Davenant, Just Italian, p. 32:

"Since knowledge is but sorrow's spy, it is not safe to know."

And Dodsley, Old Plays, XI. p. 119:

"Ignorance is safe;

I then slept happily; if knowledge mend me not,

Thou hast committed a most cruel sin

To wake me into judgment."

530. Tò μù Qgovsiv....nanóv. Valcknäer to Eur. Hippol. 247, Brunck to the preceding verse, Porson to Eur. Med. 140, Elmsley to Herakl. 1014, and most modern critics, consider this line a spurious introduction from the margin. It is omitted by Stobæus, Serm. LXXVIII. 9, where the preceding and subsequent verses are quoted, but is recognized apparently by the Schol. Rom. in the words ἐν τῷ νηπίῳ κακὸν μὲν τὸ μὴ φρονεῖν, κακὸν δὲ ὅμως ἀκίνδυνον, by Suidas s. v. Znλouv, Eumathius de Ism. et Ismenia, p. 52, and Tzetzes, Chil. 6. 69. Hermann argues warmly in its favor, and represents it as extremely appropriate to the language which precedes. "Quum poeta dixisset ignorantes vivere jucundissime, ne hoc falso dixisse videatur, in parenthesi addit: nam si malum est ignorantia, at innoxium est malum, usque dum discernere didiceris quid sit gaudere et quid dolere. Repetitio verborum in his ἐν τῷ φρονεῖν μηδέν et τὸ μὴ φρονεῖν, neminem offendet, qui meminerit frequentissimas esse hujusmodi repetitiones. Illa autem dioros Bios et nágr' áváduvov xaxov, non idem, sed diversissima sunt." Even if there had been no diversity of meaning, the repetition of the language would have weighed little with us as an argument against the reception of this verse for dis rauta λéyovoi oi copoí, as at Elektr. 1078, Eur. Phœn. 358, Ion. 50, and frequently elsewhere. We cannot, however, agree with this eminent critic in thinking that the words before us are added as an explanation of a thought which we fail to discover in any part of this address; nor is it, we believe, customary for explanatory or qualifying clauses to be introduced, in either prose or poetry, without some previous mention of the sentiment which they are intended to limit or define. Who, moreover, can suppose that τὸ μὴ φρονεῖν γὰρ κάρτ ̓ ἀνώδυνον κάκον would have been placed by any writer for that which, in conformity with Hermann's reasoning, ought to have been written xanòv μśv iori tò μù Qgoνεῖν, ἀλλὰ κάρτ ̓ ἀνώδυνον ? On such principles of interpretation, the words under review may be regarded as corrective of any idea under heaven. In the connection in which we find them, and in reference to the words immediately antecedent, we must, then, confess ourselves unable to discover

any consistency between the two assertions ἐν τῷ φρονεῖν γὰρ μηδὲν ἥδι στος βίος, and τὸ μὴ φρονεῖν γὰρ κάρτ ̓ ἀνώδυνον κακόν. The ἀφροντιστία of early childhood, as an indication of intellectual inferiority, may, indeed, be called a xanov, but why should the adjective άváduvov be added? Still more difficult is it to understand why, even as an ávádvvov xanóv, it should be represented as the cause rodiorov Biov. For, as Lobeck accurately observes, the particle yάg is here used in a causal, and not a mere corrective sense. The mere inability to discriminate between pain and pleasure, and the total want of all consciousness of this inability, must be regarded as unsatisfactory and inadequate reasons for the extreme enjoyment of the child. That the reference is not, on the other hand, to that insensibility to external ills so characteristic of thoughtless youth, is evident from the consideration that this has been already stated at v. 528, in the words ὅτι οὐδὲν τῶνδ ̓ ἐπαισθάνει κακῶν. If, then, this verse is to be retained, our only alternative is emendation. The reading of Suidas, 1. c., rò μÙ Ogovεiv dé, x..., is certainly preferable to the Vulgate, and has been viewed with favor by some scholars. A far better mode will be to read rò un φρονεῖν γὰρ κάρτ ̓ ἀνώδυνον κακῶν, i. e. ἄνευ κακῶν, or rather ἄνευ ὀδύνης κακῶν. No explanation will be required to show how entirely opposite a sense this simple alteration will impart, and no hesitation will be felt at the expression aváduvov xaxwv, so thoroughly in harmony with the Sophoklean diction, by those who remember Ed. Kol. 786, naxäv ävaтos; Ibid. 865, ἄφωνος ἀρᾶς ; ν. 308 supra, ἀψόφητος οξέων κωκυμάτων ; Elektr. 36, onεvos domidwv; and the numerous similar examples from the other Tragedians which have been collected by Jelf, Gr. Gr. 529, Obs. 2.

....

531. Ἕως . . . . μάθης. The temporal conjunctions ἕως, ἔστε, πρίν, and Mixes (o) are sometimes, although rarely, constructed with the conjunctive without av, when, as in the present passage, the thought expressed by the writer or speaker is represented as not problematic or uncertain. Cf. Plat. Phad. 62, οὐ πρότερον αὑτὸν ἀποκτιννύναι δεῖ, πρὶν ἀνάγκην τινὰ ὁ θεὸς ἐπιπέμψῃ. Thuk. 6. 10, οὐ χρὴ ἀρχῆς ἄλλης ὀρέγεσθαι πρὶν ἣν ἔχομεν βεβαιωσώμεθα. Ib. 1. 137, τὴν δὲ ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι μηδένα ἐκβῆναι ἐκ τῆς νεῶς μέχρι πλοῦς γένηται. Soph. Philokt. 917, Μὴ στέναζε, πρὶν μάθης. Infra, v. 547, μέχρις μυχοὺς κίχωσι νερτέρου θεοῦ. See Jelf's Gr. Gr.

842. 2.

532. δεῖ σ' ὅπως πατρὸς δείξεις. On this "remarkable construction," see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 898, Obs. 2, and compare Philokt. 54, ràv ÞiλONTÚTOV σε δεῖ ψυχὴν ὅπως λόγοισιν ἐκκλέψεις λέγων. Kratinos ap. Athen. ΙΧ. p. 373. Ε, δεῖ σ ̓ ὅπως ἀλεκτρυόνως μηδὲν διοίσεις. As the future

indicative is the prevalent construction with ws after verbs which express the idea of caring, considering, exerting one's self, etc., when the end proposed is not represented as simply problematic, but as definitely possible, it is perhaps best to suppose an ellipse of φροντίζειν oι πράττειν, in the sense of curare, after the words δεῖ σε. So in Xen. An. 1. 7. 3, ὅπως οὖν ἔσεσθε ἄνδρες ἄξιοι τῆς ἐλευθερίας, supply ἐπιμελεῖσθε.

533. οἷος ἐξ οἵου. See note to v. 478, supra.

534. κούφοις πνεύμασιν. SCHOL. : κούφῃ καὶ ἁπαλῇ ζωῇ· τῇ δὲ μεταφορᾷ τῶν μικρῶν φυτῶν ἐχρήσατο, ἅτινα οὐδὲν σφοδρὸν δύναται ὑποφέρειν, οὐ καύσωνα οὐκ ἄνεμον. “ Compare Dio Chrys. Or. XII. 202. Β, τρεφόμενοι τῇ διηνεκεῖ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιῤῥοῇ ἀέρα ὑγρὸν ἕλκοντες ὥστε νήπιοι παῖδες. Lucian, Bis accus. T. II. 793, ἄνεμοι φυτουργοῦντες. See other instances in Aglaoph. Τ. Ι. 760.” LOBECK. Add Trach. 141, τὸ γὰρ νεάζον ἐν τοιοῖσδε βόσκεται Χώροις, ἵν ̓ αὐαίνοντος οὐ θάλπος θεοῦ, οὐδ ̓ ὄμβρος, οὐδὲ πνευμάτων οὐδὲν κλονεῖ, etc. Orph. Η. 37. 22, πνοὰς ψυχοτρόφους. Pallad. Epigr. 122, αύραι ζωογόνοι. Catullus, LXIII., Ut fos in septis secretus

nascitur hortis, Quem mulcent auræ.

535. νέαν . . . . χαρμονήν. "Teneram animam (vitam) fovens, ut matri huic gaudio sis. On χαρμονήν (α source of joy), in apposition with νέαν ψυχήν, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 432, and compare v. 1149, infra, Elektr. 966, Cd. Tyr. 603, cited by Neue.” WUNDER. Compare Pindar ap. Plat. Polit. 1. 5, γλυκεῖα οἱ καρδίαν ἀτάλλοισα γηροτρόφος συναορεῖ ἐλπίς. HESYCHIUS: ἀτάλλει· τρέφει, τιθηνεῖ.

....

536. Οὔτοι . . . . μή τις ὑβρίσῃ, i. e. οὐδὲν δεινόν, μή τις ὑβρίσῃ. See note to v. 83, supra. The MSS. Ien. Mosq. B. Par. D. Aug. B. read ὑβρίσει, which is edited by Brunck, in conformity with the canon of Dawes, that after on the conjunctive of the 1 aor. act. is never found. We believe with Elmsley, that the reading in the text, which

supported by the

authority of the MSS. La. Lb. Γ. Θ., is right, and we are certain that ὑβρίσει is wrong. The form of the Attic future is ὑβριεῖ. See the Quarterly Review, Vol. VII. p. 454; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 517, Obs. 1; Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 746; Elmsley to Ed. Kol. 177; Reisig, Comment. Crit. in Soph. Ed. Kol. p. 251 sqq. ; Liddell and Scott, s. Οὐ μή; and compare Philokt. 381; Œd. Tyr. 771; Ed. Kol. 408, 702; Ar. Lysistr. 704; Xen. Anab. 4. 8. 13, 7. 3. 26.

....

ἔμπα.

538. Τοῖον πυλωρὸν “The expression πυλωρὸν φύλακα is analogous to λιθόλευστον "Αρη, ν. 242, supra, and other instances quoted in my note to Antig. 500. Strictly speaking, the adjective πυλωρός signifies πύλης φύλαξ, i. e. it already contains the idea expressed by the noun with

which it is here conjoined. In translation, however, we can only lay stress upon the notion πύλης, and must, therefore, consider πυλωρός φύλαξ as simply equivalent to πύλης φύλαξ. Even this must be regarded as a metaphorical expression to convey the notion of a perpetual guardian, who never leaves the place or person whom he undertakes to guard. Sophokles

has used οἰκουρῶν in the same manner at Philokt. 1328, Χρύσης πελασθεὶς φύλακος, ὃς τὸν ἀκαλυφῆ σηκὸν φυλάσσει κρύφιος οἰκουρῶν ὄφις. As an adjective, πυλωρός is employed in the same way as οἰκουρός, with this distinction only, that πυλωρός means πύλην φυλάττων, and οἰκουρός, οἶκον QuλάTTY. Aias, then, says, that he shall leave Teukros as the constant and intrepid guardian of the nurture of his son." WUNDER. The reading ἔμπα, κεἰ, for which Aldus and the manuscripts generally exhibit ἔμπακ ̓ si, originally due to the emendation of Reiske and Hermann, is supported by the testimony of the MS. Laur. A., Suidas, s. v. Tnawrós, and the Schol. Rom. See note to v. 122, supra; Porson, Adv. p. 220; Schäfer, Index to Mel. Critt. p. 163.

=

540. Tnawros oixvi. Is gone far out of sight. For the construction, see note to v. 216, supra, and compare Elektr. 313, bugatos oixvet. SCHOL. : τηλωπός· γράφεται καὶ τηλουργός, and this is preferred by Musgrave, who refers to Eur. Orest. 1331; Androm. 890; Elektr. 251. The reading in the text every way superior, and is defended by Philokt. 216. With the following words, δυσμενῶν θήραν ἔχων δυσμενεῖς θηρῶν οι θηρώμεvos, compare v. 838 below, where xwv aygas is employed in the same periphrastic way for dygsów, and consult notes to vv. 180, 306, supra. Here, again, the Scholiast observes, τὸ δὲ θήραν γράφεται καὶ φρουράν, i. e. as he subsequently explains, φυλακὴν ἔχων τῶν ἐχθρῶν, and the same word appears also on the margin of the MS. Laur. a. Its inferiority to the common reading will be at once detected by referring to v. 330, supra, and the observations we have added there.

543. öxws.... deíž. In place of dɛížŋ, which is found in the majority of the ancient copies and editions, Brunck has rightly edited deís, on the authority of the MSS. Par. I. Lb. Mosq. A. Aug. C. See note to v. 532, supra; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 519. 7.

545. Εριβοίᾳ λέγω. Schäfer (Mel. Critt. p. 163) and Erfurdt direct us to substitute the accusative 'Epißolav; and this, although the common reading may be defended by Æsch. Fr. I., ἆσσον ἦλθεν ̓Αντικλείας, τῆς ons Xéyw Tos μnrgós, and other passages cited by Lobeck, in which the verb ayw is placed extra constructionem, we are disposed to think more probable. Compare Antig. 32, τοιαῦτά φασι τὸν ἀγαθὸν Κρέοντα σοὶ κάμοί,

λέγω γὰρ, κὰ μὲ, κηρύξαντ ̓ ἔχειν. At Esch. Theb. 655, ixwriμ d's κάρτα, Πολυνείκην λέγω, several manuscripts read Πολυνείκη. That the letter is frequently converted by the transcribers into, is notorious to all. The representation of Sophokles, that Eriboia was the name of the mother of Aias, supported by the statement of Pindar, Isthm. 5. 45; Diodoros, IV. 72; Philostephanos ap. Schol. Hom. Il. 16. 14; and Hyginos, Fab. XCVII. On the other hand, Xenophon, Cyn. 1. 9, Apollodoros, III. 12. 6, and Pausanias, 1. 42. 4, call her Periboia. Pherekydes appears to have called her Phereboia, whom Plutarch, V. Thes. c. 28, distinguishes from Periboia, the mother of Aias, but adds, that Theseus married both. Cf. Huschk. Anal. Litt. p. 325; Lehrs de Aristarchi Stud. Hom. p. 249. If the common reading in Athen. XIII. p. 557. A is correct, Istros named her Meliboia. In the above passages, Xenophon, Apollodoros, Philostephanos, Diodoros, and Pausanias add, that she was the daughter of Alkathoos, the successor of Megareus. Lobeck observes, that these diversities of statement on the part of the historians and genealogists above mentioned are in all probability due to their anxiety to illustrate the closeness of the intercourse between Attika, Megaris, and Salamis, at the time of the Trojan war.

546. Ως σφιν γένηται, κ. τ. λ.

"Lobeck and Erfurdt have adopted

Is 'äv Yévnτa, the emendation of Hermann (Præf. ad Hek. p. liv.). They might have read ws yśvnra, comparing v. 531 (where see our note). As these emendations are violent, and as the common reading, whether we read μέχρις οὗ or μέχρις ἄν, is objectionable on more than one account, we are inclined to reject v. 547 as spurious. Perhaps it was inserted by some scrupulous critic, who thought that the expression yngoßornòs sis así, in the preceding verse, required some qualification. The words sis así may be translated as long as they live. Compare Ed. Tyr. 275; Trach. 1204." ELMSLEY. In addition to the foregoing remarks, we have only to observe, that the anapæst, formed by two words, with which the verse commences, - the fact that μέχρι οι μέχρις, much less μέχρις οὗ or μέχρις ἄν, are never used by the writers of ancient Attic tragedy, — and the unpoetical character of the expression μυχοὶ τοῦ κάτω θεοῦ, are decisive arguments for the rejection of this verse.

549. μὴ θήσουσι. The construction is to be referred to %ws in v. 543, supra, where see note. i xuμsàv iμós. The reference is to Odysseus. The unusual position of the pronoun is defended by Eur. Hippol. 683, Zsús σ ̓ ὁ γεννήτωρ ἐμός ; Theokrit. Id. 27. 58, τὠμπέχονον ἐμόν ; and several passages in Plato and Thukydides. See Dindorf to this verse; Schneider