the majority of the manuscripts read Taxivers, which is in no way objectionable. See note to v. 31, supra, and compare Eur. Hippol. 473, λñys μὲν κακῶν φρενῶν, λῆξον δ ̓ ὑβρίζουσ'. Id. Phan. 1735, τῇδε τῇδε βαθι μοι, τῇδε τῇδε πόδα τίθει. τοὶ δ ̓. "We doubt whether the Attic poets, except in the Doric parts of the tragedies, ever use roí as the nominative plural of either ors. The license which they take seems to consist in using those cases of the prepositive article which begin with 7, instead of the corresponding cases of the relative article, as rov for %, etc. In the present passage, Suidas, s. v. ̓Αμφίπυρον, reads τὸν δ ̓ ὑψιβάτον. This reading, although preferable to that of the common text, is not quite correct. The answer to ἀλλ ̓ οἱ μέν is not τὸν δ ̓ ὑψιβάτον, but μία δ ̓ ἐκ xías. Read, therefore, ró› ' ¿ßárov. We have remarked that d' and ' are much more frequently confounded than d' and '. See vv. 406, 789, 794, of the present tragedy." ELMSLEY. Cf. Apollon. de Synt. I. 20, p. 49, ed. Bekk.; Gregor. Cor. p. 238; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 151. a; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. B. II. 15. 1, Anm. 8. Hermann properly objects to the correction proposed by Elmsley, that there is no reference to any particular tripod, and overthrows his doubt as to the employment of roí by the Tragedians by quoting Æsch. Pers. 424, where it is found in a senarius. 1343. Τρίποδ' . . . . ἐπίκαιρον. "On the ceremonial here enjoined, cf. Hom. Il. 18. 343 sqq. Connect the words τρίποδα λουτρῶν ὁσίων (equiva lent to the Homeric expression rgíroda λourgoxóov, Il. 18. 346), and see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 374. b; Rost, Gr. Gr. 108. 11. 6. For ἀμφίπυρον iods, Homer 1. c. has said dupi rugi orñoα.." WUNDER. The objection to the construction proposed by Triclinius and adopted by Wunder is, that the adjective iinagov would stand too nakedly. Hermann and Ellendt, therefore, properly prefer the construction of Musgrave, who directs us to join λουτρῶν ἐπίκαιρον, i. e. καιρὸν ἔχοντα λουτρῶν, idoneum lavacro. 1346. τὸν ὑπασπίδιον κόσμον. SCHOL. : τὸν ἐνόπλιον κόσμον. Teukros refers to those parts of his armor which Aias (v. 553) had directed to be buried with him. The shield, which he had bequeathed to Eurysakes (v. 550), was, of course, excepted. 1347. Παῖ, σὺ δέ. SCHOL. : τραγικὰ καὶ ταῦτα καὶ πάθους ἐχόμενα. The MS. Dresd. a. and Turnebus read σὺ δὲ παῖ τοῦ πατρός, ὅσον ἰσχύεις. See Porson on Eur. Orest. 614. 1350. Σύριγγες. 66 venæ aut arteriæ." understand the former. SCHOL. : ἀναδόσεις αἵματος. Wesseling renders, In the present instance, physiology requires us to On the accusative μέλαν μένος (here aptly substituted, as in Esch. Agam. 1075, for alpa, the seat of vital power and energy), see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 555. c. 1353. πάντ ̓ ἀγαθῷ. “So Elektr. 301, ὁ πάντ ̓ ἄναλκις οὗτος.” SCHAEFER. 1354. Κοὐδενί πω λῴονι θνητῶν. “Such is the reading of the manuscripts and old editions, with the exception of the MSS. Mosq. b. Lips. b. Ien., which exhibit βροτῶν. Triclinius completes the defective metre by writing καὶ οὐδενί ; Brunck, by adding τῶν. Hermann corrects κοὐδενί γ' τινι λῴονι θνητῶν, upon the hypothesis that Sophokles, in intending to write τῷ πάντ ̓ ἀγαθῷ καὶ οὗ οὐδεὶς ὅστις λῴων ἦν θνητῶν, determined subsequently to employ the attraction κοὐδενί γ' ᾧ τινι λῴονι, and was hence obliged to substitute Αἴαντος in place of o. (In his last edition, Leipsic, 1848, he abandons this conjecture, adheres to the common reading in the present verse, and follows Wunder and Dindorf in rejecting that which follows.) Matthiä denies the possibility of an attraction in which the antecedent construction is continued whilst the genitive that indicates the comparison is omitted. Dindorf gets rid of all difficulty, both as to construction and metre, by expunging the verse Αἴαντος, ὅτ ̓ ἦν, τότε φωνῶ, and ascribes its insertion to the opinion of some interpreter that Aias ought to be specially mentioned. The introduction of his name, unneces sary as it is in reference to the construction, is so essential to the emphasis that I cannot refer it to this source, or believe that it would have been suppressed by the poet in the closing verses of this play. Whilst I throw this out as a mere opinion of my own, I shall not be surprised if others prefer to follow the conjecture of Dindorf. I have placed an asterisk in the text, with the view of indicating the metrical deficiency; and this has been done by Bothe also, who suspects that Sophokles wrote κἂν οὐδενί, for which καὶ ἐπ ̓ οὐδενί πω, scil. πονήσας ἄν, is apparently a far more feasible suggestion.” LOBECK. “These words, κοὐδενί . . θνητῶν are said by a remarkable attraction for καὶ οὐ οὐδείς πω θνητῶν λῴων ἦν. Cf. Eur. Elektr. 934, πᾶσιν δ ̓ ἐν ̓Αργείοισιν ἤκουες τάδε· ὁ τῆς γυναικὸς, οὐχὶ τἀνδρὸς ἡ γυνή.” NEUE. On a somewhat similar change of construction, see note to v. 432, supra. ... 1356. SCHOL.; οἰκείως ἔχει τοῖς ἀπαλλαχθήσεσθαι μέλλουσιν ἡ τελευταία γνώμη, ὅτι πλεῖστά ἐστι τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γνῶναι ἐπ ̓ αὐτῶν τῶν πραγμά των γενομένοις· προμηθείᾳ δὲ ἀδύνατον χρήσασθαι, καὶ μαντεύσασθαι, ὅ, τι ποτὲ ἀποβήσεσθαι μέλλει. ταῦτα δὲ ἅμα λέγοντες προπέμπουσι τὸν νεκρὸν, καὶ γίνεται ἔξοδος πρέπουσα τῷ λειψάνω. ADDENDUM. THE note to v. 756 was printed before Schneidewin's edition of the Aias, and the English translation of it, had been received. His construction of the line is the same as that suggested at the end of the note referred to (pp. 235, 236), except on one point; he connects the genitive Aavros with odov. "Teukros sieht voraus (auguratur, vgl. Trach. 111, nanàv iλxisovσav aioav) dass der Ausgang des Aias ins Verderben führe. Der Bote sagt rávès, da er vom Chor schon erfahren, dass Aias ausgegangen ist. Den gemeinen Ausdruck ἡ ὁδὸς φέρει εἰς ὄλεθρον, oder ἐστὶν λgía veredelt Sophokles poetisch." In the English translation, edited by Mr. Arnold, this note is rendered as follows, with a little addition by the editor. "Teucer foresees ([}λπí =] auguratur. Cf. Trach. 111, nanàv iàríÇovoav aïoav) that this quitting the tent will lead to destruction. The messenger says rids because he has already learnt from the Chorus that Aias is gone out. The ordinary expression, ἡ ὁδὸς φέρει εἰς ὄλεθρον οι ἐστὶν ὀλεθρία, is poetically embellished by Sophocles (who irregularly combines the two)." The order of the words, as well as the logical relation of the ideas, connects the genitive more naturally with ὀλεθρίαν. Translate, He forebodes that this going forth (the knowledge of which, previously intimated by the Chorus, has just been expressly communicated by Tekmessa) leads to the destruction of Aias. F. |