that the words immediately following, xaì gevav gάos, and the use of the noun in the plural number, are entirely opposed to this interpretation, explains róλμa by machinationes, comparing Trach. 582; Eur. Hippol. 414; Ion. 1416.. Billerbeck supposes that the datives depend upon πεποιθώς omitted, and quotes Ar. Plut. 449, ποίοισιν ὅπλοις ἢ δυνάμει πε ποιθότες ; 48. παρέστη. SCHOL. : ἐπλησίασεν ὑμῖν. Rightly, for παρέστη must be referred to the words of Athene in the preceding verse, νύκτωρ ἐφ ̓ ὑμᾶς ὁρμᾶται. 49. Καὶ δή. This combination =jamjam, commodum, is often used in replies to express strongly the reality or certainty of any thing. Cf. Elektr. 310; Ed. Kol. 173; Antig. 245. στρατηγίσιν πύλαις. SCHOL. : ταῖς tāv oxnväv múλais, i. e. at the doors (or tents) of the two commanders, Agamemnon and Menelaos. Compound adjectives are frequently employed by lyric and dramatic poets instead of the genitive of the substantive implied or contained in the compound, or instead of a substantive and attributive genitive, of which two notions the compound adjective is made up. See, below, vv. 55, 71, 284; Antig. 793, veínos ávdgāv žúvasμov ; Eur. Herc. F. 395, καρπὸν μηλοφόρον, for καρπὸν μήλων; Æsch. Agam. 272, εὐαγγέλοισιν ἐλπίσιν θυηπολεῖς, for ἐλπίσιν ἀγαθῆς ἀγγελίας ; Eur. Elektr. 126, ἄναγι πολύδακρυν ἡδονάν, for πολλῶν δακρύων ; Pind. Οl. III. 3, Θήρωνος Ολυμmovinav pevov, for vinns 'Oλvμrins. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 446, Obs. 3. c, has collected very many additional examples. 50. πῶς ἐπέσχε χεῖρα μαιμῶσαν φόνου; The Scholiast remarks: γράφε Tai nai di&ão av, and this reading is found in the Cod. Flor. T. So, too, in a verse of an unknown tragic poet quoted by Athenæus, X. 433. F, p. 961, ed. Dindf. : ἴσχειν κελεύω χεῖρα διψῶσαν φόνου, in all probability imitated by Lycophron, v. 1171, μαιμῶν κορέσσαι χεῖρα διψῶσαν φόνου. The verb μauv, which is a reduplicated form of the root, MA-, found in μάω (compare παιφάσσω from φάω, and λιλαίομαι from λάω), is seldom met with in the Tragedians, and perhaps, in addition to the present passage, only in Esch. Suppl. 872, papa pis. In support of its construction with the genitive, Lobeck cites Apollon. Arg. 269, paiμãv idntúos. intensive μaspárow, first met with in an epigram of Bianor, Anth. Pal. 9. 272, is nevertheless to be recognized in the verbal adjective pasμantós (which in composition with a intensive occurs in Hes. Theog. 319, and Soph. Ed. Tyr. 171) and the appellative Mauantńs. The 51. Εγώ σφ ̓ ἀπείργω. Cod. Flor. Γ. ἀπεῖρξα. SCHOL. : τὸ ἑξῆς· ἐγώ σφ ̓ ἀπείργω τῆς ἀνηκέστου χαρᾶς. On the words δυσφόρους . · βαλοῦσα .... the Scholiast observes : καλῶς εἶπε γνώμας· οὐ γὰρ κλέψαι φησὶ τὴν ὄψιν ὥστε μὴ ὁρᾶν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῇ γνώμην δύσφορον ἐπιβαλεῖν, ὡς οἴεσθαι ἰδεῖν τὰ μὴ ὄντα· τοῦτο δὲ οὐ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἁμάρτημα, ἀλλὰ πολὺ πρότερον τῆς διανοίας. Lobeck remarks that by γνώμας we are here to understand those ludibria oculorum, by which the goddess turned Aias aside from the consummation of his plan to murder the Atridæ, quoting Celsus, IV. 8, Quidam imaginibus falluntur, qualem insanientem Ajacem vel Orestem poetarum fabulæ ferunt." In Esch. Choeph. 1044, the word do is applied to such illusory appearances; and that these are to be distinguished from mental alienation is evident from Eur. Hel. 583, ĥ yàg φρονῶ μὲν εὖ, τὸ δ ̓ ὄμμα μου νοσεῖ. Compare infra, v. 422, κεἰ μὴ τόδ ̓ ὄμμα καὶ φρένες διάστροφοι Γνώμης ἀπῆξαν τῆς ἐμῆς .... ; 667, ἔλυσεν αἰνὸν äxos är' ¡μμáτwy "Agns. Hence there is no necessity for adopting Musgrave's proposal to substitute yλńμas, which is another form for anμas, and denotes viscid secretions, that, gathering in the corner of the eye, derange vision. The adjective durpógovs is here παραφόρους, as the Scholiast correctly teaches. Cf. Luc. Fugit. 9, παράφορον βλέπειν. v. 606, below, the Chorus calls the calamity which had befallen Aias δύσφορον ἄταν. = In 53 sqq. Kai rgós Te moíμvas. On the position of the particle see Wunder to Ed. Kol. 33; Matthiä to Eur. Hek. 459; and cf. Ed. Tyr. 541; Philokt. 1294. σύμμικτά τε . . . . φρουρήματα. In the common copies we find a comma after asías, which Schäfer, with the approbation of Hermann, first erased, in order that the two genitives might be brought, although in different relations, under the government of Qgovguara. Most grammarians explain this construction by stating that the substantive and one of the genitives form one compound notion, on which the other genitive grammatically depends (see Matth. Gr. Gr. 380, Obs. 1, and to Eur. Ion. 12; Bernhardy, Gr. Synt. p. 162); i. e. that rippinra λsías is for σύμμικτον-λείαν, and σύμμ. φρουρήματα βουκόλων for ἀγέλαι, ἃς φρουροῦσιν οἱ βουκόλοι. According to this explanation, λείας φρουρήματα signifies not merely the watching of the booty, i. e. the care taken of the captured cattle, but also the booty guarded (pecudes ex præda, curæ pastorum, traditæ); whilst the second genitive, Bouzóλwv, is associated with the verbal substantive, govguara, in the same way as a genitive is often placed with passive participles, as, for example, at v. 765, below, QWròs nπαTNvn. Hence Wunder renders, prædam a bubulcis custoditam, or armenta a pastoribus custodita, but without citing a single analogous instance in support of his interpretation from any Greek writer. In prose, the words βουκόλων φρουρήματα could certainly have no other sense than the watching of herdsmen, i. e. the care of shepherds in the custody of something. In this signification, the name of the object or objects guarded by them could be adjoined in the genitive, in the same way as τὴν τοῦ Λάχητος τῶν νεῶν żęxń, Thuk. 3. 115, where the one genitive expresses an active, and the other a passive, relation. If, then, the expression λείας φρ. βουκόλων had been employed by a prose-writer, it would have been understood only of the herdsmen's care of the booty, or, in other words, the care of the shepherds in guarding the captured herds. But when it is remembered, that, in our passage, the flocks themselves are meant, it seems incredible that any license allowed to the tragic poets could have justified Sophokles in describing these cattle, in one and the same sentence, as Qgovęńμara zoμśvwv and φρουρ. λείας or ποιμνῶν. The force of this objection will be more distinctly apprehended if attention is paid to the following observations of Lobeck. "Pylades is called raidsvμa Пirbśws, Eur. Elektr. 886; flocks, ποιμένων βοσκήματα, Kykl. 189, or φυλλάδος Παρνησίας παιδεύματα, Androm. 1100 and also, periphrastically, Borxńμara μóoxwv, Bacch. 677, just as boys are denominated voysvñ aidwv gśμμara, Plat. Legg. VII. 789, B. In the same way Thetis is styled Νηρέως γένεθλον, Andr. 1273, and her sisters Nngnidwv yśvitλa, Nonn. XLIII. 258. But what Greek writer, conjoining both genitives, the subjective and the periphrastic, has called Pylades, from his having been brought up by Pittheus, Πυλάδου παίδευμα Πιτθέως, or focks μόσχων βοσκήματα ποιμένων ? Who has styled the mother of Achilles Nigéws yévelλov Nagnidos, or men created by God, Θεοῦ γεννήματα ἀνθρώπων, or the boar captured by Meleagros Μελεάγρου ἄγραν κάπρου ? Nor are such expressions as Κάστορος ἄγαλμα Targidos, Eur. Hel. 209, and others of the same kind, which will be dis cussed in a more convenient place, at all pertinent to the verse under consideration. This, then, has been my reason for not altering the customary punctuation." Render, therefore, and I turn him from his intended goal upon the flocks, and the still mingled prey, the herdsmen's charge, not yet distributed. The captured herds are called ouμμinтa, because the sheep and oxen, of which they consisted, had not yet been separated from each other. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. T. 1, p. 16, pronounces λsías a partitive genitive, àñò asías adarra, ex universa præda nondum electa et partita. 55. xugs. SCHOL. άvrì To msigwv izols. See Seidler to Eur. Iph. Taur. 214; Kühn. Gr. Gr. 583, 91, ed. Jelf; and compare v. 357, below, αἷμ ̓ ἔδευσα, i. e. αἷμα δεῦον ἔχει; Eur. Suppl. 1211, τιτρώσκειν φόνον, for φόνον ποιεῖν τῷ τιτρώσκειν ; Herakl. 1183, ἔκτανε φοίνον αἷμα, for κτείνων = ἐποίησε. The Scholiast also explains φόνος πολύκερως as = πολλῶν κερα σφόρων ζώων φόνος, a signification which this adjective will scarcely be admitted to possess. The expression, many-horned slaughter, thus applied to the numerous cattle slain by Aias, however distasteful to modern ears, is assuredly not more extravagant than such phrases as τετρασκελὴς κενTaugoranens Toλsμos, Eur. Herc. F. 1272, or ynɣevès μáxn, Ion. 987. On the accentuation of the adjective roλúxegws, see Kühn. 46. 2, ed. Jelf, and compare φιλόγελως, ἄκερως, ὑπέρπλεως. 56. l'ors, est quando, interdum. The correlative is ör' λλore in v. 58, below. See Herm. ad Vig. 790; Böckh. not. crit. ad Pind. p. 406; and compare ὅτε μέν . . . ., ὅτε δ ̓ αὖτε, Ap. Rh. 1. 1270; ὅτε μέν...., ὅτ' αὖ. Id. 3. 1300. ο τοτὲ μέν...., ἄλλοτε οι ἄλλοτε δέ. Soph. Elektr. 739, τότ ̓ ἄλλος, ἄλλοθ ̓ ἕτερος ; Xen. Men. 1. 2. 20, αὐτὰρ ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς τότε μὲν κακός, ἄλλοτε δ ̓ ἐσθλός. The tyro should observe that wherever the forms τότε, ὅτε, are used twice for ποτέ Tors, sometimes.. ⚫ sometimes, they are accented τοτέ...., ὁτέ.... On the use of ἔστι with a relative adverb, the demonst. being omitted, see Kühn. Gr. Gr. 817, Obs. 4. Wunder writes λλors in place of λλ07s, from his own conjecture. .... 58. iμTÍTYWY. See Elmsley to Eur. Herakl. 77, and to Med. 53, p. 86. The manuscripts generally exhibit Tv: the MSS. Flor. T. and Laur. a. iμxity, the latter with the gloss yg. uzsov. The true accentuation is frequently preserved in the ancient copies. In the preceding verse, Wunder thinks that the participle xwv, on which the Scholiast observes yg. Tsíve‹v ragúv, might have been omitted without injury to the sense; and Lobeck has remarked that the participles xwv, Tagŵr, λαβών, μολών, ιών are frequently added φράσεως ἕνεκα, in such a way as to allow the freest interchange, and even entire omission. A more accurate decision, perhaps, would be to regard them as employed in the same way as the Tragedians are accustomed to use the infinitive at the end of a verse, for the purpose of giving distinctness to the representation, or dramatic force and vigor to the language. 60. Ωτρυνον, εἰσέβαλλον εἰς ἕρκη κακά. The MS. Laur. a., together with the Scholiast, append the gloss ye. is igivõv xaxńv, and from this Hermann formerly supposed is giv nanny, in certamen turpissimum, Wunder sis äqnvv naxv, to be the genuine reading. Upon these tentamina at emendation no remark can be necessary, as they are now abandoned even by their authors. In objection to the reading of the Scholiast, Lobeck excellently observes: "If Aias or any of his ancestors had been guilty of sacrilegious or unhallowed murder, then, indeed, the saßháßsia attendant upon such a deed could properly and truly be referred to the dark impulse of the Furies, just as that mental blindness which followed the parricidal guilt of Edipus, and involved his family in the most miserable destruction, is called gevæv içıvús in Antig. 603. But since Aias had committed no such deed, not even Quintus (vv. 360, 452) ascribes his madness to an Erinnys, but to Lyssa or Mania, to whose agency Eschylus and Euripides, besides Orpheus (Arg. 872) and Nonnus (XXXI. 73, XLIV. 259), attributed the alienation of the minds of Pentheus and Herakles. The Latin poets, ignorant of the old religion, represent, it is true, not only these heroes, but Bacchus, Tereus, and Medea, as subjected to the influence of the Furies, whose office, as is well known, was circumscribed, in more ancient times, within far narrower limits. But should any one maintain that it was customary with the Greeks to impute all plans and actions, which, whilst unconnected with personal crime, had yet a dismal end, to the Erinnyes as their authors (compare Odyss. 15. 239; Il. 19. 87), and hence that the appellation 'Egvis is conferred generally upon a person distinguished for criminality (cf. Agam. 729; Eur. Orest. 1386, ed. Pors. ; Id. Med. 1256; Soph. Elektr. 809; Virg. Æn. 2. 573, Trojæ et patriæ communis Erinnys), not in a strict and proper sense, but on account of the resemblance observable between the melancholy issues of all counsels and actions in such persons as, on the one hand, were truly haunted by the Furies, and in those, on the other, who reaped ruin and disaster as the fruit of their own violence and folly, — I, indeed, will readily grant that the unfaltering pursuit after vengeance upon their enemies, and the consequent recklessness of their lives, might have been termed givus. And this appellation is thus used by a poet in the Anth. Pal. IX. n. 470, who, as some consolation to Aias, says : Οὐ γὰρ Οδυσσεὺς ἤλιτεν εἰς σε θέλων, βριαρὴ δέ σ' ἔπεφνεν ̓Αθήνη καὶ ἠεροφοῖτις Ερινύς. But the subject of the present passage is that short-lived mental or ocular delusion, which led Aias to the slaughter of the cattle; and even if it be true that Athene from the very moment of its occurrence foresaw that this act would terminate in the destruction of its author, she could certainly have given no intimation of this to the spectators in the first place, that she might not destroy the pleasurable alternation of hope and fear, which the poet has striven to maintain throughout the entire play, and, in the second, that she might not be portrayed as somewhat too cruel in the estimation even of Odysseus himself." Hermann, in his last edition, has written, from his own conjecture, ὤτρυνον εἰς Ερινύων ἕρκη κακά, against which, although it undoubtedly renders on more intelligible, the preceding observations .... |