779. περιστείλας. SCHOL.: εὐτρεπίσας, διαχειρισάμενος, περισφίγξας ἐν τῇ γῇ. Wunder approves the latter explanation, and interprets the expression giorśaλeiv tò ¿ípos, ita terræ infigere et abdere gladium, ut firmissime inhæreat. .... 780. Εὐνούστατον . . . . θανεῖν. SCHOL. : λείπει τὸ ὥστε· ὥστε διὰ τάχους θανεῖν. The infinitive without wors is frequently constructed with verbs and adjectives which express the notion of a qualification, or aptitude in point of sentiment or disposition, for the action it expresses. See notes to v. 673, supra, and the numerous illustrations cited in Jelf's Gr. Gr. 665, 666. On the employment of the intransitive verb davsiv, see note to v. 762, above. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 535, Obs. · Εὐνούστατον. TRICLINIUS: οἱ μὲν τὸ εὐνούστατον πρὸς αὐτὸν, τὸν σφαγέα, φασί. οἱ δὲ στίζουσιν εἰς τὸ ἐγὼ καὶ τὸ ἑξῆς κομματικὸν (scr. κομματικῶς) ἐκφέρουσιν, οὐδέτερον τὸ εὐνούστατον voouvres ægòs Tò avv. "Beyond all doubt it is a neuter adjective, equivalent to ὅπερ εὐνούστατόν ἐστιν, as at Eur. Suppl. 1704, καὶ δὴ παρεῖται owμa, σoì μèv où pinov. Cf. Matthiä ad Orest. 30." LOBECK. If this remark is true, and suvoúrratov is of the neuter gender, it must be referred to the preceding action of Aias, i. e. to the secure mode in which he had fixed the sword that was to slay him, lest the weight of his body, when falling, might turn the blade aside. We prefer, however, to connect it, as masculine, with aùróv, i. e. ròv apaya, in the preceding verse. On rad' avdgi for iuoí, see note to v. 78, supra. SCHOL.: 781. Οὕτω μὲν εὐσκευοῦμεν. Ηactenus bene instructus sum. καλῶς παρεσκευάσμεθα, καὶ ἔχομεν πάντα ὧν δεῖ πρὸς θάνατον. in di τῶν δε· οἷον τὸ δὲ μετὰ ταῦτα. See note to v. 512, supra. .... 782 – 802. Σὺ πρῶτος .. πανδήμου στρατοῦ. In these verses the poet, with consummate judgment, represents Aias as invoking Zeus, Hermes, and the Erinyes. As the author of his race, he implores the former to prevent that his remains should lack the honor of a tomb. Next, he calls on Hermes to lull him softly to repose, and to grant him a tranquil and expeditious passage to the world of Shades. Lastly, he adjures the dread Eumenides to behold his ignominious death, and to revenge it on his foes. 782. nai vàg sinós. For assuredly it is but reasonable. On the reason for the introduction of this parenthesis, see note to v. 368, supra. 783. οὐ μακρόν. Non magnum. The superlative of this adjective is used in a similar sense at Cd Tyr. 1301, μείζονα δαίμων τῶν μακίστων. γέρας λαχεῖν. The MSS. La. Lb. Δ. and Triclinius read λαβεῖν, which is adscriptum also in the MS. г. The common reading has been shown to be unobjectionable by Valcknäer to Eur. Phan. 444, and Porson to Id. Hek. 41. See Il. 4. 49; 24. 70. The tyro will observe that the verbs λαγχάνειν and τυγχάνειν are generally constructed with the accusative in the sense of to obtain, meet with, gain (see Hermann ad Vig. p. 762; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 535, Obs. 1), and with the genitive in the signification of to aim at, reach after, and so to become possessed of, a thing. 786. Πεπτῶτα περὶ ξίφει. Οι περί, used here in its strict local signifcation to denote the relation of circumference to a centre with the collateral notion of close connection, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 632; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 68. 32; Nitzsch to Odyss. p. 243; Dissen to Pind. Nem. VIII. 23; Isthm. III. 54; Liddell and Scott, s. v. B. 2; and compare Hom. Π. 8. 86, κυλινδόμενος περὶ χαλκῷ; 16. 570, περὶ δουρὶ ἤσπαιρε ; 21. 577, περὶ δουρὶ πεπαρμένη ; infra, 854, κρυφαίῳ φασγάνῳ περιπτυχής; Ar. Vesp. 523, περιπεσοῦμαι τῷ ξίφει. κυσὶν . . . ... 788. Ριφθῶ .... πρόβλητος. On the apparent redundancy of this ex pression, see note to v. 712, supra. οἰωνοῖς θ ̓ ἕλωρ. Compare Hom. Π. 1. 4 ; 8. 379 ; 17. 241 ; Æsch. Suppl. 807, κυτὶν δ ̓ ἔπειθ ̓ ἕλωρα κἀπιχωρίοις ὄρνισι δεῖπνον οὐκ ἀναίνομαι πέλειν. See Blomfield, Gl. ad Esch. Theb. 1015, and the commentators to Virg. En. 9. 485, Heu terra ignota canibus date præda Latinis alitibusque jaces. 789. Τοσαῦτά σ' . . . . προστρέπω. SCHOL. : τοσαῦτά σοι. προστρέ πω δὲ κατευκτικῶς λέγω, προστρόπαιοι (cf. v. 1117, infra) γὰρ οἱ ἱκέται. Suidas, s. v. Προτρέπω, all the manuscripts, and the greater part of the old editions, read προτρέπω. There can be no doubt, however, that προστρέπω, for which we might have expected προστρέπομαι (see note to v. 424, supra), is the genuine reading. Compare ad. Kol. 50, ὧν σε προστρέπω φράσαι ; Eur. Suppl. 1195, τοὺς θεοὺς πρόστρεπε ; Soph. Fragm. 724, ed. Dind., οἱ τὴν Διὸς γοργῶπιν Εργάνην στατοῖς λίκνοισι προστρέ πεσθε ; Asch. Εum. 205, καὶ προστραπέσθαι τούσδ ̓ ἐπέστελλον δόμους. The Scholiast is mistaken in regarding the pronoun as the dative. Προστ τρέπειν, in the sense of ἱκετεύω, is constructed with a double accusative. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 582. 1 ; and compare Hom. Od. 11. 529, ἱκέτευε πολλά με ; Elektr. 1370, προὔστην πολλά σε ; Eur. Phœn. 293, προσπίτνω ἕδρας σε. 790. Πομπαῖον. SCHOL. : τὸν ψυχοπομπόν. This epithet is applied to Hermes in allusion to his office of conducting the souls of the dead into the infernal regions. Diogenes L. VIII. 31, τὸν Ἑρμῆν ταμίαν εἶναι τῶν ψυχῶν καὶ διὰ τοῦτο πομπαῖον λέγεσθαι καὶ ἐμπολαῖον καὶ χθόνιον. Eur. Med. 759, ἀλλά σ' ὁ Μαίας πομπαῖος ἄναξ πελάσεις δόμοις. See Griffiths to Æsch. Theb. 855; Elmsley to Eur. Med. 1. c. On the adjective χθόνιος, see the interpreters to Asch. Choeph. 1, and compare Elektr. 111, ὦ χθόνι ̓ Ἑρμῆ ; Hor. Od. 1. 10. 17, Tu pias latis animas reponis sedibus; Virg. Æn. 4. 239; Ovid, Fast. 5. 663 sqq.; Id. Met. 1. 671. With the invocation of Aias to this deity, Lobeck compares Val. Max. 2. 6. 8, tum defusis Mercurio libamentis et invocato numine ejus, ut se placide (ἀσφαδάστως) in meliorem sedis infernæ deduceret partem, cupido haustu mortiferam traxit potionem. Silius It. 7. 140, Dii longæ noctis, quorum jam numina nobis Mors instans majora facit, precor, inquit, adeste Et placidi victos ardore admittite manes. SCHOL. : ἀσκαρίστῳ καὶ 791. Ξὺν ἀσφαδάστῳ. Without a struggle. σπασμὸν μὴ ἔχοντι, ἀντὶ τοῦ συντόμῳ· ὅπως καιρίας τῆς πληγῆς γινομένης μὴ προσγενέσθαι σπασμόν, μηδὲ πολλὴν ἐν τῷ θανάτῳ διατριβήν. καὶ παρ' Εὐριπίδῃ· Ὁ δ ̓ ἐσφάδαζεν οὐκ ἔχων ἀπαλλαγάς. Σφαδάζειν δὲ ἔλεγον τὸ σπᾶσθαι καὶ σφακελίζειν. In illustration of the sentiment expressed in this passage, Brunck has aptly quoted #sch. Agam. 1292, ἐπεύχομαι δὲ και ρίας πληγῆς τυχεῖν, ὡς ἀσφάδαστος, αἱμάτων εὐθνησίμων ἀποῤῥυέντων, ὄμμα συμβάλω τόδε. 793. Καλῶ δέ. See note to v. 592, supra. τὰς ἀεί τε παρθένους. SCHOL. : μυθικόν ἐστι τὸ λέγειν τὰς Ερινύας ἀεὶ παρθένους· νῦν δὲ τὰς ἀδωροδοκήτους καὶ οὐχὶ χρανθῆναι δώροις δυναμένας ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδικούντων. 794. 'Λεί θ' ὁρώσας πάντα. Compare Ed. Kol. 42, τὰς πάνθ ̓ ὁρώσας Εὐμενίδας ; Æsch. Eum. 68; Klausen's Theol. p. 53. The majority of the manuscripts, and Suidas, s. v. Προτρέπω, read ἀεὶ δ', and this particle may be defended by Elektr. 1099, and the numerous instances in which δέ follows τε, collected by Matthia, Gr. Gr. 626. The reading in the text is supported by the authority of the MSS. Ien. Mosq. b. and the editions of Triclinius. See note to v. 994, infra. 795. Ερινυς. Nearly all the manuscripts read Εριννυς, and at v. 801, below, Εριννύες. We have followed the MSS. Γ. La, in the last of which Elmsley to Ed. Kol. 42 declares that the single is invariably found. On the adjective τανύποδας, magnis passibus incedentes, see Liddell and Scott, s. Ταναύπους. SUIDAS : Τανύποδας· ταχείας τὰς Ερινῦς φασι. τὸ γὰρ τεῖναι τους πόδας ἔστι τὸ βαδίσαι. τουτέστι, τὰς πανταχοῦ τεινούσας τοὺς πόδας. Compare Eustathius, p. 763. 30. On the infinitive μαθεῖν, dependent upon καλῶ, v. 793, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 664. 797. Καί σφας .... ὀλοίατο. These four verses are cited by Suidas, S. v. αὐτοσφαγή. The MS. Aug. Β. reads καὶ σφᾶς, which is approved by Schäfer; the MS. Ien. καὶ σφάς, on which see Elmsley to Eur. Med. 1345. In v. 800, the MS. T. reads paráty. The reading in the text is supported by the authority of the manuscripts generally, and of Eustathius, p. 1961. 28. The MSS. Ien. Mosq. b. insert after ixyóvar. SCHOL.: τὼς αὐτοσφαγεῖς· τοῦτο ἀπέβη τῷ ̓Αγαμέμνονι· ὑπὸ γὰρ τῶν φιλτάτων ἀπώλετο. ταῦτα δὲ νοθεύεσθαι φασίν, ὑποβληθέντα πρὸς σαφήνειαν τῶν λεγομένων. We cordially acquiesce in the opinion of the more ancient commentators to whom the Scholiast alludes. The spurious character of these verses is most clearly shown both by their purport and their form. The pronoun pas can only refer to the word Ατρειδών in the antecedent verse. Yet, since Aias entertained equal, if not greater, hatred to Odysseus, it is impossible to suppose that he would have omitted the mention of his name in the imprecation which he is here represented to have uttered. So great an oversight no one will charge against our poet who has any familiarity with his writings. Secondly, the imprecation here put into the mouth of the dying Aias was not fulfilled in the subsequent history of his enemies, and its introduction, therefore, violates a law which, in all similar circumstances, is invariably observed by the Greek Tragedians. Neither Agamemnon nor Menelaos was killed by his dearest descendants; and that the death of Odysseus by Telegonos cannot possibly be foreshadowed in these words is an inference which is inevitable from the limitation of the pronoun. The assertion of Hermann, that Aias has included the name of his arch-enemy in that pronoun, although grammatical construction confines it to the sons of Atreus, in consequence of the intense anger and excitement under which he speaks, is disproved by the consideration, that there is not in his whole address one single trace of passionate emotion. On the contrary, as we have already seen in our note to v. 272, supra, he is represented as taking his departure from the world after full deliberation, in the calm and unfettered exercise of his own intellect and will, and as uttering his farewell to life in terms expressive of such intense though subdued affection for the varied objects around which his friendships and his loves had clustered in the animate and inanimate world around him, that the idea of this imaginary rage and frenzy seems completely inadmissible. Could it, however, be sustained, a fatal objection to the subsequent assumption of Hermann would still remain in the incontrovertible fact, that the heroes in Greek Tragedy never go to such lengths in their passion as to violate the laws of correct grammatical expression. For the numerous objections which lie against the form in which this spurious imprecation has been clothed, we must refer our readers to Wesseling's note, with the observa tions of Wunder in his Emendd. in Trach. p. 165, and content ourselves with calling attention to three points which furnish conclusive evidence of its unauthenticity. First, the employment of the verb σvvagmál... in the sense assigned to it by the writer of these verses, and in application to the Hellenic Erinyes. Secondly, the use of the adjective aurorqayns in wholly opposite significations in two consecutive and correlative clauses of one and the same comparative sentence. We confidently submit, that no similar example can be found in all the surviving productions of our poet, and believe that the same challenge might safely be extended to the writings of every other classical Greek author. Thirdly, the introduction of the superlative form qiaoros, which is never found in the Tragedians, nor in any writer of the age in which they lived. The words in this tragedy which gave occasion to this wretched interpolation are, beyond all question, those addressed by Teukros to Odysseus at v. 1327 sq., Toízag. ἀναξίως. 801. Ἴτ ̓, ὦ ταχεῖαι, κ. τ. λ. 802. Γεύεσθε .... στρατοῦ. See note to v. 73, supra. .... ScHoL.: τὸ ἑξῆς· γεύεσθε τοῦ πανδήμου στρατοῦ, μὴ φείδεσθε. "The Scholiast is mistaken in connecting the genitive πανδήμου στρατοῦ with the verb γεύεσθε ; for this and the preceding verse are introduced without the addition of any copulative particle, and it would argue the most barbarous ferocity on the part of Aias to include, without any assignable cause, the whole army of the Achaians in his terrific imprecation. Had he said, σὺν δ ̓, ὦ ταχεῖαι ποίνιμοί τ' Ερινύες, γεύεσθε πανδήμου στρατοῦ, such a sentiment might have been defended on the ground that he desired the whole host to suffer an expiation of the crime committed by their leaders. The absence of the conjunction represents him, on the other hand, as cherishing the bitterest hostility against the army itself, and for what reason it is impossible to gather from the context. Far more appropriate and satisfactory will it be to regard these words as a more energetic enunciation of the wish he had just before expressed, and as applied directly to the Atreidai : ir', ŵ raxrîai moiviμoi c' Ερινύες, γεύεσθε αὐτῶν.” HERMANN. We can by no means assent to the ellipse supposed by Hermann, nor to the argument by which he opposes the construction proposed by the Scholiast. Our reasons will be best learnt from vv. 242, 385, 433, supru, and from a comparison of the prayer of Chryses in Hom. Il. 1. 42. On the genitive itself, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 537, and on its construction with the remoter verb, consult note to v. 275, supra ; Antig. 535, καὶ ξυμμετίσχω καὶ φέρω τῆς αἰτίας ; Ed. Kol. 1330, ὅς μ' ἐξέωσε κἀπεσύλησεν πάτρας. |