placed as apposita to the subject of the infinitive xλú. In place of avoga, Reiske corrected vra, which would probably have been added by a prose-writer, in order to avoid the iteration of the same word in the collocation vdgos vdga. That this repetition was not offensive to ancient ears may be seen by referring to Esch. Agam. 1638, Eur. Ion. 578, and other passages cited in Lobeck's note.

1016. Μηδὲν δικαιοῦν. SCHOL. : μηδαμῶς δίκαιον κρίνειν, τῶν ἐπιστατῶν ἢ τῶν ἀρχόντων ὑπακούειν.

1017. καλῶς φέροντ ̓ ἄν. "Those things which turn out well or ill, thrive or fail, are said x«λws, tv, xanãs Qigioba. Xen. Ek. 5. 17, sv φερομένης τῆς γεωργίας. Id. Ages. 1. 35, αἴτιον εἶναι τοῦ κακῶς φέρεσθαι τὰ ἑαυτοῦ. Thuk. 2. 60, καλῶς μὲν γὰρ φερόμενος ἀνὴρ τὸ καθ ̓ ἑαυτόν.” ERFURDT.

1018. ἔνθα μὴ καθεστήκῃ δέος. SCHOL. : καὶ Ἐπίχαρμος • Ενθα δέος, ἐνταῦθα καὶ αἰδώς. On the authorship of the verse quoted by the Scholiast, which is commonly attributed to the writer of the Tà Kúrgia, Wunder refers us to Henrichsen de Cypr. p. 69; Müller de Cycl. Gr. epico, p. 96, no. 17.The MSS. Aug. C. La. pr. and Aldus read absorńxsı; the MS. Par. E. nabiornns, which Brunck has received, ex indole linguæ! as he says. The MSS. Harl. Bar. a. b. Bodl. Laud. Par. D. Aug. B. and Dresd. a. exhibit xadornxo, which is preferred by Neue and Wunder, because the optative is placed in the apodosis. The indoles linguæ requires the conjunctive or the optative in the protasis. We prefer the former, because the sentiment expressed is general, and the condition is represented as objectively possible. When this is the case, we find iáv, v, or av with the conjunctive, or the conjunctive with a relative adverb without », in the protasis, and the indicative of the present or future in the apodosis, if the consequence is described as certain; the optative with "v, if it is represented as probable; and the imperative, if enjoined as a command. See Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 524, Obs. 2, 4; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 852. 2, 853. b, 854. 2. b; Dissen, Kleine Schrift. p. 47-92 sqq. The Oxford translator aptly compares, in illustration of the sentiment expressed in these lines, the speech of Odysseus in council in Shakspeare's (?) Troilus and Cressida. 1019. Οὔτ ̓ ἂν.... ἄρχοτ ̓ ἔτι. See note to v. 499, supra.

....

1020. Μηδὲν φόβου · ἔχων. to v. 538, supra, it will be clearly seen that góßanμa ëxuv póßov is equivalent to προβαλέσθαι, or rather to προβεβλῆσθαι φόβον. But in the same way as he who prepares to defend himself by his shield from the missiles of the enemy is said ἀσπίδα προβαλέσθαι, so is an army represented φόβον

"From the instances quoted in my note

nai aidã reoßazioba, when fear and modesty are its defence, since if these are its protectors, it can neither perish nor be conquered." WUNDER.

1021. σῶμα γεννήσῃ μέγα. Even if he is by nature of gigantic form. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 569. 2; Hermann ad Vig. p. 766. For the allusion, compare vv. 204, 1189.

1023. Δέος γὰρ ᾧ πρόσεστιν. SCHOL. : παρ' Ομήρῳ· αἰδομένων δ ̓ ἀνδρῶν πλέονες σόοι, ἠὲ πέφανται. (Π. 5. 531, 15. 563.) Cf. Antig. 675 sq. 1025. g. The common copies exhibit ága. The conjunctive is found in the MSS. La. Lb. P. Aug. B. Dresd. b., and is defended by Stobæus, Floril. 43. 77. See note to v. 1018, supra; Porson to Eur. Orest. 141; and compare Eur. Elektr. 978, öæov d' 'Axóλλwv onaiòs † ; Cic. de Or. 1. 8. 30, neque vero mihi quidquam, inquit, præstabilius videtur quam posse dicendo tenere hominum cœtus, mentes allicere, voluntates impellere, quo velit: unde autem velit, deducere. "With ov

....

ταύτην τὴν πόλιν, compare Philokt. 456 sqq., ὅπου θ ̓ ὁ χείρων τἀγα θοῦ μεῖζον σθένει κἀποφθίνει τὰ χρηστὰ χὼ δειλὸς κρατεῖ, τούτους ἐγὼ τοὺς ἄνδρας οὐ στέρξω ποτέ. In both passages, the relative adverb ou is placed in correlation to a substantive." WUNDER. ἃ βούλεται. On the subject to the verb, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 295. 2; Buttmann ad Plat. Men. 12.

1026. Ταύτην νόμιζε . . . . χρόνῳ ποτέ. Elmsley, not only for the sake of removing a very disagreeable hiatus, but from the conclusion that the infinitive of the aorist without av, when the notion of futurity is present, is a solecism, argues warmly in favor of the following correction: Taúrny νόμιζε τὴν πόλιν χρόνῳ ποτ ̓ ἂν ἐξ οὐρίων (in Stobæus, Floril. XLIII. 17, ἐξ οὐρίας) δραμοῦσαν εἰς βυθὸν πεσεῖν. He asserts, that the number of examples in which av is omitted will be very much reduced, if we pass over all those in which the infinitive of the aorist, like dığúrbas in Elektr. 442, can be converted into the infinitive of the future by the alteration of a single letter, and that he has found only two instances in the tragedies whose correction is difficult. "Beyond all doubt, they are not to be corrected. In our own passage, if av, which is not the case, had been found in the manuscripts and Stobæus, it must have been expelled. For the example compared by Elmsley, v. 1021, supra, ἀλλ ̓ ἄνδρα χρὴ, κἂν σῶμα γεννήσῃ μέγα, δοκεῖν πεσεῖν ἂν κἂν ἀπὸ σμικροῦ κακοῦ, furnishes a strong argument in proof of the inaccuracy of his reasoning, since sσsiv v is posse cadere, Toy without av, cadere. Now the first of these meanings is essential to the verse just quoted, and the second to our own. For it would be incorrect to say that a man, although he is robust and strong by

nature, is accustomed to fall, or that a state in which universal license exists is able to fall, but the meaning is that the latter does pass to destruction, and the former is not always assured of victory. That the infinitive of the aorist is not invariably said of a past, but also of a momentary or quickly evanescent action (in which signification the imperative of the aorist is always used), must, I think, be generally known, on account of the insertion by Buttmann, in the subsequent editions of his Grammar, of those observations which I had made upon this point in my review of the third edition of that work. Hence, therefore, this infinitive is also employed concerning future time, and there is no necessity that it should be limited to an association with verbs which comprehend in their own meaning the notion of futurity, like piaaw, iarizw, for it is correctly constructed with those which, on account of their being equally applicable to the past, the present, and the future (e. g. donã, voμílw, oipas, Onμí), Elmsley directs us to exclude. To the two examples which he confesses it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to correct (Æsch. Theb. 434; Eur. Orest. 1541, ed. Pors.), we may add another: dexoμévois Xéyes lavεly σe, Æsch. Agam. 1662. But such instances are in themselves of little weight, for, as a cloud sometimes produces darkness, so a whole army of them is often put to fight by a καίρια πληγή from one alone. Let the tyro, therefore, notice that there is an important difference whether, in constructions of this kind, we place the infinitive with the particle av, or simply the infinitive of the aorist, or, lastly, the infinitive of the future. This difference will be most distinctly seen by turning the sentence into the construction with the verbum finitum in the indicative or optative. Πίπτειν ἄν, πεσεῖν * », express a sense which corresponds with πίπτοι ἄν οι πέσοι ἄν, i. e. the action of the verb is represented as possible or not possible, according as the condition on which it depends is fulfilled or not fulfilled; whilst íxtsı or πεσεῖν answer to the aorists of present and past time, πίπτει and ἔπεσε, and signify that something falls or fell at some indefinite time, a sense generally amounting to this, that something must be understood which from its very organization will fall or go down easily; and, lastly, the future πεσεῖσθαι is resolved by πεσεῖται, and declares that it will happen that the thing spoken of will fall. Whether is added or not, there is always this distinction in the employment of the infinitives of the present and aorist, that by the latter an evanescent, by the former a continuing, state or action is expressed. Cf. Æsch. Agam. 1658, daλ' iweì doneïs rád' gd. If these remarks are properly understood, it will be seen that πεσεῖσθαι is just as little appropriate to the meaning of this verse as πεσεῖν

v, inasmuch as the sentiment is not applied to a particular state that is really about to perish, but to any state which contains in itself the causes of destruction. In the first passage quoted from Æschylus, aviv ä› might have been used, if the poet had wished to express the fact less positively, but baviola could not possibly have been employed, because his intention is not to affirm that Aigisthos would certainly perish, but that he was mortal; whilst in the second, neither ga, nor gd äv, nor tęža, äv, nor pi, could have stood, because he is speaking neither of a thing that must be executed quickly, nor of what the Argives are able to do, nor of what they are really about to do, since they are only suspected of the intention. Omit in our own passage the verb vous, and the sense of the words is perceived to be as follows : ὅπου δρᾶν, ἃ βούλεται, πάρα, αὕτη ἡ πόλις χρόνῳ TOTÈ is Bubòv iπy. In a note on Eur. Med. 362, Elmsley has recently expressed his approval of this explanation." HERMANN. Gr. 429; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 54. 6, Anm. 6. persuadeas, be assured. The imperative iníoraco, in v. 1024, is employed in a similar sense. Cf. Göller on Thuk. 5. 49. Though it has sped a prosperous career with (or in consequence of) favoring gales, by a metaphor drawn from nautical phraseology. Stobæus 1. c. reads

See Jelf's Gr.

νόμιζε. Tibi

ἐξ οὐρίων δραμοῦσαν.

ogías. See note on v. 674, supra. For numerous illustrations of the expressions ἐξ οὐρίων and ἐξ οὐρίας θεῖν, δραμεῖν, πλεῖν, κομίζεσθαι, φέρεσθαι, see Lobeck's note, and compare the observations of the Scholiast on Ar. Vesp. 59, in allusion to our own and similar passages, deì oi rantai ràs πόλεις πλοίοις παραβάλλουσι καὶ Σοφοκλῆς (Ed. Tyr. 23 sq. ; Antig. 163, 994), with the language of Plato, Pol. p. 302. A, woλλaì wóλsıs naláwig πλοῖα καταδυόμενα διόλλυνται.

"This

1028. ̓Αλλ' . . . . καίριον. SCHOL. : πάνυ ἀσφαλῶς τὸ καίριον. is said by Menelaos in perfect conformity with the principles and institutions of the Spartans, who built a temple to Fear close by the throne of the Ephori, τὴν πολιτείαν μάλιστα συνέχεσθαι φόβῳ νομίζοντες, Plutarch. Kleom, 9, p. 808. D." LOBECK. The Oxford translator remarks upon this note, that the same sentiment is claimed as preeminently due to his own countrymen by Perikles, in his Funeral Oration, Thuk. 2. 37. Compare Lucan's character of Cæsar, Pharsal. 3. 80, gaudet tamen esse timori Tam magno populis et se non mallet amari.

1030. Οὐκ ἀντιτίσειν. The MSS. Ien. Mosq. b. read μὴ οὐκ ἀντιτίσειν, non esse non luituros, from interpolation.

1032. Αἴθων ὑβριστής. "This adjective is undeservedly suspected by Purgold. Compare αἴθων ἐπακτής, Lykophr. 109 ; αἴθωσι θηρσὶ καὶ δεινοῖς,

Plat. Civ. 7, p. 559. D; luμòs pλoyádn;, Anonym. ap. Suid. T. I. p. 159; ignitum ingenium, Prudent. Hamart. 546." LOBECK. See note on v. 220, The MS. T. reads μiya gov, with the omission of að.

supra.

1033. Kai σ

gopwvw. Consult note on v. 991, supra.

66

1034. sis rapàs ions. Hermann, with some manuscripts and the old editions generally, reads is rapás. "Tápas here, and still more plainly at v. 1053, below, is placed for ráp, either by an enallage of gender, if I may be allowed such an expression, peculiar to Ionic writers, or because places set apart for sepulchres may be termed rapaí in the same way as the words proseucha, ambulatio, ταριχεία, βόσις, ἄροσις, ἐξαίρεσις, Baris, are usually applied in a mere local meaning. Strabo, IX. 412 and 414, δείκνυται ἐνταῦθα ταφὴ τῶν τελευτησάντων, Elian, V. Η. ΧΙΙ. 21,

On the

ἐς τὰς πατρῴας ταφάς. Cf. Epigr. Adesp. 632." LOBECK. position occupied by μ at the commencement of the verse, see note to v. 930, supra; with the sentiment, compare Eur. Phon. 1672, cavτhv äg ἐγγὺς τῷδε συνθάψεις νεκρῷ, and with the play of words in this and the preceding verse compare the punning refinements of the Sentinel on doxtîv, done, and donnois, in Antig. 323.

1035. μὴ γνώμας ὑποστήσας σοφάς. SCHOL. : ἐπειδὴ τὰ περὶ τῆς εὐπει θείας ἄριστα ἐγνωμολόγησεν. διακεῖται μὲν ὁ χορὸς πρὸς τὸν Τεῦκρον, ὑπεσταλμένως δὲ διαλέγεται διὰ τὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀξίωμα.

1036. ἐν θανοῦσιν ὑβριστής. "The same kind of expression is found in v. 1253, below, Ogaσùs iv iμoi siva. Esch. Choeph. 952, iv ixlgoïs nótov TVETV. So, too, in Latin writers. Cic. Parad. 3. 1, petulantem esse in virgine. Id. Phil. 9. 4. 9, crudelem in hoste, in cive esse. In German we not merely say gegen Jemand freveln, but also an Jemand freveln. Cf. Kritz ad Sallust. Cat. 9. 2; Matthiä ad Cic. p. Sest. 3. 7." WUNDER. Add Jelf's Gr. Gr. 622, I. a; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 68. 12, Anm. 4; Stallbaum to Plat. Phæd. p. 59. A.

1037. In the reply which Teukros now addresses to the speech of Menelaos, he attempts no denial of the fact that Aias had plotted against the lives of the Atreidai, but labors to prove that he is not justly obnoxious to the full extent of the accusations brought against him, on account of his having joined the expedition against Troy as a free and sovereign leader, who owed no fealty to the sons of Atreus (v. 1044 sq.). But perceiving that he had been betrayed by these assertions into a deviation from the truth, since Agamemnon had been duly elected the leader of the Greeks, he moderates his tone, and at v. 1043 sqq. so shapes his language as to give the impression that his previous observations were