1345. In v. 800, the MS. V. reads Qikrxrw. The reading in the text is supported by the authority of the manuscripts generally, and of Eustathius, p. 1961. 28. The MSS. Ien. Mosq. b. insert n after Ixyirvv. Schol.: T*»f airtr^ayits ■ revrt icrifin T* 'Aya/*i/*t»n • v-rs ya^ Tzi ftXrarvv a.TwXiro. rocvrct Si laitvirS at ipxriv, vTef-> X r, 81 y ra w(ii rdfrmnnt r£t Xiytfciivr. We cordially acquiesce in the opinion of the more ancient commentators to whom the Scholiast alludes. The spurious character of these verses is most clearly shown both by their purport and their form. The pronoun <r<p*s can only refer to the word 'A-rgfj2«« in the antecedent verse. Yet, since Aias entertained equal, if not greater, hatred to Odysseus, it is impossible to suppose that he would have omitted the mention of his name in the imprecation which he is here represented to have uttered. So great an oversight no one will charge against our poet who has any familiarity with his writings. Secondly, the imprecation here put into the mouth of the dying Aias was not fulfilled in the subsequent history of his enemies, and its introduction, therefore, violates a law which, in all similar circumstances, is invariably observed by the Greek Tragedians. Neither Agamemnon nor Menelaos was killed by his dearest descendants; and that the death of Odysseus by Telegonos cannot possibly be foreshadowed in these words is an inference which is inevitable from the limitation of the pronoun. The assertion of Hermann, that Aias has included the name of his arch-enemy in that pronoun, although grammatical construction confines it to the sons of Atreus, in consequence of the intense anger and excitement under which he speaks, is disproved by the consideration, that there is not in his whole address one single trace of passionate emotion. On the contrary, as we have already seen in our note to v. 272, supra, he is represented as taking his departure from the world after full deliberation, in the calm and unfettered exercise of his own intellect and will, and as uttering his farewell to life in terms expressive of such intense though subdued affection for the varied objects around which his friendships and his loves had clustered in the animate and inanimate world around him, that the idea of this imaginary rage and frenzy seems completely inadmissible. Could it, however, be sustained, a fatal objection to the subsequent assumption of Hermann would still remain in the incontrovertible fact, that the heroes in Greek Tragedy never go to such lengths in their passion as to violate the laws of correct grammatical expression. For the numerous objections which lie against the form in which this spurious imprecation has been clothed, we must refer our readers to Wesseling's note, with the observa tions of Wunder in his Emendd. in Track, p. 165, and content ourselves ■with calling attention to three points which furnish conclusive evidence of its unauthenticity. First, the employment of the verb cvtu^ra. '(ut in the sense assigned to it by the writer of these verses, and in application to the Hellenic Erinyes. Secondly, the use of the adjective auror$a.yrit in wholly opposite significations in two consecutive and correlative clauses of one and the same comparative sentence. We confidently submit, that no similar example can be found in all the surviving productions of our poet, and believe that the same challenge might safely be extended to the writings of every other classical Greek author. Thirdly, the introduction of the superlative form pi'x*o-T<>,-, which is never found in the Tragedians, nor in any writer of the age in which they lived. The words in this tragedy which gave occasion to this wretched interpolation are, beyond all question, those addressed by Teukros to Odysseus at v. 1327 sq., Ttiyat .... 801. "it', Z ru%t7su, X.t.x. See note to v. 73, supra. 802. Ytiii<r$i .... trrvarod. SfJHOL. *• To i£tj? • ytutfii Tou ttar&vpttu *TgaTaw, pn fitliiffPi. "The Scholiast is mistaken in connecting the genitive Kratirifiov trr^arov with the verb ytuirtt; for this and the preceding verse are introduced without the addition of any copulative particle, and it would argue the most barbarous ferocity on the part of Aias to include, without any assignable cause, the whole army of the Achaians in his terrific imprecation. Had he said, rwv 2', a ra^iitct vroivi/tot <r 'E^ivuif, yiv~ nth vaiirifiou ffrgaroii, such a sentiment might have been defended on the ground that he desired the whole host to suffer an expiation of the crime committed by their leaders. The absence of the conjunction represents him, on the other hand, as cherishing the bitterest hostility against the army itself, and for what reason it is impossible to gather from the context. Far more appropriate and satisfactory will it be to regard these words as a more energetic enunciation of the wish he had just before expressed, and as applied directly to the Atreidai : 1r\ 2 rx%tixi rim/mi T' 'Ef/«i«, ytinrh a'vTii." Hermann. We can by no means assent to the ellipse supposed by Hermann, nor to the argument by which he opposes the construction proposed by the Scholiast. Our reasons will be best learnt from vv. 242, 385, 433, supra, and from a comparison of the prayer of Chryses in Horn. II. 1. 42. On the genitive itself, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 537, and on its construction with the remoter verb, consult note to v. 275, supra; Antig. 535, xai ^vftfisrir^et zai pigai <rrit cthrimi; (Ed. Kol. 1330, ci ft tgfwri JtuirlffvXrlfl* va.T^*f. |