Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

390. νέμος ἐπάκτιον. SCHOL.: τὸ ἄλσος τοῦ ὄρους τῆς Ἴδης τὸ παράλιον. Compare Trach. 1141, ἐπακτίᾳ Τίρυνθι.

392. οὐκ ἔτ ̓ ἀμπνοὰς ἔχοντα, no longer drawing breath, i. e. no longer living.

394. Σκαμάνδριοι γείτονες ῥοαὶ, εὔφρονες ̓Αργείοις.

Compare Eur. Hel.

54, Σκαμανδρίοις ῥοαῖσι ; Ibid. 259, Σιμουντίοις ῥοαῖς, quoted by Wunder. Lobeck considers that the poet intends in this passage to set forth the fierce resentment and passion of Aias, and adds, that it is eminently characteristic of men who suppose themselves to have been deeply injured to imagine that the inanimate objects by which they are surrounded are propitious to their enemies, and, as it were, confederate against themselves. So below, v. 433 sqq., μισεῖ μὲ Ἑλλήνων στρατὸς, ἔχθει δὲ Τροία πᾶσα καὶ πεδία τάδε. The Oxford translator observes, however, that "there is no reason why we should receive this certainly far-fetched idea, unless it be the rise of the Skamandros to overwhelm Achilles, as told in the Iliad." Musgrave, on account of the contrary representation given in Hom. Il. 23. 74, compared with vv. 36-40, where we find it denied that this river was kindly disposed to the Greeks, directs us to read δύσφρονες, and to substitute λάθριον for ὀλεθρίον in the corresponding strophic verse. Eustathius, p. 890. 22, teaches that the Skamandros is so styled διὰ τὸ χρησιμώτατον γένεσθαι τοῖς Ελλησιν, and the Scholiast, διὰ τὸ ποτόν. Compare Asch. Pers. 435, Σπερχειὸς ἄρδει πεδίον εὐμενεῖ ποτῷ.

398. ἔπος ἐξερέω μέγα, I will speak openly the boast, said parenthetically. See note to v. 367, supra.

403. οὐδ ̓ ὅπως. The common reading is οὐδ ̓ ὅπως. ought to read οὐδέ instead of οὔτε.

« After οὔτοι, we

Compare Asch. Eum. 299 ; Eur. Med.
Herc. F. 316. See also Esch. Prom.

469; Alkest. 1040; Herakl. 64;
435, with the remark of the Edinburgh Reviewer, Vol. XVII. p. 492.”
ELMSLEY. For an opposite opinion, see Hermann to Eur. Med. 4 ; Ellendt,
Ler. Soph. II. 444; Matthi, Gr. Gr. 609. With the double structure
of the verb ἔχειν, Wunder compares Antig. 270, οὐ γὰρ εἴχομεν οὔτ ̓ ἀντι-
φωνεῖν, οὔθ ̓ ὅπως ὁρῶντες καλῶς πράξαιμεν, where the optative is used
instead of the conjunctive, on account of the past time of the preceding
finite verb. On the sentiment of these verses the Scholiast remarks, ὁ χορός
ἐστὶν ὁ λέγων· ἐνδίδωσι γὰρ ὁ χορὸς τῷ κάμνοντι, ὅπερ ἐστὶν εἶδος παραμυ
θίας· ἡ δὲ Τέκμησσα τοῦτο οὐκ ἐποίει.

405. Αἰαῖ· τίς ἄν.... κακοῖς. SCHOL. : συνῳδὸν ἔσεσθαι καὶ ἐπώνυμον τοῖς κακοῖς· ἔπλεξε δὲ τὸ ὄνομα παρὰ τὸ αἰαῖ τὸ θρηνητικόν. Brunck condemns in severe terms the want of taste displayed by Sophokles in representing Aias in the very midst of his complaints as punning upon his own

name, although he awards him praise, that, in all his writings, this is the only example of the kind. In making this observation, he follows apparently in the heels of Valcknäer's criticism, who, to Eur. Phon. 12, censures Euripides, and eulogizes Sophokles, the first, for indulging so freely in such pleasantries; the second, for the opposite virtue. Lobeck, however, has shown that the ancients were accustomed to regard names as ominous of the destiny of the individuals to whom they belonged, and asserts that the moderns are not entirely free from the same superstition. See his note to this passage, and more especially his observations in Aglaoph. p. 870 ; Muret. ad Plat. Polit. I. 336. B; Quintil. Inst. Or. 5. 10. 31; Elmsley to Eur. Bacch. 508, and to Herakl. 919. One example of this συνεμπτώas, from the Anth. Pal. c. 5, is so elegant, that we cannot forbear to quote it here:

Αὐταί τοῦ Μοῖραί τε κατωνόμασαν Φιλόδημον,

Ω; αἰεὶ Δημοῦς θερμὸς ἔχει με πόθος.

That the present instance is not, as Brunck asserts, the only example in the tragedies of Sophokles, will be seen by a reference to v. 550, infra. Pindar, however, Isthm. 5. 27-31, gives a different history in regard to the name of Aias, which is briefly this: When Herakles invited Telamon to take part in his expedition against Troy, in order to revenge the perfidy of Laomedon, he is said to have supplicated as a favor from Zeus, that the latter might be the father, by Eriboa, of a son whose strength might equal that of the lion in whose skin he was girt, and who might, moreover, possess the highest gifts of mental courage and bravery. Whilst offering this petition, Zeus is said to have sent him a great eagle. Encouraged by the appearance of the royal bird, Herakles assured Telamon that he would have a son such as he had prayed for, and Telamon gave him the name of Aias from this eagle. The Scholiast to the passage referred to, p. 547, ed. Böckh, observes, santai dè in râv μɛyázwv 'Howr ἡ ἱστορία· ἐκεῖ γὰρ εὑρίσκεται ἐπιξενούμενος ὁ Ἡρακλῆς τῷ Τελαμῶνι καὶ ἐμβαίνων ἐν τῇ δορᾷ καὶ εὐχόμενος, καὶ ὁ διόπομπος αἰετός, ἀφ ̓ οὗ τὴν προσωνυμίαν ἔλαβεν Αἴας. Apollodoros, 3. 12: καὶ ποιησαμένου εὐχὰς Ἡρακλέους, ἱνὰ αὐτῷ (i. e. Τελαμῶνι) παῖς ἄῤῥην γένηται, φανέντος δὲ μετὰ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀετοῦ, τὸν γεννηθέντα ἐκάλεσεν (ὁ Τελαμών) Αἴαντα. It is unnecessary to point out, that no allusion to this myth is contained in the play before us, and that the verse under review furnishes conclusive proof that Sophokles derived the name Ales from ala. With regard to the construction, join iπávuμov Žuvoirs, and consult note to v. 69 supra.

410. Τὰ πρῶτα καλλιστεῖ ̓ ἀριστεύσας. SCHOL. : εἴληφε τὴν Ἡσιόνην παρὰ τοῦ Ἡρακλέους. See below, vv. 1237 – 1241 ; Apollodor. 2. 6. 4, and 3. 12. 7; Diodor. 4. 32; and Schol. Hom. Il. 8. 284. Telamon is mentioned as the first who penetrated Troy, by Apollodoros and Diodoros, the latter of whom thus writes: ὁ δ ̓ Ἡρακλῆς ἐστεφάνωσε Τελαμῶνα ἀρι στείοις, δοὺς αὐτῷ τὴν Λαομέδοντος θυγατέρα Ησιόνην· οὗτος γὰρ κατὰ τὴν πολιορκίαν πρῶτος βιασάμενος εἰσέπεσεν εἰς τὴν πόλιν, Ηρακλέους προσβα λόντος κατὰ τὸ καρτερώτατον μέρος τοῦ τείχεος τῆς ἀκροπόλεως. The Scholiast, as also Matthia, Gr. Gr. 423, interprets ἀριστεύσας by τῷ ἀρι στεῦσαι λαβών, understanding Hesione, who was given to Telamon, as an ἀριστεῖον. It is better, however, to regard τὰ πρῶτα καλλιστεῖα as the accusative of equivalent notion to that contained in the participle ἀριστεύσας, with which, therefore, it must be strictly connected. In the same way, at v. 55 supra, in the expression ἔκειρε φόνον, the poet, from a wish to give a more precise definition of his meaning, has substituted póvov for the cognate accusative κέρσιν. And there is peculiar propriety in the employment of the word καλλιστεία in the verse now under consideration. For in this case, the ἀριστεῖον, or prize of highest valor, was also the prize of highest beauty, viz. Hesione. Hence τὸ καλλιστεῖον is almost identical with τὸ κάλλιστον ἀριστεῖον. That not merely ἀριστείαν ἀριστεῦσαι, like δουλείαν δουλεῦσαι and similar phrases, but also ἀριστεῖον ἀριστεῦσαι, is a legitimate expression, is evident from v. 1238, τὰ πρῶτα ἀριστεύσας. Consult notes to vv. 276, 414.

Philokt. 142, πᾶν κράτος,

411. πᾶσαν εὔκλειαν, summam gloriam. summa potestas, where see my note.” WUNDER. Add Trach. 645, πάσας ἀρετᾶς λάφυρ ̓ ἔχων.

....

414. ἔργα . ἀρκέσας. SCHOL.: ἀρκέσας· δείξας, βοηθήσας, πράξας. See note to v. 410 supra. Here again we might have expected ἄρκεσιν. But a more precise definition being required, viz. the exact character of the assistance or ἄρκεσις which he had, either by word, counsel, or deed, actually rendered in averting danger from his friends, this is briefly expressed by the substitution of the accusative of equivalent notion for the cognate accusative. In other words, ἔργα ἀρκέτας is here put, as Wunder has perceived, for ἄρκεσιν ἐργαστικὴν ἀρκέσας, having afforded active or efficient help. Compare infra, v. 1040, τοιαῦθ ̓ ἁμαρτάνουσιν . . . . ἔπη, where ἔπη stands in precisely the same relation to ἁμαρτάνουσιν as ἔργα to ἀρκέσας in the present verse; τοιαῦτα ἔπη ἁμαρτάνουσιν being equivalent to τοιαύτας ἁμαρτίας ἐπικὰς ἁμαρτάνουσιν, i. e. τοιαῦτα ψεύδη λέγουSee Jelf's Gr. Gr. 596, Obs. 4.

σιν.

418. Κρίνειν ἔμελλε. SCHOL. : μετὰ κρίσεως διδόναι τινὶ κράτος ἀριστείας, ἤγουν ἔμελλε κρίνειν, τίς ὁ κρατῶν ἐν ταῖς ἀριστείαις. Hence, says Wunder, κράτος ἀριστείας κρίνειν τινί will signify principatum summa virtutis alicui adjudicare.

419. ἄλλος ἀντ ̓ ἐμοῦ. Alius mea vice. See Esch. Prom. 467; Ed. Kol. 488; Ar. Nub. 653. In this formula the preposition must not be thought to lose its force. Cf. Pflugk to Eur. Hel. 574; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 618.

420. παντουργῷ φρένας. SCHOL. : πάντα πράττοντι καὶ μηδὲν ὑποστελ λομένῳ, πανουργῷ καὶ ἀναιδεῖ. Lobeck compares Æsch. Theb. 655, φωτὶ παντόλμῳ φρένας. Philokt. 636, ἀλλ ̓ ἐστ ̓ ἐκείνῳ πάντα λεκτά, πάντα δὲ τολμητά. Eustathius, pp. 524. 40, 1848. 51, ὁ πανοῦργος καὶ παντουρ γὸς διάφορον σημασίαν ἔχει παρά γε τοῖς ὕστερον. Σοφοκλῆς γὰρ καὶ τὸν παντουργὸν εἰς ταὐτὸν ἄγει τῷ πανούργῳ, εἰπὼν ἀνδρὶ παντουργῷ φρένας, where άνδρί is evidently a mere gloss upon φωτί.

421. Ἔπραξαν. “ Fecerunt ut contingeret. The Greek phrase πράττειν τί τινι corresponds with our own expression jemandem etwas verschaffen, and conveys the idea of clandestine agency and partisanship. See Ducker. ad Thuk. IV. 89.” WUNDER. Compare Ar. Acharn. 755, ἄνδρες προβουλοι τοῦτ ̓ ἔπρασσον τῷ πόλει. See Bernhardy, Synt. p. 122 sq., and Hermann ad Vig. p. 290.

....

422. Κεἰ μὴ . τῆς ἐμῆς. hurried me away from my design. ἐξέπεσον αἱ διάνοιαί μου, οὐκ ἂν ποτε ἄλλου οὕτως ἀδίκως κατεψηφίσαντο· ὡς καὶ παρ' Ομήρῳ· Η γὰρ ἂν, ̓Ατρείδη, νῦν ὕστατα λωβήσαιο (ΙΙ. 1. 232). This explanation certainly confirms the reading ἀπῆξαν, which we have adopted after Turnebus and Canter. Another Scholiast writes απηξαν· ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπήγαγον· γρ. καὶ ἀπεῖρξαν, ὅ ἐστιν ἐκώλυσαν. Lastly, ἀπεῖςξαν is read in the MSS. Bar. Α. Γ. Mosq. Β. Dresd. b. and Iunt. Compare vv. 55, 70, supra, where ἀπείργειν is used by Athene in reference to the circumstances here alluded to. The reading ἀπῆξαν, which is exhibited in the remainder of the MSS. and in Aldus, must not be regarded as identical with απηξαν, for, as Brunck points out, the ancients wrote ἀπήιξα. Lobeck accurately observes, that the aorist ἦξα, which Heath would introduce at Asch. Choeph. 950, and Brunck at Ar. Ran. 468, is never used by the Tragedians. See Buttmann, Gr. Gr. II. p. 65, Anm. With the expression, φρένες διάστροφοι, compare Asch. Prom. 673, εὐθὺς δὲ μορφὴ καὶ φρένες διάστροφοι ἦσαν. The same adjective is employed to denote distorted vision in Eur. Bacch. 1165, ἐν διαστρόφοις ὄσσοις ; Trach. 791,

And had not my eye and perverted senses
SCHOL. : εἰ μὴ διὰ ἔκστασιν τοῦ δέοντος

diáorgopov öplaλμòv ägus. Lastly, on the sentiment of the whole passage, compare the very apposite illustration cited by Lobeck from Libanius, Ερ. 851, p. 400, σὺ δὲ μικροῦ ἐμιμήσω τὸν Αἴαντα τὸν ἄλλα μὲν βουληθέντα, ἄλλα δὲ ἀναγκασθέντα.

424. οὐκ ἄν.... ἐψήφισαν. "Sophokles has used the active, where we might have expected the middle voice. Compare Plat. Gorg. 515. E, οὐδεμίαν αἰσχρὰν δίκην κατεψηφίσαντο αὐτοῦ. Observe, moreover, the use of the aorist indicative for oùx äv Indiosav, as in Plat. Eryx. 393. D, οὐκ ἄν προηρεῖτο, εἰ μὴ .... ἡγεῖτο; Julian. Ep. XXXIX. p. 70, οὐκ ἄν με τις ἐγράψατο παραβαίνοντα τὸν νόμον, εἴ σε . . . . ἀξιώσαιμι.” Lo. BECK. Eustathius, p. 361. 29, charges Sophokles with an anachronism in the use of this verb: ψηφίζειν γὰρ οὔπω εἴδησαν (ᾔδεσαν) ἥρωες, ἀλλὰ μεταχρόνιον τὸ τῶν ψήφων εὕρημα. The same error (?) may be imputed to Pindar, in Nem. 8. 45, κρυφίαισι γὰρ ἐν ψάφοις Οδυσσῆ Δαναοὶ θερα. πεύσαν· χρυσέων δ ̓ Αἴας στερηθεὶς ὅπλων φόνῳ πάλαισεν.

....

425. Nu, di. "Atqui. So at Ed. Tyr. 263; Ed. Kol. 273; Elektr. 335; infra, 1004. Latin writers, although rarely, use nunc vero in a similar sense. See Ter. Adelph. 3. 2. 41; and Cic. ad Quint. fratr. I. 1. 88, 93." WUNDER. All the MSS. and Suidas s. v. exhibit adáμarтos. Elmsley to Ed. Tyr. 196, Reisig, Comm. Critt. in Ed. Kol. p. 385, Wunder, Advers. in Philokt. p. 34 seq., and Buttmann, Gr. Gr. 102, Anm. 7, have, however, clearly shown that adáμaros is the only form of this word in use among the Tragic Poets.

426. ἐπεντύνοντ'. SCHOL. : εὐτρεπίζοντα. Render, arming my hand against them, and compare Il. 8. 374, izívtuve võïvious; Oppian. Hal. 5. 562, ἤδη γὰρ δελφῖσιν ἐπεντύνουσιν ἄρηα. Hermann sneers at Valcknäer, who, to Eur. Hippol. 1183, directs us to correct ivóvor'; from a recollection, probably, of subúvovra at v. 72, supra.

428. Ωστ ̓ ἐν τοιοῖσδε .... βοτοῖς, i. e. ἐν τοιοῖσδε, δηλονότι βοτοῖς. Matthiä to this line, and in Gr. Gr. 471, interprets, tam vilibus pecudibus, with the approbation, apparently, of Lobeck. Wunder more correctly teaches, that there is no special reference to the kind of beasts whom Aias slew, but a mere opposition between them, as actually slain by him, and the men whom he designed to kill, but did not. According to this view, Borois is to be regarded as an appositum to roads. Compare Philokt. 1271, τοιοῦτος ἦσθα .... πιστός, ἀτηρὸς λάθρα, i. e. δηλονότι πιστός, etc. ; Hom. Π. 21. 108, οὐχ ὁράας, οἷος κἀγώ, καλός τε μέγας τε; See Wunder's observations to Philokt. 38, where many examples are brought forward of a precisely similar employment of the pronoun aλos by Greek writers.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »