tion of this hero, and in opposition to the whole spirit of the heroic age. Whilst the sense yielded by this explanation — Thou, thou alone of my protectors wilt assist me; therefore kill me—is jejune and inappropriate. Lobeck's explanation, that the genitive μivy refers to Aias, and is dependent upon ἐπαρκέσοντα, is set aside by the fact that ἐπαρκεῖν in the sense of to help or assist must be constructed with a dative of the person receiving the assistance. If the article had been joined with the participle, it might, occupying the place of a substantive, have been constructed with a genitive. But in our own passage the participle stands alone, and is purely verbal : δέδορκά σε επαρκέσοντα being equivalent to δέδορκά σε ἐπαρκέσειν, οἱ ἐπαρκέσεις, ὡς ὁρῶ. Hence, then, the dative, in conformity with universal usage, is imperatively necessary. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 181, follows Musgrave in supposing that Sophokles has employed the genitive in imitation of the Homeric phrases ἁμυμόμενοι Καλυδῶνος, νηῶν ἡμύνοντο, and other instances cited by Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 354. Such a view is not merely opposed by the general considerations above mentioned, but by the fact that púveolar signifies in these passages to keep off or ward from, which is a sense that the participle in our own verse can by no means bear. Thus, then, nothing is left us but to regard rouvay as corrupt. Wunder has received Reiske's emendation πnμovάv, from which he elicits the following sense: Du, du allein, ich weiss es gewiss, wirst die Schande von mir abwenden, darum tödte mich; "You, O true friends, will not suffer men to behold your leader in such degradation, but will remove him by death from their contemptuous gaze." In this way, it is true, the grammatical accuracy of the passage is restored, and a suitable sentiment obtained, but the unanimity of the MSS., and the certainty that the word aμny was read by the Scholiast and Suidas, must be regarded as sufficient proofs that this word, in one or other of its cases, must be here retained. By simply substituting ποιμενοῖν for παμένων, and constructing it as the dative dual with inagnioovra, all difficulty both as to sense and syntax will, in our judgment, disappear. The dual may be understood either of Aias and Tekmessa, at whose special invocation the Chorus had repaired to the presence of the hero, or of Aias and Eurysakes, whom the speaker subsequently recommends, in the absence of Teukros, to the protection and friendly offices of the Chorus. .... .... 345. Μὴ κακὸν Tile. "Musgrave writes as 'multo elegantius' μὴ . . . . δίδου . . . . τιθείς, without perceiving that this is inadmissible on account of the metre. The arrangement of the words, which Stobæus, Serm. CVIII. 55, and Suidas, s. Пμa, have preserved, is abundantly justified by vv. 193, 194, supra, where orngifs qasywv is read for paéysis στηριζόμενος. The explanation of the construction given by the Scholiast, μὴ τὸ πῆμα ποίει πλέον τῆς ἄτης, i. e. noli committere, ut insania (ἄτης) pudore ad gravius malum, mortem, adigaris, is manifestly erroneous. Much more accurate is the statement subsequently given : πῆμα ἄτης κατὰ περίφρασιν τὴν ἄτην. So also Eustathius, p. 1461. 68: 'Oμńgov siπÓVTOS πῆμα ἄτης ὁ ζηλωτὴς αὐτοῦ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς πῆμα ἄτης φησὶν, ὅ ἐστιν ἄτη περιφραστικῶς. In the same way πῆμα κακοῦ, Odyss. 3. 152; πῆμα νόσου, Philokt. 765; employed by Plato, Protag. p. 340. D, in the proverbial expression : εἰμί τις γελοῖος ἰατρός· ἰώμενος μεῖζον τὸ νόσημα ποιῶ.” LOBECK. Add rà Toude evdety #ńμara, Ed. Kol. 743. Render, therefore, Do not, by applying ill as a remedy to ill, make thy calamity the greater, 348. ἐν δαΐος ἄτρεστον μάχαις. "Some MSS., Aldus, and Triclinius read datas. Suidas, in citing these verses, s. 'Apoßóσπλayxvos, preserves the masculine case-ending. Aatais iv in Qoçais, Æsch. Choëph. 426; daïas róλpas, Eur. Androm. 837; but daïw re λóyxg, Troad. 1301, where some manuscripts exhibit data; data..... xiigis, Herc. 915.”" LOBECK. Below, v. 472, & daïa Tixμnooa. Matthiä to Eur. Herc. 1002, observes : "Monet Elmslejus & dáïs non usurpari a Tragicis: non meminerat igitur Soph. Aj. 742." The learned scholar is mistaken. In the verse referred to, & data is written in all the ancient copies, by Suidas, s. " daïa, and Moschopulus, Schol. ad Il. 2. 23; the only exception being, that in the MS. Leid. Suidæ dnia is read, a form which Hermann affirms to be never used in tragic senarii, except in relation to an enemy, and, it may be added, is not to be found at all in the Tragedies, except in those of Eschylus. 349. ἐν ἀφόβοις θηρσί. Who the critics may be, to whom Musgrave alludes as entertaining the opinion that a prefixed in the word "poßos is intensive, we are ignorant. It is at once evident that such an interpretation is in entire antagonism to the sense of the passage, since the destruction of such animals would have been a praise and distinction to Aias, as that of the Kalydonian boar to Meleagros, instead of an ignominy and disgrace. His peculiar degradation consists, as Wunder observes, in having made an attack upon tame domestic animals, who fear nothing at the hands of any rational man, but rather give him freely their confidence and trust. The Scholiast interprets τοῖς μὴ φόβον ἐμποιοῦσι, which is approved by Hermann, and would be Englished by not formidable. Cf. Œd. Kol. 39, μQoßor Asaí, where the adjective means terribiles, not trepida. Others, however, according to Lobeck, understand the expression under consideration in the following sense: "pecudes securas nihilque sibi ab hominibus timentes," tame animals whom every right-thinking man treats with humanity, not only because they do not endanger us, but because of the confidence with which they trust to our kindness. The adjective is indisputably used in this signification in Ed. Kol. 1325, ἄγω τὸν .... ἄφοβον ἐς Θήβας orgari, the fearless host. Bentley has proved by an example from Athenæus II. 471. C, that herds of domestic cattle are called gss, which Heath denies. In Æsch. Eum. 7, the word ng is used to denote every description of animal. .... 350. Οίμοι · ἄρα. "In place of olov ißgioen we might have expected lav üßgira. Had Aias, however, so spoken, Tekmessa would not have invoked him, as she does, Mǹ.... ada ráds. For this reason, then, it is clear that the words olov ißgirény contain this sense: quanta sum contumelia affectus, viz. by the gods, or more especially by Athene, at whose instigation Aias avers that he had been led to commit so wanton and insane a deed as his attack upon the flocks. Cf. v. 378, ἀλλά μ' ἁ Διὸς . . . . ὀλέθριον αἰκίζει, and v. 216 supra, Αἴας ἀπελωβήθη.” WUNDER. On the genitive yiλwros, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 489. 352. οὐκ ἄψορρον ἐκνεμεῖ πόδα ; “In this passage I am inclined to consider oppov as an adverb, because the expression oppos wous is nowhere read, and the adjective itself is usually employed as an epithet of living beings." LOBECK. Cf. Elektr. 53, ἄψοῤῥον ἥξομεν πάλιν. Ibid. 1424, ὦ παίδες, οὐκ ἄψοῤῥον; Trach. 902, Ὕλλος ἄψοῤῥον ἀντᾷ πατρί. It will be observed that in the use of the middle, izviμsobas móda, there is almost the same sense as that which would be imparted, if the verb were in the active voice, by the addition of the personal or possessive pronoun. Eur. Med. 728, ἐκ τῆσδε δ' αὐτὴ γῆς ἀπαλλάσσου ποδα. With the phraseology itself Lobeck compares Pind. Nem. 6. 27, ἔχνεσιν ἐν Πραξιδάμαντος ἑὸν πόδα νέμων, where the introduction of the possessive pronoun deserves the notice of the tyro. The form of the future vsu, repeated below, v. 488, Trach. 1240, Eur. Phon. 551, and frequently elsewhere, is in opposition to the precept of Herodian, who prefers vsμnow. See Lobeck to Phryn. p. 457. Wunder remarks, that it is quite in keeping with the character of Aias that he should receive a woman's rebuke with indignation. On the other hand, he takes in good part the expostulation of the Chorus to the same effect which immediately follows, and quietly proceeds to expatiate upon the great ignominy with which he felt himself to be overwhelmed. It may, moreover, be observed, that in all which follows as far as to v. 402, Aias pays no heed to the prayers and admonitions of the Chorus and Tekmessa, but is absorbed in the exclusive contemplation of his own personal degradation. The same critic aptly illustrates the conduct of our hero in this respect by that of Orestes, in Elektr. 1179 – 1186. 354. runs xai góvnσov s. Probably an imitation of Hom. Il. 5. 440, φράζεο, Τυδείδη, καὶ χάζεο. .... .... 355. χερὶ μséña. The majority of the MSS., with Aldus, xsgol. The reading in the text is due to Hermann, and is followed by Erfurdt, Lobeck, and all subsequent editors. The genitive is the more usual construction: Ed. Kol. 838 sq., μites xegoïv rùv xaïda tãoσov; Trach. 564, χεροῖν ἧκεν κομήτην Ιόν ; sometimes with the addition of a preposition : (Ed. Kol. 910, τοῦτον δ ̓ ἐγὼ . · ἄτρωτον οὐ μεθῆκ ̓ ἂν ἐξ ἐμῆς χερός; Eur. Bacch. 1024, pedísi dià x≤gãv ßaάornμi ävw; Plut. V. Timol. c. 20, Σικελίαν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν μεθείς ; Synes. Epist. IV. p. 161, μεθῆκεν ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὁ κυβερνήτης τὸ πηδάλιον; but the dative is found in Empedocl. v. 268, sioóns xegì μstã, cited by Lobeck, who properly observes, “qui e manu emittit, idem munu mittit." Render: who have let slip from my hand the wicked or accursed villains. For aλárrogas, the MS. Mosq. B. exhibits ἀλαστόρους, which form is found also in Antig. 975, ἀλαστόροισιν ὀμμάτων κύκλοις. 356. κλυτοῖς πεσὼν αὐπολίοις. SCHOL. : κλυτὰ λέγει τὰ αἰπόλια διὰ τὰς ἐν αὐτοῖς ταραχὰς καὶ φωνάς. This explanation is condemned by Heath, who directs us to write 'xλúros, i. e. inλúros. Musgrave, on the other hand, from Nic. Ther. 471, naì ixì nríλa μñλa donɛúwv, would have us substitute xrí2015, mansuetis, an adjective, so far as I am aware, unknown to Sophokles. Brunck has well defended the common reading from Odyss. 9. 308, καὶ τότε πῦρ ἀνέκαιε, καὶ ἤμελγε κλυτὰ μῆλα, and Lobeck quotes Hesychius: κλυτὸς ὄρνις ὁ ἀλεκτρυών. See also Passow, Lex. Gr. s. v., and render, Having fallen on the beeves with twisted horns and on the flocks of bleating goats. 357. Ἐρεμνὸν αἷμ' ἔδευσα. Musgrave considers that aipa is used here in the same sense as that assigned to it by some of the old lexicographers in the Elektra, v. 1394, and would therefore translate, nigrum ensem imbui. He would, nevertheless, prefer to substitute axua in both places. This suggestion has been exploded by Lobeck, who, with his usual learning, has quoted a great number of passages, in which other verbs having strictly the same signification as dsús, humectare, are employed in the sense of effundere. Cf. Pind. Nem. X. 141, réyyu dángva; Trach. 848, τέγγει δακρύων ἄταν ; d. Τyr. 1279, μέλας ὄμβρος . . ἐτέγγετο profundebatur; Trach. 780, μveλòv ingaíveı; Antig. 527, dángv' sißoμívn; Eur. .... Iph. T. 160, idgaives xoás. See note to v. 55 supra. Erfurdt to Trach. 853. Seidler to Eur. Iph. T. 214. Jelf's Gr. Gr. 548 c. and 570. σιν. 358. ἐπ' ἐξειργασμένοις. SCHOL. : ἐπὶ τετελεσμένοις καὶ ἴασιν οὐκ ἔχουκατὰ τὸ Σιμωνίδου· Τὸ γὰρ γεγενημένον οὔκετ ̓ ἄρεκτον ἔσται. Cf. Blomfield, Gl. ad Esch. Pers. 531. On the addition of ἐπί, either in notion of after, ir' (Eugyaoμívois 1207, Hdt. 8. 95, or to express a consequence or sequence on, Hdt. 2. 22," to the dative absolute, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 699, Obs. 2. 359. ὅπως . . .x. In Suidas, s. Ti dra, the common reading is ἔχει, with the scholion, ἀντὶ τοῦ, ὅπως μὴ οὕτως σχοίη, either, as suggested by Lobeck, from an omission of the lineola employed to indicate the final », or from the emendation of some interpreter offended with the comparatively infrequent use of the infinitive. In support of the construction of ws with the infinitive, which is properly an anacoluthon, the poet leaving the syntaxis with which he commenced his sentence for one equivalent to it, Erfurdt has quoted Xen. (Ek. 7. 29, deî ñμãs. ρᾶσθαι, ὅπως ὡς βέλτιστα τὰ προσήκοντα ἑκάτερον ἡμῶν διαπράττεσθαι ; Diodor. Sic. XX. 4, öπws .... τοὺς ἀναβησομένους ἐτοίμους ἔχειν; Ibid. 85, ὅπως . . . . αὐτοὺς εἴργεσθαι τῆς ἐπιβολῆς. Add Xen. Hell. 6. 2. 32, εὕρετο, ὅπως μήτε διὰ τὸν πλοῦν ἀνεπιστήμονας εἶναι τῶν εἰς ναυμαχίαν μήτε .... .... πει · ἀφικέσθαι. Ibid. 5. 42. Kyr. 4. 2. 37. See Hermann ad Vig. 435; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 623. 3; Poppo to Xen. Kyr. 1. c. ; and especially Wesseling to Diod. Sic. p. 408. 360. πάνθ ̓ ὁρῶν, ἁπάντων τ ̓ ἀεί. "Brunck, Lobeck, and Erfurdt read, with one manuscript, ἁπάντων ἀεί. We prefer πᾶν θ ̓ ὁρῶν, οἱ ἁπάντων 'dí, for a reason which will be given in our note on v. 994." ELMSLEY. The reason alluded to in the above note is, that ought to be repeated in both clauses, or, if not given in the first, should be omitted in the second. Hermann has adopted the first of the corrections proposed by Elmsley, but Lobeck justly objects to the employment of the singular. We have therefore retained the common reading, and attach the less importance to Elmsley's objection, since the particle is repeated in the following clause, κακοπινέστατόν τ ̓ ἄλημα. With the use of the word ὄργανον in this passage, compare the similar employment of the words instrument and tool in our own language. 362. Κακοπινέστατόν τ ̓ ἄλημα. On the word ἄλημα, see the learned notes of Musgrave and Lobeck. It is rightly interpreted by the Scholiast to this verse and to Antig. 320 : ἄλημα· τρίμμα, περίτριμμα, παιπάλημα. Zonaras, T. I. p. 131, explains by zavoúgynμa ĥ ixirgiμμa. On the |