only solicitude for the future fate of the young Eurysakes. Some critics have contended that his appearance in this tragedy is altogether unnecessary, and that the part he plays is suited only to the novum πάθος ” of a second tragedy (see Schöll. pp. 521, 528 sq.), whilst others pronounce him a mere loquacious brawler. We reply, that Sophokles had no choice left him in the matter. However wide the scope which was permitted to the dramatists in individual matters of detail, they had no power to set the myths upon which their tragedies were built completely at defiance, and their excellence was tested by the skill with which, in the evolution of their plays and the subjective operations of their own minds, they adapted and interwove the objective details of the traditionary legend. How, then, could Sophokles, in a tragedy founded upon the insanity and death of Aias, where he had introduced a chorus of Salaminians, Tekmessa, Eurysakes, Odysseus, and the Atreidai, have omitted his own father's son, whom every one of his hearers knew to have accompanied Aias to Troy, to have fought by his side, and to have retired, self-banished, from his ancestral home, on account of the unjust blame imputed to him in connection with his brother's act of self-destruction? The only point, therefore, really meriting discussion is the character and part assigned him by the poet in this play. How judiciously he is represented to have started on his foray upon the conclusion of the contest respecting the armor of Achilles (for his presence in that assembly is evident from v. 1079, below), we have already pointed out. That the cyclic poets could have adopted any other course seems scarcely credible. For by what gifts of mind or means of persuasion could he have been portrayed as able to avert his brother's death? In the play before us, at all events, the tears and prayers addressed to Aias for that object by Tekmessa and the Chorus are assuredly enough to prevent our wishing that those of Teukros, which would have been equally ineffectual, had been superadded. His eager and earnest anxiety to serve his brother in his hour of grief is sufficiently set forth, and the objection urged against the depth and sincerity of his fraternal love, on account of the delay which happened in his progress to the presence of Aias, is at once removed by the recollection of his entire ignorance of the suicidal purposes he entertained, and by considering that the period of his detention in the camp was occupied in the warm defence of his calumniated brother, in an eager refutation of the slanderous stories with which he was on all sides assailed, in exposing his own life to the most imminent peril by his affectionate efforts to disarm the hostility of the Greeks. Throughout the whole progress of the play, repeated expressions have depicted the anxiety with which his arrival had been expected by Aias and the Chorus. In the hottest pressure of his sorrows, Aias had vehemently demanded the presence of his brother (v. 329); when confirmed in his unhappy purpose to deprive himself of life, he makes renewed mention (v. 538) of the absent Teukros, as the perpetual and fearless guardian of his wife and child, and enjoins upon the Chorus (v. 652) that they should convey to him his wishes upon this point, and his injunction that he should manifest kind feeling to themselves; and lastly, in his dying speech, he implores Zeus (v. 784 sqq.) to send intelligence of his death to Teukros, that his remains might not want the honor of a tomb. At v. 762, Tekmessa commands the Chorus to hasten the arrival of Teukros, and again, at v. 871 sqq., betrays her extreme anxiety for his presence and the consoling support of his good offices, in the words, Tís σ: βαστάσει φίλων; Ποῦ Τεύκρος; ὡς ἀκμαῖος, εἰ βαίη, μόλοι, πεπτῶτ ̓ ἀδελ. φὸν τόνδε συγκαθαρμόσαι. The whole action of the play at this point is suspended in eager expectation of the arrival of the hero to whom Aias had so emphatically committed all his nearest interests. How faithfully he fulfilled his trust, how successfully he accomplished all the dying wishes of his brother, will be apparent as we proceed. As to his character, we would observe in brief, that, whilst in some respects he closely resembles Aias, he is represented as of a sweeter and softer disposition, as a sincere worshipper of the gods, as devoid of haughtiness, and, indeed, of selfreliance, unless assured that the position he may take accords où Sinaia (v. 1069). Schöll, p. 563, has correctly said, Er ist sichtbar ein Charakter von grösserer Klarheit und Gütigkeit, and he might have added, but of less power, intensity, and depth. Between the two there is an antagonism of character so clear and sharp as to be evidently intentional. In those points in which Aias is preeminent, Teukros is inferior,— that is, in strength, endurance, self-confidence, and pertinacity of purpose; whilst the virtues which adorn the latter gentleness, kind feeling, reverence for the gods, and self-restraint are wholly wanting in the former. They both agree in their hatred of all authority and their contempt for feebleness of mind or body. Were the lights and shades which are so prominent in each blended and united into the formation of one character, non homo, sed deus, evaderet." As it is in the nature of Greek tragedy to select for its heroes men of superior excellence and dignity, who yet labor under some one fault or foible, by which, however illustrious in other respects, they are hurried to destruction, it is an admirable proof of the consummate art of Sophokles that Teukros should be represented as achieving success - μοι and glory in virtue of his possessing those qualities of character in which Aias is deficient. Of his bravery there was the less need of special illustration, on account of his own desire to exhaust every term of eulogy in setting forth in this respect the surpassing excellence of Aias. A modest allusion to the part he bore in connection with his brother in repelling the attack of the Trojans upon the Grecian ships (v. 1226) is sufficient to quiet every doubt that has been suggested here. Nevertheless, this mild and genial man shrank from no danger in the execution of his brother's commands, and speaks in no affected terms of the honor he should acquire if compelled to sacrifice his life on his behalf (v. 1248 sqq., isi naλóv τοῦδ ̓ ὑπερπονουμένῳ θανεῖν, κ.τ.λ.). The introduction of such a character was a necessary supplement to this play; for as every tragedy, by a beautiful law of Grecian art, is required to terminate with some abatement of the intense feeling its more pathetic details had elicited,—in a certain kind of reconciliation, if we may so speak, between the auditor and the suffering whose representation he has witnessed, and it was in the very nature of Aias to cherish his antipathies with the most obdurate and invincible pertinacity, it became absolutely essential for the poet to introduce a character who, by harmonizing all angry and tumultuous emotion, should conduct the action to a peaceful and satisfactory termination. Hence, then, the observations of Schöll respecting the necessity for a new úbos are either incorrect or greatly overcharged. The single circumstance that Teukros makes his brother's calamity his own, is sufficient evidence of his rulos. For the sake of that dear object he endured all things, submitted to every insult, and considered himself more than compensated by the attainment of his burial. A last objection yet remains : — that, in the strife between Teukros and Menelaos, many things are said which are altogether impertinent to the present tragedy. To some extent this may be true; but we must not forget how important a part this very circumstance enacted in the delineation of the characters of those who make their appearance at the close. In order to exhibit to the eyes and ears of all the pusillanimity and cowardice of Menelaos, the poet designedly describes him as pouring forth vituperation and complaint unworthy of a king. Nor is Teukros made so free from all infirmity as not to be betrayed, by the fervor of his zeal and love for Aias, into some extravagances of language and deportment. But it cannot be inferred from this that a new los has been introduced. For, on the intervention of Odysseus, a tomb is conceded to Aias, not on account of the justice or propriety of his behavior to the Greeks, but on account of old recollections of his desert and heroism. See v. 1274 sqq. Why it should be asserted, on account of the manner in which Teukros returns the insults of Menelaos, that the action becomes languid, and may be said to break down altogether, we do not see, especially since the original cause of quarrel, the sepulture of Aias, is kept conspicuously in view even in the most violent passages of the wordy war, and it was esteemed the highest impiety and injustice to restrain the dead from burial (v. 1094 sqq.). It will occasion our readers much surprise, that German critics of unparalleled learning and sagacity should charge it as a fault upon our poet that he has deviated from the tragic día, and should forget, that, if he had not pursued this course, he would have sunk into the languor and inanity of the tragedies of the French dramatists, whose damning error is, that the general idia is barren of all iλ nat' ἕκαστα. ὦ ξύναιμον ὄμμα. Wunder compares Elektr. 903, συνήθες pa, and other examples collected by Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 430. Add Philokt. 172. Klausen to Æsch. Choeph. 218, after remarking that 'Ioμnvns nága is periphrastic for 'Ioμvn, adds, “Eadem ratione interiit propria verborum notio in uvarov upa, Soph. Ai. 921." See Fischer ad Well. Gr. Gr. pp. 269-290; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 442. d. 922. Αρ' ημπόληκας. SUIDAS: ἐπώλησας, ἐκέρδανας. λέγεται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ φαύλου τροπικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ περιεποίησας. ἆρ ̓ ἐμπόληκας, ὥσπερ ἡ φάτις κρατεῖ. “Since the general signification of ἐμπολᾶν is ἐμπορεύεσθαι or πραγματεύεσθαι, we may assume that it might have been employed in the meaning it evidently bears in this passage, ἆρα πέπραγας, ὥσπερ ἡ φάτις ngar. In the same manner, Hippokrates de Morb. IV. 12, p. 608. E, Τ. VII. p. 353, Τ. II. (ed. Kühn.), ἢν τοῦ ἀποπάτου μὴ διαχωρέοντος κρατ τέῃ μία τῶν ἄλλων ικμάς, κάλλιον ἐμπολήσει ὁ ἄνθρωπος, melius se habebit, in the same sense as the expression βέλτιον ἀπαλλάσσει. Id. Epidem. VI. 716, 719, T. III. So, too, apparently, in Esch. Eum. 622, rà Thuct' ἀμείμον ἐμποληκώς.” LOBECK. The Scholiasts interpret in nearly the same words as those of Suidas. Matthiä ad Eur. Kykl. 254 renders, An lucrum fecisti, i. e. adeptusne es id, quod optabas et in lucro ponebas? Hermann approves the translation of Lenting to Eur. Androm. p. 244, äg' nμñóλnná o', Num te morando prodidi, nec tuam vitam servavi? 'EuToday is strictly lucrum vendendo facere, and thence, in a more general sense, emere; but also venum dare. See Polluc. III. 124; VII. 9. HESYCHIUS: ἐμπολᾷς πραγματεύεται. ἠμπόλησεν, ἀπέδοτο. Johnson's Scholiast writes as follows : ἀντὶ τοῦ ἀπημπόληκας, ἤγουν πέπρακας, προdidanas. None of these explanations are entirely satisfactory. We think, from the language of Teukros at v. 970, infra, äg' iğixvevσas, and from Eur. Phan. 1228, where away life, that the verb morte commutavisti. μñodãv túxny evidently means to barter μóλnnas would be best rendered, vitam cum 927. Τί γὰρ .... Τρωάδος; SCHOL. : καὶ πρὶν ἀκοῦσαι τῶν ἐντολῶν ὁ Τεῦκρος, ἔδειξε τὴν περὶ τὸν παῖδα κηδεμονίαν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ φρονίμως. The tyro will observe that two or even more interrogatives, without the copula, may be connected with one predicate. Cf. vv. 101, 1129; Philokt. 42; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 883. 1; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 630. 1. On zugs, see notes to vv. 9, 314, supra. 929. ὅσον τάχος. "The Schol. Ven. IX. 193 observes, roy Taxos Αττικοί, ἡ δὲ συνήθεια ὡς τάχος. Both forms are found in the Tragedians." LOBECK, 930. Δῆτ' αὐτὸν ἄξεις δεῦρο. "The Scholiast to v. 947 supposes that these words are addressed to Tekmessa. If this opinion is correct, we must suppose that the injunction ' innáλvov in that line is laid upon some servant or attendant of Teukros." WUNDER. "No editor has noticed this instance of a trimeter iambic begining with a word which cannot commence a sentence. The true reading seems to be, Δεῦρ ̓ αὐτὸν ἄξεις δῆτα.” ELMSLEY. "Beware of making any alteration. For when a sentence commences at or near the close of a verse, the metre of the two verses is so closely connected, that, both at the termination of the first and the commencement of the second, a license is permitted which is not granted under other circumstances except in the middle of the senarius. See my El. de Metr. p. 118 sq. A very analogous example occurs below, ν. 1033, Καί σοι προφωνῶ τόνδε μὴ θάπτειν, ὅπως | μὴ τόνδε, κ. τ. λ. There the particles as μn cohere so closely, that the sense will in no way bear their separation from each other. Why has not correction been thought necessary in this instance? Is it that the particle is not regarded as one of those words which are incapable of being placed at the beginning of a verse? Add Eur. Hipp. 1391. At Ed. Tyr. 1084, oux av lopi' ÉTI | MOT' äλλos, Elmsley has fallen into the same mistake." HERMANN. See Dindorf's note to Ar. Nub. 399. In the following verse, s xεvñs onúμvov saivns, Tekmessa is called a lioness, as the wife of Aias. SCHOL.: καλῶς τῷ παραδείγματι χρῆται· οἱ γὰρ κυνηγοὶ τηροῦσι τὸν καιρὸν, ὁπότε ἔρημοι τῶν μητέρων γίνονται οἱ σκύμνοι. κενῆς κατὰ πρόληψιν. See Lobeck to this verse. 932. Τοῖς θανοῦσί τοι . . . . ἐπεγγελᾶν. "In all probability this was a proverbial expression. Επεμβαίνειν, ὃ δὴ λέγεται, κειμένοις, Aristid. p. quatuorv. T. II. 265; Philostrat. V. Soph. I. 32. 625; Tos TETTWRÓCIV ITEμßaive, Liban. Decl. T. IV. 178." LOBECK. |