorrectly explains igav by ogriav or idóv. Compare v. 2 supra; below, v. 445, wɛiga ris Cnrnría, à¤' is . . . . dnλώσω, and 1001, κεἰ μὴ θεῶν τις τήνδε πεῖραν ἔσβεσεν. With the construction ἀφορμᾶς πεῖραν, compare Thuk. 1. 3, ταύτην τὴν στρατείαν ξυνῆλ θον (coire societatem), which is perhaps equivalent to στρατείαν ξυνελθόντες ἐποιήσαντο. See Hermann to Trach. 158; Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 17, 2205 ἐξόδους ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Demosth. 1353. 24, στρατείαν ἐκείνην ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Trachin. 505, παγκόνιτ ̓ ἐξῆλθον ἄεθλ ̓ ἀγώνων, where Wunder has edited vov from a conjecture of Wakefield, in opposition to the unanimous testi

....

mony of all the manuscripts, whilst the Scholiast says that lov is for διήνυσαν, ἐπεξῆλθον, ἠγωνίσαντο. In its own strict meaning, however, this verb has the accusative instead of the genitive in Hdt. 8. 29, dov hv ПIsgrida xugav, like the Latin verbs egredi, excedere, in Plin. Ep. 7. 33, Historia non debet egredi veritatem; Liv. 2. 2, Nescio an Romani . . . . modum excesserint; although in their strict signification, to go out, they are generally constructed with ex. So, also, Aristot. Pol. 3. 14, and metaphorically Nymphiodor. ap. Athen. XII. p. 536. A, cà vóμiμa iiexrolar. Besides Thuk. 1. 15, ἐκδήμους στρατείας ἐξήεσαν, the verb ἐξίεναι is found with the accusative in Trachin. 159, which passage has not escaped Lobeck, and we read in Xen. Hell. 4. 2. 13, rǹv àμfíaλov ižieval, to march out of the Isthmus. So, too, Eur. Alkest. 187, nai lázaμov. ἐξιοῦσα ; Ibid. 610, usis dè .... προσείπατ ̓ ἐξιοῦσαν ὑστάτην ὁδόν. In the signifi cation to rush upon, attack, ¿Qoquãobas is joined with the accusative in Il. 15. 691, ἀλλ ̓ ὥστ ̓ ὀρνίθων πετεηνῶν αἰετὸς αἴθων ἔθνος ἐφορμᾶται. See Göller ad Thuk. 3. 31. On the accusative with ovvigxsoda, see below, v. 466, iTuì Tò còv déxos Eurñadov, in place of which we find the dative in Ed. Tyr. 572. Cf. Porson to Eur. Phan. 831; Plato, Rep. 7, p. 537, irudàv rà тgiánovтα ἔτη ἐκβαίνωσιν ; Ibid. p. 462. Β, ὅταν δὲ δὴ αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ γεννᾶν ἐκβῶσι τὴν ἡλικίαν ; and again, p. 338. Ε, καὶ τὸν τοῦτο ἐκβαίνοντα κολάζουσιν, where Schneider has received τούτου from the MS. Ven. C, although acknowledging that rouro, the reading of the MS. Ven. B. and Aldus, is "æque bonum"; Eur. Herc. F. 82, yaías ögia inßaível; Plat. Sympos. p. 183. Β, ὅτι καὶ ὀμνύντι μόνῳ συγγνώμη παρὰ θεῶν ἐκβάντι τὸν exov, where, although one manuscript has rv gxwv, the accusative is read in the MSS. Vat. A. Ven. E. Vind. 2. 7, Par. Aug. and Cyrillus c. Julian. 6, p. 187. In our own passage, igav is not the strict cognate accusative, nor does it express, as Mitchell observes, the actual cognate notion of the verb, but is rather what Kühner terms the accusative of equivalent notion, i. e. a notion substituted for the true cognate notion, as being that "wherein the action or state or effect of the verb for the time being consists, and being in a sort of opposition to it, as sch. Choeph. 144, avriκατθανεῖν δίκην = bávarov, which is the dízny, to suffer punishment of death in turn,” where, however, Hermann directs us to write άvrınarbavsîv díxn. This equivalent substantive can be resolved into a cognate substantive and a genitive; as at Eur. Or. 1519, άvravysły Qóvov versa, as ἀντικατθανεῖν δίκην tival form.

=

=

αὐγὴν φόνον, or vice δίκην θανάτου, or it might assume an adjecConsult note to v. 410, infra. 279. 'O '.... árì d'.

"The particle dé is frequently repeated in the

When this occurs, the first δί must be con

tenor of the same sentence. nected with iv, expressed or understood, in an adversative relation, the second δέ serving merely to continue the sentence. Cf. Trachin. 950 ; Philokt. 882, 959; but more particularly Elektr. 711 – 714, 917 – 918, 997 – 999." ELLENDT. ὑμνούμενα. SCHOL. : ἀεὶ θρυλούμενα ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ κοινά, ἢ ἀεὶ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενα πρὸς ἐμέ. The first is the true explanation. Plat. Pol. p. 549. Ε, ὅσα καὶ οἷα φιλοῦσιν αἱ γυναῖκες περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὕμνειν ; Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 33, τὰ δὲ Παλαμήδους οὐκ ἀκήκοας πάθη, τοῦτον γὰρ δὴ πάντες ὑμνοῦσιν. Cf. Musgrave to Eur. Andr. 628.

280. With the sentiment expressed in this verse compare Hom. I. 6. 490; Eur. Herakl. 477, γυναικὶ γὰρ σιγή τε καὶ τὸ σωφρονεῖν Κάλλιστον. In Esch. Theb. 234, Eteokles is represented as rebuking the chorus of virgins in these words: σὸν δ ̓ αὖ τὸ σιγᾶν καὶ μένειν ἔσω δόμων. Heliodor. Ethiopp. I. p. 36, πρέπειν γὰρ οἶμαι γυναικὶ μὲν σιγὴν, κ. τ. λ. ; Ælian. ap. Suid. s. v. Κόσμος· καὶ ἄλλα εἰργάσατο ἀσεβείας ἐχόμενα, ἅ μοι σιγῶντι κόσμον φέρει ; Plautus, Rud. 4. 4. 70, Tacita bona 'st mulier semper, quam loquens. The Schol. Barocc. to this verse writes : ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Καλλιστράτου· ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ φύλλα κόσμον τοῖς δένδρεσι φέρει, τὰ δὲ ἔρια τοῖς προβάτοις, ἡ δὲ χαίτη τοῖς ἵπποις, ἡ δὲ γενειὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ σιωπὴ κόσμον ταῖς γυναιξὶ φέρει.

....

282. Καὶ τὰς . ... πάθας. SCHOL.: τοῦτο μὲν ἀγνοεῖ ἡ Τέκμησσα λέγειν, τοῦτο δὲ προεῖπεν αὐτὰ ὁ ποιητής· ὡς ἐνοχλεῖν οὐ δεῖ τὸν θεατὴν ταυτολογοῦντα. Suidas s. v. Πάθας exhibits καὶ τὰς μὲν ἔνδον φράζειν πάθας, the word ἔνδον being manifestly erroneous. The MS. Dresd. a. and the Triclinian editions read λέγειν τύχας, but πάθας is defended, not only by the best manuscripts, but also by Ed. Kol. 7, στέργειν γὰρ αἱ πάθαι, κ.τ.λ. ; Antig. 978 ; Ast to Plat. Legg. III. 2, p. 146 ; Koen. ad Greg. Cor. p. 425. As the Scholiast observes, the term belongs rather to the poet's knowledge than to Tekmessa's. Ellendt justifies its employment propter strages editas ab Aiace, de quibus certe infelicissime ominabatur Tecmessa."

[ocr errors]

284. κύνας βοτῆρας. SCHOL.: ὕφ ̓ ἂν ἀναγνωστέον, τοὺς ποιμενικοὺς κύνας· οὐ γὰρ ἀναιρεῖ κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν ἄνθρωπον.

[ocr errors]

285. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν, κ. τ. λ. Compare the statement made at v. 229 sqq., of which our passage is a mere repetition. Αὐχενίζειν is cervice cadenda caput amputare; ἄνω τρέποντα σφάζειν, capite resupinato guttur ferire, see Eustathius, p. 134. 7; ῥαχίζειν, spinam dorsi secare.” HERMANN.

288. Τέλος δ ̓ ὑπάξας. SCHOL.: ἡ μὲν Τέκμησσα ἠγνόει, τίνι διείλεκται·

ἡμεῖς δὲ μεμαθήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ προλόγου, ὅτι ̓Αθηνῶ ἦν ἡ λαλήσασα αὐτῷ· τὸ δὲ σκιᾷ τινί, ὅτι οὐ συνέβαλε τὰ περὶ τὴν θεόν. Some manuscripts and Aldus read atas; the MS. Laur. B. and Scholiast aus; but the preponderance of authority is greatly in favor of ὑπάξας οι ὑπαΐξας. Ellendt shows that iάor is the verbum proprium of persons quitting the house; axárov, of persons reëntering it.

289. Λόγους ἀνέσπα. Eustathius, p. 679. 63 : ἐπὶ ἀλαζονείας τὸ ἀνασπᾶν, ὡς δηλοῖ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ τὸ λόγους ἀνέσπα. HESYCHIUS: ἀναστά, ἐπαίρει. Menander, Fragm. p. 153, πόθεν τούτους ἀνεσπάκασιν οὗτοι τοὺς λόγους. Ar. Ach. 1069, τὰς ἐφοῦς ἀνεσπακὼς ὥσπερ τι δεινὸν ἀγγελῶν. Render, therefore, he uttered words of boastful vaunt.

Hence the pro

290. γέλων πολύν. The MSS. T. Ien. woλùv yśλw". verbial expression, Alávruos yśλws, on which see note to v. 230 supra. 291. ἐκτίσαιτ'. "In our opinion, Lobeck and Erfurdt have acted injudiciously in not reading inrico' with Musgrave and Bothe. Although Tekmessa makes use of the plural number, airy, she alludes to the flagellation which Aias was about to inflict on Odysseus, when he was called out of his tent by Athene. See vv. 105 110. If we retain ἐκτίσαιτο, Aias must be understood to speak of what he had already done, not of what he intended to do. Compare Trach. 793, Tò durrάgeuvov XixTgov ἐνδατούμενος Σοῦ τῆς ταλαίνης, καὶ τὸν Οἰνέως γάμον, Οἷον κατακτήσαιτο avμávrny Biov. Musgrave observes, that, if the poet had represented Aias as speaking of a past transaction, he would not have added iv to ixríCRITO." ELMSLEY. This eminent scholar appears to have too hastily approved the emendation of Musgrave. "Yogi izrivsoba would, according to general usage, signify to exact payment for, or to revenge the insolent conduct of another. But Tekmessa here describes the exultation of Aias on account of the cruel vengeance which he had wreaked upon the Atreidæ and Odysseus; so that the words on ßg make no allusion to haughty insolence on the part of the sons of Atreus and Odysseus, but are limited exclusively to the revenge taken by Aias. We should therefore have expected that τιμωρίαν or τίσιν would have been used by the poet. As Sophokles, however, wished to specify more accurately the precise character of the vengeance or atonement taken, or, in other words, to attract attention to the outrageous cruelty with which Aias had revenged the treatment he had sustained at the hands of his adversaries (vv. 111–113), he has substituted ße, which must be understood in a passive signification, and as expressing the idea which would have been conveyed had Tío occupied its place. Hence the language here employed is equivalent

« ÎnapoiContinuă »