to this : ὡς ὑβριστικὴν (αἰκιστικὴν) τίσιν ἐκτίσαιτο. Lobeck rightly defends the aorist by remarking that the ßgs of Aias towards his imaginary foes commenced with their captivity, many of them at the time of his conversation with Athene having been already slain, and the remainder bound, carried off, and treated with various indignities. On the participle iv, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 557, note 2. 292. izažas. The MSS. La. Aug. C. and several others aigas. 294. ἄτης. "We must understand here, not only the slaughter perpetrated on the flocks by Aias, but the calamity in which he had involved himself by that act of madness." WUNDER. .... 295. ἐν δ ̓ ἐρειπίοις . . . . φόνου. Prostratus autem sedebat in prostratis cadaveribus cæsarum ovium. So Wunder, who observes, that, just as ipsíπια νεκρῶν is put here for ἐρειφθέντες νεκροί, we find πτώματα νεκρῶν for WETOVTES VEXgo in Eur. Phon. 1490. Objectionable as the expression igsipais ero may appear to us, it is kept in countenance by v. 312, infra, ἐν μέσοις βοτοῖς σιδηροκμῆσιν ἥσυχος θακεῖ πεσών, where θακεῖ πεσών is, to say the least, quite as incongruous as iguptiis ero, and by Virg. Æn. 7. 94, ovium effultus tergo stratisque jacebat velleribus. The word povos is frequently used by the Tragedians to denote id quod occisum est. Cf. below, v. 521, νεοσφαγή . . . . φόνον ; Eur. Elektr. 92, αἷμα μηλείου φόνου, the blood of the slaughtered sheep, where see Seidler's note; Orest. 992, Μυρτίλου φόνον δικὼν ἐς οἶδμα πόντου ; Ibid. 1358, πρὶν ἐτύμως ἴδω τὸν Ελένας φόνον καθαιμακτὸν ἐν δόμοις κείμενον. The use of cades by the Latin poets is similar. Virg. Æn. 10. 245, crastina lux. . . . ingentes Rutulæ spectabit cædis acervos. .... 297. ἀπρὶξ ὄνυξι. Hermann directs us to combine these words, and to regard them as a single adverb. Wakefield, Silv. Cr. 2. 24, substitutes gí in place of xg, which word, he says, cannot stand with övğı. The poets, however, frequently avail themselves of this exñμa nar' ¿oxúv, as it is termed, and associate the names of two parts of the body, one of which would be sufficiently indicated by the mention of the other, either with or without the copula. Hom. Il. 10. 158, λàž modì xivńoas. Below, v. 1091 sqq., οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα σμικροῦ νέφους τάχ' ἄν τις ἐκπνεύσας μέγας χειμῶν κατασβέσεις τὴν πολλὴν βοήν. Eur. Phon. 1390, ἔγχος ἐκ χερὸς τῆσδ ̓ ἀπ ̓ ὠλένης βαλεῖν ; Quint. Cal. 13. 9, χειρὶ δράγδην ἔγκατ ̓ ἔχοντες. Plut. V. Cat. Μaj. c. 20, τῇ χειρὶ πὺξ παίειν. Cf. Matthia's Gr. Gr. 636; Kühner, 858. 3. 299. τὰ δείν .... ἔπη. "Without the article, div' àæuiλńowv læn, Eur. Suppl. 542; with it, Dio Cass. 45. 30, rñs Qwvñs rà deivà insiva λεγούσης, signifying those things which were known to the auditors, as at Eur. Or. 376, ὃς τὰ δείν ̓ ἔτλη κακά. But in our own verse those threats are meant which persons grievously enraged generally utter to themselves, i. e. he threatened me with death, τὰ ἔσχατα ἠπείλησε, Aristid. Panath. p. 109, Τ. 1. In the same way, Eur. Phαn. 185, ὃς τὰ δείν ἐφυβρίζει πόλει, i. e. ercisionem ; Xen. Kyr. 4. 2. 35, πάντα τὰ χαλεπὰ ἀνεῖπε.” LOBECK. Add v. 1164, below: σὲ δὴ τὰ δεινὰ ῥήματ' ἀγγέλο λουσί μοι πλῆναι. Philokt. 108, οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγεῖ δῆτα τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν; 300. 66 'Brunck, who first admitted pavoíny into the text, believed it to be the optative of the 2 aor. ἔφανον. In this acceptation, φανοίην is certainly contra linguam. The 2 aor. ἔφανον does not exist ; and if it did, its optative would be φάνοιμι. But if we agree with Burmann, as quoted by Erfurdt, in considering pavoíny as the optative of the contracted future Cave, it may safely be pronounced a legitimate Greek word. In my note to Ed. Tyr. 538, I have pointed out ἐροίη in Xenophon, and διαβαλοίην in Plato. With regard to the construction, Erfurdt properly compares άφειδήσοι, Antig. 414; ἀφαιρήσοιτο, Philokt. 376. δὲ πάνυ ἀχθόμενος φανερὸς ἦν, εἰ μὴ ἕψοιντο, φανοίην τo φανείη for the following reasons : φανοίην and εἰ μὴ φανείη is the same as the difference between εἰ μὴ φανῶ and ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Εἰ μὴ φανοίην has the same relation to εἰ μὴ φανῶ that εἰ μὴ φανείη has to ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Now it appears to us that the active future is rather more proper in this place than the passive subjunctive. We would rather say, I will burn your house, if you do not put ten pounds in a certain place, than, I will burn your house unless ten pounds are put in a certain place. Compare Antig. 306, εἰ μὴ τὸν αὐτόχειρα τοῦδε τοῦ τάφου Εὑρόντες ἐκφανεῖτ ̓ ἐς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐμοὺς, Οὐχ ̓ ὑμῖν Αΐδης μοῦνος ἀρκέσει, πρὶν ἄν, κ.τ.λ. ; Ibid. 324, Κόμψευέ νυν τὴν δόξαν. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὴ φανεῖτέ μοι τοὺς ὁρῶντας, ἐξερεῖθ ̓ ὅτι Τὰ δειλὰ κέρδη πημονὰς ἐργάζεται. The passage before us would be exactly similar to these passages, if the poet had put the threats of Aias into his own mouth, instead of throwing them into Tekmessa's narrative. reads φανείη with Porson. So Xen. Sympos. 1. 7, ws συνηκολούθησαν. We prefer the difference between εἰ μὴ Lobeck reads pavoíny with Brunck; Erfurdt rejects the verse as spurious.” ELMSLEY. 301. κυροῖ. The common copies read κυρεί, and the Scholiast κύροι, το which he appends the following observations: τὸ κυρῶ περισπωμένως φησὶν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ̓Αττικοί· ἐν δὲ εὐκτικοῖς βαρύνουσιν αὐτὸ ̓Αττικοὶ μετὰ ἐκτάσεως τοῦ υ, κύροι λέγοντες ἀντὶ τοῦ κυροίη· νῦν δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ κυρεῖ ὁριστικοῦ κεῖται. Elmsley, however, asserts that, with the exception of one passage 66 (Ed. Kol. 1159), the barytone form xúgw, like dixw and tw, is found only in the writings of the grammarians. Buttmann, Gr. Gr. II. p. 377, in allusion to our passage, says, die Lesart des Scholiasten, zúgo, ist gemüthlicher." In the present instance, we are inclined to consider the remark of the Scholiast as a sufficient reason for changing xvgsi into xvgo, although we do not assent to the statement of Elmsley, that the barytone verb is not found in the writings of the Attic poets. The true distinction seems rather to be this, that they employ the form zugsy wherever the metre will permit, and zúgu only where the metre requires the lengthening of the first syllable, as in Ed. Kol. 1159, θύων ἔκῦρον, ἡνίχ ̓ ὡρμώμην ἐγώ ; Eur. Hippol. 746, σεμνὸν τέρμονα κύρων | οὐρανοῦ ; and a verse cited from some unknown comic poet by Hesychius, s. v. κῦρον : οὔτ ̓ εἶπον οὐδὲν πρὸς σὲ xúgov, & yúvaı. Elmsley remarks further, that a similar variety of both reading and construction occurs in v. 685 of the present tragedy, where Erfurdt says, "Agxir an àgxíos scribas, ad rationem grammaticum nihil interest, sed illud meliores codices tuentur." A third instance is found in v. 713, where some manuscripts read iλ, but all the editions 20. In all passages of this kind, we should expect to find the optative, but every tyro knows that we frequently meet with the indicative. On the omission of v, see note to v. 9 supra. 66 302. φίλοι. Hermann draws attention to the very felicitous introduction of this word, and imagines that Tekmessa, overwhelmed with grief at the recollection that her hasty explanation of the circumstances above narrated had caused Aias such distress, made use of the epithet in order to deprecate the anger with which the Chorus must have heard the recital of her indiscretion. .... 306. Πρὸς γὰρ · x. For he was ever in the habit of maintaining that such a mode of lamentation was characteristic of a craven and abject soul. Cf. vv. 557, 1015; Matthia's Gr. Gr. 316. d. The adjective Bagutxos here signifies doloris impatiens. Cf. Plut. Symp. IX. 5. 739. E, ἐν ὀδυρμοῖς καὶ βαρυθυμίαις καὶ μερίμναις ; Id. V. Alex. c. 70, ὑπὸ λύπης καὶ βαρυθυμίας, cited by Lobeck. Εξηγεῖτο may be regarded as occupying the place of the simple ysro, or as used in the sense of dictitare and declarare, as at Æsch. Prom. 214, τοιαῦτ ̓ ἐμοῦ λόγοισιν ἐξηγουμένου. Γόους ἔχειν for γιᾶσθαι is a periphrasis similar to μολπὰν ἔχειν for μέλπεala, Philokt. 213. See notes to vv. 180, 515. 308. atópros öžiwv xwxvμáтwv. Sine acutarum lamentationum strepitu. The Tragedians are especially addicted to the use of adjectives compounded with a privative in construction with a genitive, in which adjectives the See idea is implied generally which is more specifically expressed by the subjoined genitive. Cf. Elektr. 36, ἄσκευος ἀσπίδων ; d. Kol. 786, ἄνατος κακῶν ; 865, ἄφωνος αρᾶς ; Eur. Phαn. 334, ἄπεπλος φαρέων. Schäfer, Mel. Cr. in Dion. H. I. p. 137; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 172. 309.ταῦρος ὡς βρυχώμενος. "In the MS. Par. D., μvnáμsvos is suprascriptum, which has been received by Triclinius, as more appropriate to a bull. All the other manuscripts and Eustathius, p. 1145. 3, Bevxwμevos. Cf. Ed. Tyr. 1265, deivà ßguxnbeís, for which the middle is more common, Plat. Phadon. p. 177. D, ἀναβρυχησάμενος ; Apollon. IV. 19, γοερῇ βρυχήσατ avín; Nonn. X. 83, nivven Beuxńcaro Qwvậ; and elsewhere very frequently of those giving vent to audible lamentation, whilst μvnãolaι is not so used. The grammarians limit ßęúxnua to the roar of lions, and púnnua to the bellowing of oxen; yet we read in Hes. Theog. 832, rałgos ἐριβρύχης ; Theokrit. Id. 25. 137, ταῦροι ἐβρυχῶντο. In Oppian. Cyn. 4. 165, μυκᾶσθαι βρύχημα, and Nonn. XXIX. 311, βρυχηδὸν ἐμυκήσαντο, both words are combined." LOBECK. Add μύκημα μέγα ἐβρυχήσατο, Dio Cass. 68. 24; Bevxwμevov oraopoios, Trach. 802. See Buttmann's Lexilog. p. 204, English translation. 312. Σιδηροκμῆσιν. SCHOL.: τῷ σιδήρῳ φονευθεῖσιν, ὡς ἀνδροκμῆσιν. Compare Esch. Choeph. 360, dogınμǹs λæós, slain with the spear. That an adjective terminating in ús -ñros should be used as a neuter is exceedingly rare. In Philokt. 19 we read &μQirgñtos avλíov, and in Eur. Elektr. 375, ἐν πένητι σώματι. 313. dñλós kotiv üs TI dgarsíwv. On this construction, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 677, 684, Obs. 1. .... 317. Φίλων .. λόγοις. All the manuscripts read φίλοι. The correction λóys is due to Stobæus, Serm. CXIII. 8. According to the reading of the books, Tekmessa says that persons who are influenced by feelings of reciprocal friendship yield readily to their friends; according to the reading of Stobæus, that such men as Aias are easily subdued by the advice of friends. Cf. d. Kol. 1193, ἀλλὰ νουθετούμενοι φίλων ἐπῳδαῖς ἐξεπάδονται Quay. If the former reading should be retained, we prefer the explanation of the Scholiast : οἱ τοιοίδε φίλοι, ὁποῖοι ἐστε ὑμεῖς, νικῶνται φίλων, ἤγουν ἡττῶνται· ἡττᾶται δὲ ὁ ἐρῶν τινος καὶ πολλὴν ἀγάπην εἰς αὐτὸν τρέφων· κρατεῖ δὲ ὁ ἐρώμενος. With the construction νικᾶσθαί τινος, compare v. 1291 below: παῦσαι· κρατεῖς τοι, τῶν φίλων νικώμενος ; Aristoph. Nub. 1088, τί δῆτ ̓ ἐρεῖς, ἢν τοῦτο νικηθῇς ἐμοῦ; Other examples are cited by Abresch to Esch. Suppl. 1012, Valcknäer to Eur. Hippol. 458, and Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 357. 319. διαπεφοιβάσθαι. SCHOL. : ἐκμεμηνέναι, παρὰ τὸν φοῖτον· ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν φοιβωμένων καὶ ἐνθουσιώντων· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μανίᾳ τινὶ ὅμοιον πάσχουσί τι. From the former part of this scholion, Valcknäer ad Ammon. p. 149 infers that διαπεφοιτάσθαι is the genuine reading. The MS. Laur. a. διαπεφοβᾶσθαι. "The feeble and unnecessary μ, separated as it is by the sense from the remainder of the line, is exceedingly offensive. In the following instance, the offensiveness is diminished by the emphasis which falls upon the pronoun. Eur. Hel. 310, Ἔσται τάδ', οὐδὲ μέμψεται πόσις ποτὲ Ἡμῖν. σὺ δ ̓ αὐτὸς, ἐγγὺς ὤν, εἴσει τάδε. The following punctuation, although not quite free from objection, pleases us better than that of the common copies: Τέκμησσα, δεινὰ, παῖ Τελ. λέγεις, Ἡμῖν τὸν ἄ. δ. κακοῖς. Compare v. 215, Μανίᾳ γὰρ ἁλοὺς ἡμῖν ὁ κλεινὸς Νύκτερος Αἴας ἀπελω‐ βήθη.” ELMSLEY. 327. Ωμοι τάλαιν'. Εὐρύσακες. SCHOL. : ἀπορούσης τὸ ἦθος· τὸ μὲν ἀποιμώζει, τὸ δὲ καλεῖ τὸν παῖδα· εἶτα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἐπαπορεῖ, τί ποτε με νοινῷ· καὶ πάλιν καλεῖ τὸν παῖδα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν ἀπολοφύρεται· λεληθότως δὲ ἐνεφάνισε καὶ τὸ τοῦ παιδὸς ὄνομα· ἐδεδίει δὲ, μὴ ἀνέλῃ αὑτὸν μαινόμενος. 329. Τεύκρον καλῶ, κ.τ.λ. SCHOL. : ἐπιζητεῖ Τεύκρον, ἵνα παράθηται αὐτῷ τὸν παῖδα, ὃν ἀφίησι τῷ χορῷ, μὴ εὑρὼν τὸν Τεῦκρον· τὸ δὲ ἀπεῖναι Τεῦκρον χρήσιμον τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ· παρὼν γὰρ ἐκώλυεν ἂν αὐτὸν πρᾶξαι ἃ ἐβούλετο· νῦν δὲ μόνης τῆς γυναικὸς ἐγένετο κρείττων. Where Teukros was at this conjuncture may be learnt from v. 678 below. That the Greeks, whilst besieging Troy, were frequently absent from their camp upon expeditions whose object was plunder, is distinctly asserted by Thukydides, 1. 11. 1: φαίνονται δὲ [οἱ Ἕλληνες] πρὸς γεωργίαν τῆς Χερσονήσου τραπόμενοι καὶ ληστείαν τῆς τροφῆς ἀπορίᾳ. For ἢ τόν, the reading of the books, Brunck has written ή τόν. But compare Eur. Or. 1423, σὺ δ ̓ ἦσθα ποῦ τότ ̓; ἢ πάλαι φεύγεις φόβῳ; Heh. 765, εὗρες δὲ ποῦ νιν; ἤ τις ἤνεγκεν νεκρόν; supra, v. 102, τί γὰρ δὴ παῖς ὁ τοῦ Λαερτίου, ποῦ σοι τύχης ἕστη κεν ; ἢ πεφευγέ σε ; 331. Αλλ' ἀνοίγετε. "From the employment of the plural form, it may perhaps be inferred that Tekmessa was accompanied by one or two female attendants." HERMANN. Lobeck more naturally supposes, that by the use of the plural nothing more is meant than aperite aliquis, on which formula see Huschke to Tibull. I. 6. 39 ; and compare Esch. Choeph. 873, ἀλλ' ἀνοίξατε ; infra, v. 568, οὐ ξυνέςξεθ ̓ ὡς τάχος ; 332. κἀπ ̓ ἐμοί. just made by Aias. The particle naí refers to the mention of Teukros The Chorus says, Even if Teukros is not present, yet Aias will probably be more moderate at the sight of me." HERMANN. "On |