... 1141. Νεῖμεν . . . . ὁμιλεῖν. * The infinitive is added ex abundantia, as in the expression δῶκεν ἔχειν. Pind. Nem. 10. 135, χαλεπὰ δ ̓ ἔρις ὁμιλεῖν κρεισσόνων.” LOBECK. Cf. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 432; Rost, Gr. Gr. 125. 7. 1143. ἐννυχίαν. SCHOL. : τὴν ἐν παννυχίσιν, ἢ τὴν ἐν κοίτη. All doubt as to the correct explanation is removed by the employment of the verb ἰαύειν. With the words ἐννυχίαν τέρψιν ἰαύειν, which in signification are nearly the same as τερπνὴν νύκτα ιαύειν, to enjoy the night's sleep, compare Eur. Rhes. 740, κοῖτον (= ὕπνον ἐν κοίτῳ) ἰαύειν and the Homeric ἀΰπνους νύκτας ἰαύειν. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 556. c. 1145. ἐρώτων. SCHOL. : τῶν ἐρωτικῶν. καὶ ἄκαιρον μὲν περὶ ἔρωτος μεμνῆσθαι ἐν τοῖς παροῦσιν· ὅμως δὲ ἀκολουθίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὰ προσκείμενα. On the genitive see note to v. 689, supra, and with the anadiplosis cf. Ed. Kol. 119, 123, 155; Philokt. 829, 845. 1146. ἀμέριμνος. “Said passively in the sense of spretus, neglectus, and therefore not for πολυμέριμνος, as the Scholiast and Bothe teach.” LOBECK. Hermann objects to this opinion, and contends that the adjective ἀμέριμνος cannot possibly admit a passive signification. In the passage cited by Lobeck from the Anth. Pal. IX. 359, ἔχεις γάμον; οὐκ ἀμέ. ριμνος ἔσσεαι, it has the same meaning as in the expression ἀμέριμνος βίος, Menand. p. 204, ed. Meineke, i. e. free from care, without anxiety. TRICLINIUS: ἀμέριμνος · καὶ μὴ ἔχων μέριμναν καὶ φροντίδα ὧν ἔφην, στεφάνων, κυλίκων καὶ ἐρώτων. οὕτως, “ sic temere. Cf. Vig. p. 438; Heindorf NEUE. ad Plat. Phædr. 24." 1150. Καὶ πρὶν μὲν * ἐννυχίου. The MSS. Γ. Δ. Θ. Dresd. a. omit καί. In the reading of the common copies, a syllable is required, as our asterisk indicates, to complete the metre. The Triclinian editions read καὶ πρὶν μὲν οὖν, which is rejected by Hermann, who prefers to substitute οὐ for οὔτε in the corresponding strophie verse. — - ἐννυχίου. SCHOL. : τῆς νυκτερινῆς ἐφόδου τῶν πολεμίων καὶ τῶν βελέων ἀλεξητήριον ἦν ὁ Αἴας. 1151. Δείματος · προβολὰ καὶ βελέων. Compare Eur. Orest. 1488, θανάτου προβολάν. Asch. Theb. 540, κυκλωτῷ σώματος προβλήματι. Ibid. 576, πετρῶν προβλήματα. Ar. Vesp. 615, τάδε κέκτημαι πρόβλημα κακῶν. In Hom. I. 8. 211, Aias is termed ἕρκος ̓Αχαιῶν. .... 1153. ἀνεῖται στυγερῷ Δαίμονι. The MS. La. pr. reads ἀγκεῖται ; the MSS. Δ. Lb. ἐγκεῖται, the latter with ένα suprascriptum ; and the MS. Γ. ἐγκείται. Μusgrave renders ἀνεῖται, devovetur, consecratur, comparing Eur. Phan. 975, and understands Δαίμονι of Pluto or Ares. Hermann's interpretation, nunc ille tristi fato confectus est, has the merit of greater simplicity. Ανεῖται strictly means solutus est, as in Eur. Orest. 939, ὁ νόμος ἀνεῖται. 1156. Γενοίμαν. SCHOL.: εὔχονται ἀπαλλαγῆναι ἐπὶ τὰ οἰκεῖα· γένοιμην οὖν, φησίν, ἐπὶ τὴν ἄκραν πλάκα τοῦ Σουνίου· διὰ γὰρ Σουνίου ὁ πλοῦς τοῖς ἀπὸ Τροίας ἐπὶ Σαλαμῖνα. ἵν ̓ ὑλᾶεν· ἔνθα ὑλώδης ἐξοχὴ τὴς θαλάττης ἐστί. The Oxford Translator observes that it was in all probability from these lines that Lord Byron took the hint for the last stanza of his Ode to the Greek Isles: "Place me on Sunium's marbled steep, Where nothing, save the waves and I, 1159. Τὰς ἱερὰς ὅπως. ScHoL: φιλοτέχνως εὐφραίνει τοὺς ἀκροωμένους διὰ τῶν ἐπαίνων τῆς ̓Αττικής. Consult notes to vv. 200, 545, supra. "The Chorus says, ut fausto clamore sacras Athenas salutem. Sailors were accustomed, on coming into sight of the land for which they were voyaging, to salute it by name. Virg. Æn. 3. 524, Italiam læto socii clamore salutant. Stat. Theb. 4. 808, salutantes, cum Leucada pandit Apollo. Pausanias mentions (1. 28. 2) that the crested helm and pointed spear of Athene Polias are distinctly visible to sailors when coasting off the promontory of Sunium, and it is therefore very probable that it was customary for them, when they had arrived at this point, to salute with joyous cries the city of Athens." MUSGRAVE. Cf. Xen. Anab. 4. 7. 24, xai τάχα δὴ ἀκούουσι βοῶντων τῶν στρατιωτῶν· θάλαττα! θάλαττα! Wunder, who has appropriated the whole of Musgrave's note without the slightest acknowledgment, adds the following quotation from Pauw, Récherches sur les Grecs, I. p. 109: "La force intuitive dans les Athéniens était telle que jamais notre vue ne saurait atteindre un point d'éloignement où la leur s'étendait. . . . La distance de Sunium jusqu'à la citadelle d'Athènes est tout au moins en ligne droit de dix lieues de France." 1160. ὅπως προσείποιμεν. "Omnino cum Johnsono legendum est goσsíποιμ' ἄν.” ΗΕΑΤΗ. "Brunck has adopted this emendation, taking the credit of it to himself, according to his usual practice. Bothe, Lobeck, Schäfer, and Erfurdt also read προσείποιμ' ἄν. We wish that one of these seven critics had pointed out the fault of the common reading. We will not allow ourselves to suppose that any person to whom the language of the Tragedians is familiar can object to the transition from the singular yevMay to the plural #gorsimoμsv. We are equally unwilling to suppose that so many learned men were offended by the use of the optative προσείποιμεν instead of the subjunctive προσείπωμεν. Compare Philokt. 24, Θυμὸν "Elm γένοιτο χειρὶ πληρῶσαί ποτε, ἵν ̓ αἱ Μυκῆναι γνοῖεν. Alex. ap. Athen. p. 340. C, γενοίμην ἔγχελις, ἵνα Καλλιμέδων ὁ Κάραβος πραιτό με. Ar. Αυυ. 1337, Γενοίμαν αἰετὸς ὑψιπέτας, ὡς ἂν ποταθείην ὑπὲρ ἀτρυγέτου γλαυκᾶς ἐπ ̓ οἶδμα λίμνας. We give this last passage as it is written in Brunck's membranæ and the Ravenna manuscript. According to the Scholiast, they are taken from the Oinomaos of Sophokles. As we do not believe that an Attic writer, even in a choral ode, would have prefixed sv to the optative in the sense of "va, we suspect that the passage in question is borrowed from Simonides, or one of the other lyric poets. Admitting, however, ås äv Torabεíny to be a genuine Atticism, and to signify ut volarem, it will not justify ows goσsíñoμ' äv in the passage before us, although it might justify ὅπως ἂν προσείποιμι. When the particles ὡς ἄν or ows av signify in order that, they must not be separated by the verb which they govern. See Eur. Iph. Aul. 171, with the remark of the Quarterly Reviewer, Vol. VII. p. 455. If all the copies read προσείποιμ' ἄν, we would propose goσríaμsy without hesitation." ELMSLEY. sley, who censures all, is himself, in some degree, mistaken. For, in the first place, the optative does not in this and similar passages occupy the place of the conjunctive, but is legitimately used and preserves its own proper force. Of the many examples which might be quoted in addition to the three he has himself brought forward, I will instance but one, because it does contain some ambiguity. Esch. Eum. 297, ïλ001, xλúei δὲ καὶ πρόσωθεν ὢν θεός, ὅπως γένοιτο τῶνδ ̓ ἐμοὶ λυτήριος. Had γένηται been employed, Orestes would have spoken as if he entertained no doubt that Athene would come to his assistance, but in using the optative yvoro, he represents himself as wishing that she may come where, if she pleases, she may render aid. Now, when it is uncertain whether those things which we desire will come to pass or not, it is evident that whatever is contingent upon them is in no less degree uncertain also. For this reason, then, such things as are dependent on wishes whose realization is uncertain can seldom be expressed by the conjunctive, and generally require the employment of the optative, as containing the notion, ut fiat, si quidem fiat, which does not exist in the former mode. This distinction cannot be indicated by the Latin language, unless we throw the sentence into past time. In this way, the passage from the Philoktetes, buμòv yevOITO χει;ὶ πληρῶσαί ποτε, ἵν' αἱ Μυκῆναι γνοῖεν, ἡ Σπάρτη θ ̓, ὅτι χὴ Σκῦρος ἀνdgav åλxíμwv μńrng Qu, must be rendered, utinam liceret explere iram, ut Mycena et Sparta cognoscerent Scyrios. Hence, therefore, the optative in. the latter clause depends necessarily upon the optative which precedes, so that the conjunctive cannot possibly have place. The expression, 2001s ἄν, ὅπως σωτὴς γένη, is entirely different. For in that case the wish is not for a thing whose issue is uncertain, but relates to an occurrence whose end is definite and clear. More surprising, however is the inference which Elmsley draws from his assumption that no Attic writer, even in a choral song, could connect the particles s v, in the sense of iva, with the optative; we mean, his suspicion that another passage of our poet, in which the words as av Torabiny are found, must be referred to Simonides, or some other of the lyric poets. sv and rws av, in the sense of quomodo, are generally constructed by Attic writers with the optative. See Poppo, Diss. I. de Usu Particula v apud Græcos, p. 20 sqq. But it is precisely the same whether they signify quomodo or ut, or are used in the meaning of donec, on which point see the brief but luculent observations of Porson to Eur. Phon. 89. So, too, in Latin, qui is employed with no difference of construction in the two meanings of quomodo and ut. That these particles are rarely joined with the optative is by no means a matter of astonishment, for it seldom happens that the notion they contain, qui possit fieri, is appropriate to the purpose of the writer. An Attic writer would not have hesitated to say, with Moschos, III. 124, κἀγὼ τάχ ̓ ἂν ἐς δόμον ἦλθον Πλευτέος, ὡς κεν ἴδοιμι, καὶ εἰ Πλουτῆι μελίσδεις· ὡς ἂν ἀκουσαίμαν, τί μελίσδεαι. But this is very different from ὡς εἶδον and ὡς ἤκουσα. Lastly, Elmsley's assertion, that as av or drws av cannot be separated by the verb they govern, is not entirely accurate, since other formulæ clearly show that, under similar circumstances, this would not be contra linguam. Thus οὐκ ἔστιν ὅς οι ὅπως are constructed with the indicative in re certa, as in Eur. Med. 171, Plat. Civ. V. p. 453. B, Xen. Mem. Sokr. 2. 3. 6; with the optative in re, quæ in animi cogitatione versatur, as in Æsch. Choeph. 170, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις πλὴν ἐμοῦ κείραιτό νιν, nemo est præter me, a quo eum abscissum credas; and de incerto tempore, as in Prom. 291, xovx šσTI ÖTY μείζονα μοῖραν νείμαιμ', ἢ σοί, cui plus tribuerim, i. e. cui me tribuere velim. See Agam. 630. The particle v is added where the subject of the writer relates to something which may possibly happen. Xen. Anab. 5. 7. 7, τοῦτο οὖν ἔστιν ὅπως τις ἂν ὑμᾶς ἐξαπατῆσαι; See Plat. Lach. p. 184. C. In the same construction we find also ws or rws, signifying quomodo. Cf. Plat. Protag. p. 318. E; Id. Gorg. p. 453. C, where see Heindorf. And this, too, with a verb interposed between the particles. Eur. Orest. 630, ed. Pors., ἔστι δ ̓ οὗ σιγὴ λόγου κρείσσων γένοιτ' ἄν. Ar. Nub. 1181, οὐ γὰρ ἔσθ ̓ ὅπως μία ἡμέρα γένοιτ' ἂν ἡμέραι δύο.” ΗERMANN. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 808; Schäfer to Demosth. p. 74. 23. 1161. On beholding the approach of Agamemnon to the spot where the body of Aias still remained, Teukros hastily returns to protect it from insult or violation. On the manner in which róvds is employed in the following verse, see notes to vv. 853, 1124, supra. 1163. Δῆλος . . . . στόμα. SCHOL. : Δίδυμος · Καὶ δῆλός ἐστιν ὡς τι σημανῶν νέον. Cf. Antig. 242. The common copies exhibit μου στί. "Read μovorí. The nature of this crasis is now so well understood, that we attribute it to mere inadvertence that Lobeck, Schäfer, and Erfurdt have not introduced it." ELMSLEY. With the expression σκαιὸν ἐκλύowy oróμa, about to give loose to his mischievous tongue, Lobeck compares Isokr. Panath. p. 252. 96, λíλvxs rò σróμa. Add Ed. Tyr. 706, rãv ἐλευθεροῖ στόμα. 1164. rà divá, atrocia illa. See note to v. 299, supra. χανεῖν. Usage has invested the verb xάons with the signification effundere aliquid ore, in addition to its own strict meaning of hiare and os aperire. Hence juara xáσnu is precisely equivalent to the Latin expression verba effutire. HESYCHIUS: ἔχανεν· εἶπεν. χάνοιμι· εἴποιμι. χανύειν· βοᾶν. Compare Asch. Agam. 892, μηδὲ βαρβάρου φωτὸς δίκην χαμαιπετὲς βόαμα προσχάνης ἐμοί.” WUNDER. Add Ar. Vesp. 340, τοῦτ ̓ ἐτόλμησεν χανεῖν. Kallim. Ap. 24, δϊζυρόν τι χανεῖν. Agamemnon, having learnt from Menelaos that Teukros had defied their joint decree against the burial of Aias, now appears, accompanied by one or more heralds, and inveighs against the offender, with less arrogance, but more anger, than his brother. That Menelaos had been consistent with his principles and habits in the exaggerated account he had given to his brother respecting the disobedience of Teukros, is evident from the language of the former at vv. 1170-1172, infra. The address of Agamemnon displays no attempt at special pleading, nor the mean, invidious jealousy of Aias which Menelaos had betrayed, but is more in keeping with his station and prerogative. He declares, as the generalissimo of the Grecian forces, that the decision of the leaders in council must be supported, and that their adjudication proceeded from the principle that the prize should be awarded, not so much to preeminence in bodily size and vigor, as to mental sagacity and skill (vv. 1188–1190). That Aias was not deficient in the latter qualities we have already seen in our notes to vv. 119, 127, 716, supra, but that an opinion to the contrary prevailed among the Greeks it is, we fear, impossible to deny. Whether this rested on any real grounds, or was simply due to that unamiable trait in our common nature, by which, whilst granting superiority in one respect, we labor to bring distinguished men to our |