803. Σὺ δ ̓, ὦ τὸν αἰπὸν, κ.τ.λ. And thou, Ο Helios, who drivest thy car up the steep heaven. Compare Eur. Phæn. 1, ὦ τὴν ἐν ἄστροις οὐρανοῦ τέμνων ὅδον καὶ χρυσοκολλήτοισιν ἐμβεβὼς δίφροις, Ἥλιε, θοαῖς ἵπποισιν εἰ λίσσων φλόγα. Nonnus, XXVII. 269, ήῴην δ ̓ ἐπὶ πέζαν ἑὰς ἐτίταινεν ὀπώπας | ἀντιπόρῳ Φαέθοντι, καὶ ὑστατίην φάτο φωνήν. | Ηέλιε, φλογεροῖο δι' ἅρματος αἰθέρα τέμνων, | στῆσον ἐμοὶ σέο δίφρα καὶ ἔννεπε Δηριαδῆϊ | Ἴνδων δοῦλα γένεθλα καὶ αὐτοδάϊκτον Ορόντην. Senec. Herc. Oet. 1516, Ο decus mundi, radiate Titan, | Dic sub Aurora positis Sabæis, | Dic sub occasu positis Iberis, Dic ad æternos properare manes | Herculem et regnum canis inquieti. Claudian de Prob. et Olyb. 1, Sol, qui flammigeris mundum complexus habenis, Volvis inexhausto redeuntia sæcula motu, Sparge diem meliore coma, crinemque repexi Blandius elato surgant temone jugales. On the accusative οὐρανόν, see note to v. 30, supra; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 558. 1 ; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 115.

805. χρυσόνωτον. Aureis bullis seu bracteis superne ornatam. See the learned note of Lobeck to this line.

πινα

807. τῇ τε δυστήνῳ τροφῷ. SCHOL.: καὶ ταῦτα περιπαθῆ καὶ ἀνθρώ ὅρα γὰρ, ὅτι καὶ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς (Trach. 1148) ἐπὶ τοῦ θανάτου τὴν μητέρα μεταπέμπεται, ὅπου καὶ πάνυ οἰκτρῶς αὐτὴν ἀνακαλεῖ. καλεῖ δὲ τὴν τάλαιναν. ὡς ἀντιλαμβανόμενος δὲ ἑαυτοῦ ἐπάγει· ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲν ἔργον ταῦτα θρηνεῖσθαι μάτην. With the use of τροφός in this verse, compare Eur. Phαn. 45, Οἰδίπους Πολύβῳ τροφεῖ δίδωσιν, altori; Theokrit. 27. 65, ἀλλὰ γυνὰ μάτηρ, τεκέων τροφὸς, οὐκέτι κώρα. On the omission of the article before γέροντι πατρί, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 268, Obs. 1.

810. οὐδὲν ἔργον. Nihil opus est. Consult note to v. 11, supra.

811. σὺν τάχει τινί. With all possible despatch. The indefinite pronoun Ts is frequently added to substantives and adjectives, in order to emphasize the notion they express, i. e. to increase or weaken their power as the meaning of the word or the context may require. Cf. Plat. Civ. p. 432. C, δύσβατος τις ὁ τόπος φαίνεται. Hom. Odyss. 10. 45, ὅσος τις χρυσός, what wealth of gold. So in Latin. Cic. Acad. 2. 1, incredibilis quædam ingenii magnitudo . ; habuit enim divinam quandam memoriam rerum. Id. Or. 62, Id nos fortasse non perfecimus ; conati quidem sæpissime sumus. Id. Tusc. 2. 1, Ego autem necesse mihi quidem esse arbitror philosophari. Id. Att. 6. 5, Nunc quidem profecto Romæ es. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 659. 4; Elmsley to Eur. Med. 548; Wunder to Ed. Tyr. 80; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 832; Liddell and Scott, s. v. IV.

....

812. Ω Θάνατε. Death is similarly personified at Philokt. 797, ὦ Θάνατε, Θάνατε, πῶς ἀεὶ καλούμενος οὕτω κατ ̓ ἦμαρ οὐ δύνα μολεῖν ποτε. See Klausen's Theol. p. 60.

815. Καὶ τὸν....προσεννέπω. The ordo verborum is καὶ σέ, ὦ Ηλιε, προσεννέπω. See note to v. 721, supra. A similar transition from the construction with a verb transitive to the vocative of more direct address occurs below, v. 820 sq. On the association of the nominative form, τὸ σύντροφον γένος, with the fifth case in v. 819, see note to v. 73, supra ; Hermann to Eur. Androm. p. xv. sq. With the passage generally, compare Eur. Heh. 411, ὡς οὔποτ ̓ αὖθις, ἀλλὰ νῦν πανύστατον, ἀκτῖνα κύκλον θ ̓ ἡλίου προσόψομαι, and the exquisite burlesque of Aristophanes in Acharn. 1184, ὦ κλεινὸν ὄμμα, νῦν πανύστατόν σ' ἰδὼν λείπω φάος γε τουμόν.

818. πατρῷον. For πατρώου. Compare Antig. 793, τόδε νεῖκος ἀνδρῶν ξύναιμον, Ibid. 863, ματρῷαι λέκτρων ὦται, and other examples of a similar enallage collected by Jelf, Gr. Gr. 440; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 446, note 1; Dissen on Pind. Ol. xi. 5; Klausen on sch. Agam. 53; Bernhardy, Synt. 426.

819. Κλειναί τ' ̓Αθῆναι. SCHOL.: τῶν ̓Αθηναίων μέμνηται διὰ τὴν συγ γένειαν· καὶ ὅτι ἐν ̓Αθήναις ὁ ποιητὴς ἠγωνίζετο ταῦτά φησιν, ἐπισπώμενος αὐτοὺς εἰς εὔνοιαν. See note to v. 200, supra.

820. Κρηναί τε.... Τρωϊκά. SCHOL. : ἐν ἀρχῇ ἔφη, πολεμίᾳ τῇ Τρῳάδι (778, supra). ἐπὶ δὲ τῷ τέλει καὶ τὰς κρήνας καὶ τοὺς ποταμοὺς καλεῖ, παρ ̓ οἷς μέλλει τελευτᾶν. καὶ ἔστιν εὐσεβοῦς ἀνδρὸς ἐξευμενίζειν πρὸ τοῦ θανάτου θεούς, τόπους, χώραν, πατρίδα, ἀδελφούς, ὥστε μὲν εὐμενείας ἀποθανεῖν· ἴσως δὲ καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρόμενος λέγει. καὶ τὰ Τρωϊκὰ πεδία προσαυδῶ. Compare the similar farewell addressed by Philoktetes to the fountains and rocks of Lemnos, in v. 1542 sq. of the tragedy which bears his

name.

821. τροφῆς. All the manuscripts, with the exception of the Codd. Γ. Δ. read τροφεῖς. See note to v. 369, supra; Blomfield, Gl. in Esch. Prom. 748; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 18. 5, Anm. 1. On the construction of the dative uol (dativus commodi) with the substantive rgopñs, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 602. 3.

....

822. Τοῦθ ̓ ὑμὶν. θροεῖ. SCHOL.: περιπαθῶς καὶ τὸ ὄνομα ἀνακαλεῖται. δεῖ δὲ ὑπονοῆσαι, ὅτι περιπίπτει τῷ ξίφει, καὶ δεῖ καρτερόν τινα εἶναι τὸν ὑποκριτὴν, ὡς ἄξαι τοὺς θεατὰς εἰς τὴν τοῦ Αἴαντος φαντασίαν, ὁποῖα περὶ τοῦ Ζακυνθίου Τιμοθέου φασὶν, ὅτι ἦγε τοὺς θεατὰς καὶ ἐψυχαγωγεῖ τῇ ὑποκρίσει ὡς σφαγέα αὐτὸν κληθῆναι. The MS. Flor. I. reads ἔσχατον θροεῖ. See note to v. 773, supra. Aias falls upon his sword. That the apostrophe of Aias, so full of elevated tenderness and the passionate yearning for life, so characteristic of the ancient Greek, is one of the sublimest triumphs of human genius, admitted on all hands. On purely artistic grounds, mod

ern critics, following the cue first given by the master-mind of Lobeck, have expressed a strong opinion that the play ought to have ended here. And it may be conceded that with the death of Aias the interest of the tragedy to modern readers may be said to terminate. For in no other drama with which we are acquainted is that interest so undivided as in this. From whatever point we view the action or the dialogue, our attention is riveted to the hero, and to him alone. If we ascend into Olympos, we find that he is prominent in the regards of the stern goddess who lends her aid to his destruction; if we transport ourselves to the situation of Tekmessa, Teukros, Odysseus, or the Chorus, his varying vicissitudes of feeling, his malady, restoration, remorse, and subsequent movements, are the single object of our care. And if we mingle with the Athenian crowd who thronged to witness the exhibition of this most glorious work of art, it is impossible that we should fail to note that their sympathies and emotions cluster round the mighty sorrows of the son of Telamon, and are all concentrated on him. Whatever stand-point we select, the majestic Aias

is the object which attracts our gaze, and anxiety as to the mode in which the poet will portray the close of his grand and fearless life, the irrepressible feeling which "o'ersways our hearts." All is subordinate to Aias: we think and feel for him alone; and with the catastrophe which follows his magnificent farewell to life the spell is broken and the enchantment gone. As an apology for what follows, Hermann has remarked that usage and the whole spirit of ancient tragedy forbade the poet to omit the customary lamentation for the death of the hero, or to leave his auditors in uncertainty as to the burial of his remains, whilst in the vindictive cruelty imputed to Menelaos, as a type and illustration of Lakedaimonian feeling and manners (see notes to vv. 989, 1071, infra), there must have been something eminently captivating to Athenian ears. A far more weighty reason, as it appears to us, remains to be alleged, and it is this, that the scenes which follow are a necessary supplement to the previous construction of the play, and to the poet's delineation of the character of Aias. In relation to the first, it will be sufficient to observe that the part taken by Tekmessa, Eurysakes, and Odysseus in the action, and the frequent reference to Teukros in the dialogue, compel the poet to gratify the curiosity he had excited as to their subsequent adventures and behavior. The apprehension expressed by Aias, also, in regard to the sepulture of his remains, forming, as it doubtless did, a large and essential element in the mingled hope and fear with which the audience had watched the development of the plot, claimed, in conformity with Greek ethics, to be set at rest. If,

The complete and cir

on the other hand, we look to the Sophoklean conception of the hero, we shall be almost induced to think that the poet would have constructed, not a tragedy, but a prolonged monologue like Lykophron's Kassandra, if the play had terminated with his death. Had Aias been one of those heroes who are impelled to action not so much by the exercise of their own intellect as by mere external considerations, this might have been appropriate, for in that case the fates of those with whom or against whom he had acted would, beyond all uncertainty or doubt, be decided by his own. But the circumstances in the present case are widely different, for a deeper investigation of the intention of the poet will show that the mental conflict resulting from the disappointment of his hero in the trial for the arms is the origin and pivot of the whole tragic action. cumstantial exposition of the effect this had in producing the death of Aias was not, however, compatible with the scope and limits of the play, and was purposely concealed in some degree from the observation of the spectators, that the uncertainty as to the final termination of the action, which was so requisite to the interest, might not be forestalled. So carefully is this provided for, that the whole army, and the will of the divinities as expounded by the prophet Kalchas, are represented as favoring to a large extent the expectation that Aias would survive. The hero perishes by his own hand, in pursuance of a resolution whose calamitous result cannot be referred to divine or human interposition; and those with whom he was united by the tenderest ties of friendship or of love, amidst all their compassion for his sufferings, are nevertheless depicted as devoid of all real sympathy with his own mental purposes and feeling. Hence it happens that the dramatic action, which up to this period had been confined entirely to the mind of Aias, is, as it were, transferred to the emotions which his suicide awakens in the minds of other men. Emancipated from the restraint occasioned by his living presence, the passions of the survivors are roused into full and spontaneous development, and, that an adequate reason for this outburst might be apparent on the surface, the prohibition of the Atreidai with regard to his interment, is dexterously made use of by the poet, Lest the interest, however, which had hitherto rested solely upon Aias, should too abruptly terminate, his corpse remains upon the stage, with all the attendant circumstances pertaining to his death, and the subsequent litigation is carried on in its immediate presence. Finally, we would observe that the laws of Grecian art required that the poet should render satisfaction to the wounded sense of justice which the adjudication of the arms, and the dire catastrophe it had evoked, must have produced in the minds

of the spectators of this play, no less than in those of the surviving partisans of Aias. We have abundant reason for believing that the adjudication of the arms did not obtain unqualified or universal approbation, and it was doubtless the general opinion, that Aias, by his voluntary death, had rendered more than satisfaction to the law which he had violated. For this reason, therefore, it was absolutely necessary for Sophokles to add the remaining scenes, in order to renew the former glory of his hero, and to reduce to concord and agreement the discordant opinions entertained by those with whom whilst living he was associated, respecting his guilt and its deserts.

824. Πόνος .... φέρει. SCHOL. : λείπει ἡ πρὸς, ἵν ̓ ᾖ, ὁ πόνος πρὸς τῷ πόνῳ πόνον φέρει. καὶ ἐστὶ τὸ μὲν πόνος πόνῳ ἀρχαϊκὸν, ὡς ἔργον ἐπ ̓ ἔργῳ, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον πόνον κοινῶς, οἷον κάματον. "Αλλως. οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ προΐασιν, ὥσπερ ἐκ διαφόρων τόπων κατ ̓ ἄλλην καὶ ἄλλην εἴσοδον, ζητοῦντες τὸν Αἴαντα, καὶ ἡ Τέκμησσα ἐξ ἄλλων, ἥτις καὶ πρώτη ἐπιτυγχάνει τῷ πτώματι, ὁ δὲ νοῦς· ὁ πόνος ἐπὶ πόνῳ πόνον φέρει. ὡς Ὅμηρος • Πάντῃ δὲ κακὸν κακῷ ἐστήρικται (Π. 16. 111)· καὶ ἐν Τραχινίαις· Νυξ γὰρ εἰσάγει καὶ νὺξ ἀπωθεῖ διαδεδεγμένη πόνον (v. 29). Cf. Æsch. Pers. 1035, δύσιν κακὰν κακῶν κακοῖς. On the dative, see Porson to Eur. Hek. 586; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 403. a, Obs. We regard this line as extremely suspicious, for two reasons. The first, that it has no metrical correspondence with the following verses; the second, that there is something almost ludicrous in the sentiment it expresses. The words ἰὼ πόνοι πρόγονοι πόνων, which have been hitherto read in all editions at v. 1137, infra, are regarded by the majority of commentators as equally spurious, and can, therefore, afford no confirmation to the verse before us. It was probably introduced by some interpolator, on account of the introduction of yág in the next line, but unnecessarily, for that particle is often inserted without any antecedent proposition to which it can be referred. - The Chorus here return to the Orchestra, separated into two divisions; the one advancing from the right hand, the other from the left hand rodos, and subsequently reuniting in the centre of the stage. Hermann, Wunder, and Matthiä have arranged these verses, including the subject of this note, into a pro-odos, two pairs of strophic verses, and an epodos. The former scholar has, moreover, distributed them amongst five persons of the first Hemichorus, and two of the second (vv. 824-827, A. a'; 828, 829, A. p'; 830, A. y'; 831, A. d'; 832, B. a'; 833, A. d'; 834, B. p'; 835, 836, A. ). See Böckh de Trag. Gr. c. 7; Hermann de Choro Eumenid. p. 9 sqq.; Id. ad Eur. Alkest. 77, 215, 883, and Præf. ad Eur. Herak. Fur. p. xiv. sqq.