Nor has .... of the latter, considering this view to be more in harmony with the character of Odysseus, and the enterprise in which he is engaged; first, because he is celebrated as rāv ¿òńλwv engarús, Philostr. Imagg. 1. 862, more distinguished for his astuteness in escaping than his skill in devising snares, as is testified by Homer in Odyss. 4. 422, and by the entire Doloneia; and, secondly, because he is described in our passage as playing the part of a spy rather than that of an "insidiator." That this explanation is not in itself improbable may be learnt from Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 15, iàv dì xàirty τε καὶ ἁρπάζῃ τὰ τούτων (τῶν πολεμίων), οὐ δίκαια ποιήσει. Cf. Cic. de Off. 1. 30. 108, and Davis's note to Id. de Fin. III. 2. There is, however, great weight in the objection of Hermann, that to such an interpretation the insertion of the pronoun vά is in direct opposition. Lobeck been able to explain away this difficulty, but acknowledges that the addition of the pronoun would be far more intelligible, if by the noun zełęɑ we understand some hostile attempt on the part of Odysseus. The connection of the verses and the sense of the whole passage present, moreover, additional obstacles to the reception of this exposition. For the poet proceeds, καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς .... ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις, the particle ἀεὶ μέν in the first verse being opposed to zal vov in this sense: ut semper. ita nunc quoque, in order to connect closely the proceeding of Odysseus, described in the first two verses, with the subsequent details. Odysseus has followed the footsteps of Aias from the very spot where he was first observed by a scout with dripping sword, and has now arrived before his tent. As a welltrained hound pursues the track of some wild animal and ascertains its locality, in order that it may fall into the hands of the hunter, so has Odysseus followed the footprints of Aias in order to learn his whereabouts, to convict him as the perpetrator of the slaughter committed amongst the cattle of the Greeks, during the night which followed the adjudication of the arms of Achilles, and to take whatever preliminary steps may be necessary to secure his punishment. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that Odysseus was interested to inquire if Aias still contemplated any traitorous or hostile design, which must nevertheless be assumed if we decide in favor of the explanation above mentioned. Hermann asserts that the accus. πεῖραν does not depend upon ἁρπάσαι, but upon θηρώμενον, and that agrára is inserted here as an infinitivus explicativus, to which air, i, e. Tigav, must be supplied. Such a construction is undoubtedly very harsh, whilst a satisfactory answer is given to the objection against the construction of the infinitive with ngãy and engãrtas by Eur. Hel. 63, nga jaμsiv μs, and 553, os μs Angãrai λaßeiv; Theophyl. Hist. IV. 16. 115. B, ouμ μάχους ελέσθαι θηρώμενος. Even admitting that the mode in which he connects these words is admissible, the Greek words here used can hardly be supposed to convey the meaning expressed in his translation: semper te video opportunitatem, qua tentare hostem possis, captare. Reisig, in Comm. Crit. ad ld. Kol. 1746, observes that ἁρπάσαι may depend upon πεῖραν, and this view finds an apologist in Apitz, who seeks unsuccessfully to defend it by citing such passages as Hom. Il. 7. 409, Eur. Androm. 94. The true explanation appears to be that given by Wunder, who commences his observations by reminding us that the Greeks frequently employed the formula πεῖράν τινος λαμβάνειν (cf. Xen. An. 5. 8. 15 ; Kyr. 3. 3. 38) in the same sense as πειρᾶν τινος. (Το θέαν λαμβάνειν, Philokt. 536, 656, μεταμέλειαν λαμβάνειν, Eur. Fr., for θεᾶσθαι, μεταμέ λεσθαι.) But πειρᾶν τινος often signifies capere aliquem conari, to make an attempt against any person or thing, to seek to seize or obtain its possession. Her. VI. 82, πρὸς ὦν ταῦτα οὐ δικαιεῦν πειρῶν τῆς πόλιος, πρίν γε δὴ ἱροῖσι χρήσηται καὶ μάθῃ, εἴτε οἱ ὁ θεὸς παραδιδοῖ, εἴτε οἱ ἐμποδὼν ἕστηκε. Thuk. 1. 61, καὶ ἀφικόμενοι ἐς Βέροιαν κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιστρέψαντες καὶ πειρά. σαντες πρῶτον τοῦ χωρίου καὶ οὐκ ἑλόντες ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ γῆν πρὸς τὴν Ποτίδαιαν. Why Sophokles should have substituted ἁρπάζειν for the more usual λαμβάνειν will be evident to any one who reflects that the whole phraseology of these introductory verses is borrowed from the hunting-field (comp. Pollux 5. 60, οἱ κύνες ἁρπάζουσι τὰ πνεύματα; Plutarch. Quæst. Nat. 23. 20, ἐπιλαμβάνονται τῆς τῶν θηρίων ὀσμῆς; Senec. Hippol. 39, nare sagaci captant auras, or apprensant; Grat. Cyn. 239), and that Odysseus is compared not so much with a hunter as with a hound. See v. 5 below, and especially v. 7, seq. It is, then, by way of fuller and more emphatic illustration of his metaphor that the poet has preferred to place a verb which is peculiarly applicable to a hound, instead of λαμβάνειν, which is more especially appropriate to men. 3. Καὶ νῦν. These particles, as we have already said, answer to ἀεὶ μέν in this sense : as ever....so now also. Zeune to Vig. p. 537 has cited similar collocations. WUNDER. Cf. Plat. Protag. 335. Ε; Rep. II. 367. Ε. — ἐπί, by, near. Scholiast : παρὰ ταῖς σκηναῖς. The preposition ἐπί has this sense frequently with the dative. Hdt. 3. 16, ἀποθανόντα ἔθαψεν ἐπὶ τῇσι θύρησι. Id. 7. 175, οικέοντες ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι. Id. 7. 89, οὗτοι δὲ οἱ Φοίνικες τὸ παλαιὸν οἴκεον .... ἐπὶ τῇ Ἐρυθρῇ θαλάσση. 4. τάξιν ἐσχάτην. Hom. Il. 11. 7, ἐμὲν ἐπ ̓ Αἴαντος κλισίας Τελα μωνιάδαο ἠδ ̓ ἐπ ̓ ̓Αχιλλῆος· τοί ῥ ̓ ἔσχατα νῆας ἐΐσας εἵρυσαν. See also Eur. Iph. Α. 292; Quint. Cal. 5. 215, quoted by Musgrave; Eustathius ad Π. κ. p. 792. 47, Αἱ νῆες τοῦ μεγάλον Αἴαντος καὶ τοῦ Ἰδομενέως ἐν ἄκρῳ ἦσαν· καὶ ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς λέγει, ἐκαστάτω τοῦ μέσου. 5. μετρούμενον. “ SCHOL. : στοχαζόμενον, contemplantem et tanquam oculis metientem. Eur. Phan. 189, ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τείχη μετρῶν.” MUSGR. In a similar metaphorical use, Hom. Od. 3. 179, πέλαγος μετρήσαι, mare cursu emetiri, and Mosch. 2. 153, ἅλα μετρήσασθαι. The employment of both participles in this verse is drawn from the language of the huntingfield. κυνηγετεῖν ἔχνη, of which phrase a full explanation occurs below, v. 19, is to pursue the foot-tracks of prey, κυνηγέτου τέχνη, whilst μετρεῖ σθαι may be rendered to trace out, or explore. Εὖ δέ σ ̓ ἐκφέρει. 7. οὐκ ἔνδον, sc. ἐστίν, num in tentorio sit, nec ne? Hermann has accurately explained the force of ἐκφέρειν : ex loco clauso et finibus quibusdam circumscripto in apertum ac propatulum proferre. Hence, then, ἐκφέρειν τινά may in a more general sense denote aliquem eo usque perducere, quo tendit, according to the well-known idea of completion, which is imparted by the preposition ἐκ in composition. Cf. d. Kol. 98, ἐξήγαγ ̓ εἰς τόδ' ἄλσος, with v. 1424 of the same play, ὁρᾷς τὰ τοῦδ ̓ οὖν ὡς ἐς ὀρθὸν ἐκφέρει | Μαντεύμαθ'. Plat. Phad. p. 66. Β, ὅτι κινδυνεύει τις ὥσπερ ἀτραπὸς ἐκφέρειν ἡμᾶς μετὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ σκέψει. In our passage, then, εὖ δέ σ ̓ ἐκφέρει εὖ δέ σε φέρει πρὸς Αἴαντα, and the meaning of Athene, stated generally, is this : εὖ δὲ ἐξιχνεύεις, sc. εὖ δὲ Αἴαντα ἰχνεύεις ὥσπερ κύων Λάκαινα, with which we may aptly compare Plat. Parmen, 128. C, καίτοι ὥσπερ γε αἱ Λάκαιναι σκύλακες εὖ μεταθεῖς τε καὶ ἰχνεύεις τὰ λεχθέντα. Upon βάσις, placed once only in the sentence, whilst the sense requires its repetition, see Philokt. 520, with Wunder's note, and compare Trach. 767, προσπτύσσεται πλευραῖσιν ἀρτίκολλος ὥστε τέκτονος χιτὼν ἅπαν κατ' ἄρθρον. 8. Κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις. Upon the phraseology of this verse see Lobeck's note, and the observations of Wunder to Philokt. 1101. It has been quoted by several writers, the Schol. to Apoll. II. 125, the Etym. Μ., s. Τρίβακος, and Suidas in three places, s. Εάσις, Εὔρινος, and Λάκαινα ; and is imitated by Libanius, Ecphr. T. IV. p. 1065, εὐρίνῳ βάσει τὸ λαν. θάνον ἀνιχνεύοντες ; more undisguisedly by Manuel Palæologus, Or. VI. 331, μὴ πολυπραγμονῶμεν. . . . ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ θηρία ῥινηλατοῦσαι λάκαιναι κύνες· εὔρινας ταύτας εἶπε Σοφοκλῆς ; less openly by Ælian, Hist. Ann. II. c. 15, δίκην εὐρίνου κυνός. The last two authors evidently believed εὔρινος to be the genitive of an adjective εὐρίν (cf. κύνας εὔρινας, Xen. de Venat. 4. 6, Pollux 2. 80, and Asch. Αgam. 1093), whilst Libanius and the Etym. Μ., εὔρινος βάσις ἢ εὐίσφρητος πορεία, regarded it as a nominative, and correctly indeed, both on account of the addition of the pronoun ris, which is more aptly joined with gvos than with Báois, and because it is the constant practice of the Greek poets thus to traverse epithets. See Abresch. Dilucc. Thukyd. p. 244; Valckn. ad Lennep. Etym. II. p. 700; Matthiæ's Gr. Gr. p. 799; Bernhardy's Synt. p. 53. Upon the peculiar force of 75 when joined with adjectives, see Liddell and Scott's Gr. Lex. s. TI, IV.; Kühner's Gr. Gr. 659. 4, ed. Jelf; and upon the great celebrity which the dogs of Laconia possessed among the hunters of antiquity, Aristot. Hist. Animal. 8. 28 (where they are described as a cross between a fox and a dog), Id. de Generatione Animal. 5. 2; the learned notes of Musgrave and Erfurdt to our own line, Voss to Virg. Georg. III. 405, and Rittershus. to Oppian. Cyneg. 1.371. Compare, too, Shakspeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Act IV. Sc. 1, and Othello, Act V. Sc. 5. The word xúwy is here used in the feminine gender, in accordance with the customary preference shown by Greek writers, when not compelled to define accurately the precise gender of animals, for the employment of the feminine. Lastly, that the comparison which is here instituted between a hero, like Odysseus, and a hound, is in no respect derogatory to the dignity of the former, or inconsistent either with the practice of the Tragedians, or with Greek notions of good taste, has been pointed out by Wunder, who compares Esch. Agam. 1093, where we find it said of Kassandra, xey εὖρις ἡ ξένη κυνὸς δίκην | Εἶναι, ματεύει δ ̓ ὧν ἀνευρήσει φόνον. See also vv. 1184 seq. of that play; Plat. de Legg. p. 654. D, raur' äga μετὰ τοῦθ ̓ ἡμῖν αὖ καθάπερ κυσὶν ἰχνευούσαις διερευνητέον. 9. τυγχάνει. Supply ὤν. “The use of τυγχάνει for τυγχάνει ὢν is defended by Erfurdt against Fischer (ad Well. Gr. Gr. IV. p. 8) and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 712), who join rvyxávu with oralav. See a note on this subject in Mus. Crit. p. 65. We confess that we are more inclined to take part with Erfurdt than with Porson. The two passages in the Electra (vv. 46, 315) seem to us to be quite decisive. The following consideration has some weight with us. As τυγχάνω and κυρῶ appear to be exactly synonymous in all their various significations, we are very unwilling to admit that a construction, which is lawful when the poet employs xvg, is unlawful when he employs rvyxávw. We find xvg without a participle twice in the present tragedy : v. 301, Κἀνήρετ' ἐν τῷ πράγματος κυροῖ ποτέ, and v. 928, που μοι γῆς κυρεῖ τῆς Τρωάδος. Several other examples are collected by Erfurdt in his note on Antig. 487." ELMSLEY. See also Erfurdt's Epist. ad Schäf. p. 570; Schäf. ad Bos. Ellips. p. 785; Blomfield to Matth. Gr. Gr. p. liii.; and compare Elektr. 46, Eur. Androm. 1116, Iph. Aul. 730. In the common copies vig is written in opposition to both sense and metre, for which Brunck substituted 'ng. The writing vig is, however, strongly recommended by the authority of Apollonius, in Bekk. Gr. Anecd. 2. p. 495. 24, ὡς ὁ ἀνὴρ, ἁνὴρ, ὁ ἄνθρωπος άνθρωπος, οὕτως τὸ ἕτερον θάτερόν ἐστι. See Porson to Eur. Orest. 851; Dawes's Misc. Crit. pp. 123, 238, 263; Monk to Eur. Hippol. 1005; Kühner's Gr. Gr. 13, Obs. 5, ed. Jelf. syllable is rendered long by crasis with the article. The first 9, 10. κάρα στάζων ἱδρῶτι. Billerbeck explains these words, σταζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱδρῶτος. Lobeck identifies them more accurately with the expressions ἱδρῶτι ῥεόμενος, Philostr. V. Soph. I. 25. 541, and ἱδρῶτι φαινόμενος, Synes. Dion. p. 53. The construction is the same with Asch. Eum. 42, αἵματι στάζοντα χεῖρας ; Eur. Andr. 523, δακρύοισιν κόρας στάζω; Iph. Τ. 108, στάζων ἀφρῷ γένειον. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the participle only must be referred to the following words χέρας ξιφοκτόνους, which adjective must, according to its accentuation, be taken in an active signification, as = ξίφει κτεινούσας. Dindorf, in opposition to Hermann, directs us to supply αἵματι. Upon the dative ἱδρῶτι, see Kühner's Gr. Gr. 548, Obs. 6, and 610, ed. Jelf. 11. οὐδὲν ἔργον, i. e. οὐκ ἔτ ̓ ἀναγκαῖον ἐστί. SCHOL. : οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν ἔτι, εἰ ἔνδον ἐστιν Αἴας. Ἔνδον γάρ· ἀλλὰ λέγειν διὰ τί τὴν σπουδὴν ταύτην ἔθου, ἵνα παρ ̓ ἐμοῦ μάθης τὰ ἀγνοούμενά σοι. See below, v. 810, and, as additional illustrations of this Attic phrase, Elektr. 1373, οὐ μακρῶν λόγων ἡμῖν τόδε τοὖργον, there is no necessity for them here ; Aristoph. Lys. 424, ἀλλ' οὐδὲν ἔργον ἑστάναι ; v. 1308, with Felton's note; Lys. 615; Plut. 1155. Cf. Valckn. to Eur. Hipp. 911. 13. Σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδε. Periphrastic for ἐσπούδαζες ὧδε οι ἐπὶ τίνι ἐσπούδαζες περί τούτου. See Wunder to Ed. Kol. 462. In the same way we find σπουδὴν τιθέναι for σπουδάζειν in Pind. Pyth. IV. 492 ; αἶνον τιθ. for αἰνεῖν, Id. Nem. 1. 5 ; πόνον τιθ. for πονεῖν, Æsch. Εum. 276. The sense of the whole passage is as follows: There is no longer any necessity that you should peer through or within this door (since Aias whom you seek is within), but that you should state openly for what object you have taken upon yourself this eager chase, in order that you may learn from one who knows (all things you wish to ascertain). 14. Ω φθέγμ' ̓Αθάνας. SCHOL.: καὶ τοῦτο ἄριστα πεποίηται· φθέγμα γὰρ εἶπεν, ὡς μὴ θεασάμενος αὐτὴν· δῆλον γὰρ, ὡς οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὴν, ἐκ τοῦ κἂν ἄποπτος ἷς ὁμῶς, τουτέστιν ἀόρατος. Τῆς δὲ φωνῆς μόνης αἰσθάνε |