horam, rò λvxvnóv (see Voss. de Vit. Serm. 3. 21), the precise time being somewhat more accurately stated by Galen. de Prænot. ad Epig. 11. 638, Τ. XIV., ὥρας ἐννάτης ἄρτι λύχνων ἡμμένων. In the more advanced hours of the night, these lights either went out spontaneously, or were extinguished : περὶ πρωτὴν φυλακὴν, ἐν ᾧ τῆς ὥρας οἱ πλεῖστοι τὰς ἑσπερίους σβεννύντες δῷδας τῇ τῶν ὕπνων ἡγεμονίᾳ τὸ τῶν βλεφάρων ἐκδιδόασι στά Sov, Nikeph. Greg. Hist. 15. 8, unless for purposes of convivial enjoyment in lucem proferuntur vigiles lucerna, Hor. Od. 3. 8. 14, which period is denoted by the phrase extremæ lucerna, Propert. El. 3. 8. 1. From these considerations, it is evident that Aias did not start upon his expedition prima nocte, as Schäfer asserts, but when the night was considerably advanced, or gi garov üπvov, as the Scholiast explains and supports by the additional circumstance that this was an appropriate time for the consummation of his plot, as then all would be buried in deep sleep." LOBECK. Cf. infra, 278, àλλà võv ye tãs eüde orgatós ; Dissen to Pind. Pyth. 11. 17; Klausen to Esch. Agam. 737. "From the mere mention of the λaμτngs or foculi, we have therefore ample proof as to the time at which Sophokles intended to represent the foray of Aias to have taken place. So Quintus Calaber, 5. 352 sq., distinctly testifies that Aias sallied forth during the night for the purpose of destroying the leaders of the army, and that upon the dawn of day, discovering the mental delusion by which the execution of his project had been defeated, he laid violent hands upon himself. Pindar, Isthm. 4. 58, whilst making no allusion to the slaughter of the cattle, states that he destroyed himself iią iv vuxtí, which expression, according to the Scholiast to that passage, may mean either the close of day, quum noctescit, or midnight, or the still further advanced period of the night. The last of these explanations is, however, supported by the testimony of Arktinos, who narrates that Aias destroyed himself περὶ τὸν ὄρθρον. Other writers, as Ovid, Met. 13. 391, represent Aias to have fallen upon his sword in the assembly convened for the purpose of adjudicating the arms of Achilles, and Parrhasius has followed this representation in Armorum Judicio, Plin. XXXV. c. 5. The attack made upon the flocks, which is inconsistent with this statement, is expressly mentioned by Lesches, Erce. Proculi, p. 10, ἡ τῶν ὅπλων κρίσις γίνεται καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς κατὰ βούλησιν ̓Αθηνᾶς λαμβάνει, Αἴας δὲ ἐμμανής γενόμενος τήν τε λείαν τῶν ̓Αχαιῶν λυμαίνεται καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖ, as also by Lycophron, v. 454 ; Hor. Serm. 2. 3. 211; Hygin. Fab. CVII., and others. The same myth is adopted by Sophokles as essential to the integrity of the plot, but the mental delusion is kept carefully separate from his death. The poet thought it more consistent with the dignity of the hero that he should be portrayed as seeking death, not from the blind impulse of madness, nor in the mere impotence of despair and rage, but from the free and unfettered decision of his own intellect and will." LOBECK. 274. xivás, bootless, vain. SCHOL. : κενάς • τὰς οὐκέτι χρησίμως γενομένας. Cf. Antig. 749, κενάς γνώμας ; infra, v. 453, ὅστις κεναῖσιν ἐλπίς σιν θερμαίνεται ; Elektr. 403, τὸ θηρᾶσθαι κενά. 275. ἐπιπλήσσω, reprove, or chide. Cf. d. Kol. 1727, τί τόδ' ἐπέ. πληξας ; Plat. Protag. p. 319. D, τούτοις οὐδεὶς τοῦτο ἐπιπλήττει, where this verb has the construction usually found with verbs expressing similar notions ; Hdt. 3. 142, τὰ τῷ πέλας ἐπιπλήσσω ; Æsch. Prom. 80, τραχύτητα μὴ ἐπίπλησσέ μοι. At Plat. Protag. p. 327. A, xãs távra nai ἐδίδασκε καὶ ἐπέπληττε τὸν μὴ καλῶς αὐλοῦντα, Stallbaum observes, that, 66 as no other instance has yet been found in which the verb iλáttu is constructed with an accusative of the person, I prefer to regard the accusative as dependent upon the more remote verb." The example he requires may be found in Il. 23. 580, καί μ ̓ οὔτινά φημι ἄλλον ἐπιπλήξειν Δαναῶν, where this verb is joined, in the same way as μέμφεσθαι, with the accusative, without the notion of transmission of blame. Alay from the MS. Par. 1 and Sui- 276. Alas. Hermann has edited das. See note to v. 89, supra. MSS. Par. 1, г. . Aug. C. Lips. 1. 2, and apparently the MS. Laur. 1, with Suidas, exhibit the reading in the text; the other manuscripts pogpas, which is approved by Brunck. Hermann, while admitting that the latter verb might stand, has preferred apogus, "quia de abitu Aiacis intempesta nocte sermo est." So, too, Lobeck, who remarks that rí rávde πεῖραν ἐφορμᾶς would signify τί ἐπὶ. πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς, as πρᾶξιν ἐφ ̓ ἣν weparo, Ælian. H. Ann. 10. 34, and that Tekmessa, merely seeing Aias making preparations to leave his tent, could not, in her ignorance of his purpose and intention, have said τί ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς; The Scholiast, misled by v. 274, incorrectly explains igav by Togeíav or idóv. Compare v. 2 supra; below, v. 445, wɛīgu ris Snтntéæ, àQ' is . . . . dnλώσω, and 1001, κεἰ μὴ θεῶν τις τήνδε πεῖραν ἔσβεσεν. With the construction ἀφορμᾶς πεῖραν, compare Thuk. 1. 3, ταύτην τὴν στρατείαν ξυνῆλ lov (coire societatem), which is perhaps equivalent to στρατείαν ξυνελθόντες Travτo. See Hermann to Trach. 158; Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 17, λλus ἐξόδους ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Demosth. 1353. 24, στρατείαν ἐκείνην ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Trachin. 505, παγκόνιτ ̓ ἐξῆλθον ἄεθλ ̓ ἀγώνων, where Wunder has edited voy from a conjecture of Wakefield, in opposition to the unanimous testi .... mony of all the manuscripts, whilst the Scholiast says that is for διήνυσαν, ἐπεξῆλθον, ἠγωνίσαντο. In its own strict meaning, however, this verb has the accusative instead of the genitive in Hdt. 8. 29, dov hv Пsgrida xugav, like the Latin verbs egredi, excedere, in Plin. Ep. 7. 33, Historia non debet egredi veritatem; Liv. 2. 2, Nescio an Romani . . . . modum excesserint; although in their strict signification, to go out, they are generally constructed with ex. So, also, Aristot. Pol. 3. 14, and metaphorically Nymphiodor. ap. Athen. XII. p. 536. A, rà vóμiμa iiexsolar. Besides Thuk. 1. 15, ἐκδήμους στρατείας ἐξῄεσαν, the verb ἐξίεναι is found with the accusative in Trachin. 159, which passage has not escaped Lobeck, and we read in Xen. Hell. 4. 2. 13, rùv åμfíaλov žievai, to march out of the Isthmus. So, too, Eur. Alkest. 187, xaì báλaμov.... ¿1⁄2iołσa; Ibid. 610, ipsis dè. προσείπατ ̓ ἐξιοῦσαν ἑστάτην ὁδόν. In the signification to rush upon, attack, ¿Qoquãoba is joined with the accusative in Il. 15. 691, ἀλλ ̓ ὥστ ̓ ὀρνίθων πετεηνῶν αἰετὸς αἴθων ἔθνος ἐφορμᾶται. See Göller ad Thuk. 3. 31. On the accusative with ovvigxolas, see below, v. 466, ÙÌ TÒ odv aéxos žuvñadov, in place of which we find the dative in Ed. Tyr. 572. Cf. Porson to Eur. Phœn. 831; Plato, Rep. 7, p. 537, izudàv rà rgIÚNovтa ἔτη ἐκβαίνωσιν ; Ibid. p. 462. Β, ὅταν δὲ δὴ αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ γεννᾶν ἐκβῶσι τὴν ἡλικίαν ή and again, p. 338. Ε, καὶ τὸν τοῦτο ἐκβαίνοντα κολάζουσιν, where Schneider has received τούτου from the MS. Ven. C, although acknowledging that Touro, the reading of the MS. Ven. B. and Aldus, is "æque bonum"; Eur. Herc. F. 82, yaías öga ixßaive; Plat. Sympos. p. 183. Β, ὅτι καὶ ὀμνύντι μόνῳ συγγνώμη παρὰ θεῶν ἐκβάντι τὸν gxov, where, although one manuscript has Tv gxwv, the accusative is read in the MSS. Vat. A. Ven. E. Vind. 2. 7, Par. Aug. and Cyrillus c. Julian. 6, p. 187. In our own passage, igav is not the strict cognate accusative, nor does it express, as Mitchell observes, the actual cognate notion of the verb, but is rather what Kühner terms the accusative of equivalent notion, i. e. a notion substituted for the true cognate notion, as being that "wherein the action or state or effect of the verb for the time being consists, and being in a sort of opposition to it, as Æsch. Choeph. 144, ävrıκατθανεῖν δίκην = bávarov, which is the dízny, to suffer punishment of death in turn," where, however, Hermann directs us to write ȧvrınarbaviîv díny. This equivalent substantive can be resolved into a cognate substantive and a genitive; as at Eur. Or. 1519, àvravysiv fórov αὐγὴν φόνον, or vice versa, as ἀντικατθανεῖν δίκην δίκην θανάτου, or it might assume an adjectival form. Consult note to v. 410, infra. = = 279. 'O'.... asì d'. "The particle d is frequently repeated in the tenor of the same sentence. When this occurs, the first di must be connected with iv, expressed or understood, in an adversative relation, the second δέ serving merely to continue the sentence. Cf. Trachin. 950 ; Philokt. 882, 959; but more particularly Elektr. 711 – 714, 917 - 918, 997 999.” ELLENDT. ὑμνούμενα. SCHOL.: ἀεὶ θρυλούμενα ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ κοινά, ἢ ἀεὶ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενα πρὸς ἐμέ. The first is the true explanation. Plat. Pol. p. 549. Ε, ὅσα καὶ οἷα φιλοῦσιν αἱ γυναῖκες περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὕμνειν ; Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 33, τὰ δὲ Παλαμήδους οὐκ ἀκήκοας πάθη, τοῦτον γὰρ δὴ πάντες ὑμνοῦσιν. Cf. Musgrave to Eur. Andr. 628. 280. With the sentiment expressed in this verse compare Hom. Il. 6. 490; Eur. Herakl. 477, γυναικὶ γὰρ σιγή τε καὶ τὸ σωφρονεῖν Κάλλιστον. In Esch. Theb. 234, Eteokles is represented as rebuking the chorus of virgins in these words: σὸν δ ̓ αὖ τὸ σιγᾷν καὶ μένειν ἔσω δόμων. Heliodor. Ethiopp. I. p. 36, πρέπειν γὰρ οἶμαι γυναικὶ μὲν σιγὴν, κ. τ. λ. ; Ælian. ap. Suid. s. v. Κόσμος· καὶ ἄλλα εἰργάσατο ἀσεβείας ἐχόμενα, ἅ μοι σιγῶντι κόσμον φέρει ; Plautus, Rud. 4. 4. 70, Tacita bona 'st mulier semper, quam loquens. The Schol. Barocc. to this verse writes : ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Καλλιστράτου· ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ φύλλα κόσμον τοῖς δένδρεσι φέρει, τὰ δὲ ἔρια τοῖς προβάτοις, ἡ δὲ χαίτη τοῖς ἵπποις, ἡ δὲ γενειὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ σιωπὴ κόσμον ταῖς γυναιξὶ φέρει. .... 282. Καὶ τς . . . . πάθας. SCHOL.: τοῦτο μὲν ἀγνοεῖ ἡ Τέκμησσα λέγειν, τοῦτο δὲ προεῖπεν αὐτὰ ὁ ποιητής· ὡς ἐνοχλεῖν οὐ δεῖ τὸν θεατὴν ταυτολογοῦντα. Suidas s. v. Πάθας exhibits καὶ τὰς μὲν ἔνδον .. φράζειν πάθας, the word ἔνδον being manifestly erroneous. The MS. Dresd. a. and the Triclinian editions read λέγειν τύχας, but πάθας is defended, not only by the best manuscripts, but also by d. Kol. 7, στέργειν γὰρ αἱ πάθαι, κ.τ.λ. ; Antig. 978 ; Ast to Plat. Legg. III. 2, p. 146 ; Koen. ad Greg. Cor. p. 425. As the Scholiast observes, the term belongs rather to the poet's knowledge than to Tekmessa's. Ellendt justifies its employment propter strages editas ab Aiace, de quibus certe infelicissime ominabatur Tecmessa." 284. κύνας βοτῆρας. SCHOL.: ὕφ ̓ ἣν ἀναγνωστέον, τοὺς ποιμενικοὺς κύνας· οὐ γὰρ ἀναιρεῖ κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν ἄνθρωπον. 285. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν, κ.τ.λ. Compare the statement made at v. 229 sqq., of which our passage is a mere repetition. “ Αὐχενίζειν is cervice cadenda caput amputare; ἄνω τρέποντα σφάζειν, capite resupinato guttur ferire, see Eustathius, p. 134. 7; ῥαχίζειν, spinam dorsi secare.” HERMANN. 288. Τέλος δ ̓ ὑπάξας. SCHOL.: ἡ μὲν Τέκμησσα ἠγνόει, τίνι διείλεκται· ἡμεῖς δὲ μεμαθήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ προλόγου, ὅτι ̓Αθηνᾶ ἦν ἡ λαλήσασα αὐτῷ· τὸ δὲ σκιᾷ τινί, ὅτι οὐ συνέβαλε τὰ περὶ τὴν θεόν. Some manuscripts and Aldus read itas; the MS. Laur. B. and Scholiast zagas; but the preponderance of authority is greatly in favor of ὑπάξας οι ὑπαΐξας. Ellendt shows that or is the verbum proprium of persons quitting the house; or, of persons reëntering it. 289. Λόγους ἀνέσπα. Eustathius, p. 679. 63 : ἐπὶ ἀλαζονείας τὸ ἀνασπᾶν, ὡς δηλοῖ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ τὸ λόγους ἀνέσπα. ΗESYCHIUS: ἀνασπᾷ, ἐπαίρει. Menander, Fragm. p. 153, πόθεν τούτους ἀνεσπάκασιν οὗτοι τοὺς λόγους. Ar. Ach. 1069, τὰς ἐφρῦς ἀνεσπακὼς ὥσπερ τι δεινὸν ἀγγελῶν. Render, therefore, he uttered words of boastful vaunt. 290. γέλων πολύν. The MSS. T. Ien. Toλùv yśλwv. Hence the proverbial expression, Alávrɛos yéλws, on which see note to v. 230 supra. 291. ἐκτίσαιτ'. "In our opinion, Lobeck and Erfurdt have acted injudiciously in not reading ixrior' with Musgrave and Bothe. Although Tekmessa makes use of the plural number, airy, she alludes to the flagellation which Aias was about to inflict on Odysseus, when he was called out of his tent by Athene. See vv. 105 110. If we retain έκτίσαιτο, Aias must be understood to speak of what he had already done, not of what he intended to do. Compare Trach. 793, Tò durжάgeuvov XixTgov ἐνδατούμενος Σοῦ τῆς ταλαίνης, καὶ τὸν Οἰνέως γάμον, Οἷον κατακτήσαιτο avμávrny Bíov. Musgrave observes, that, if the poet had represented Aias as speaking of a past transaction, he would not have added iv to ixríσαιτο. ELMSLEY. This eminent scholar appears to have too hastily approved the emendation of Musgrave. Υβριν ἐκτίνεσθαι would, according to general usage, signify to exact payment for, or to revenge the insolent conduct of another. But Tekmessa here describes the exultation of Aias on account of the cruel vengeance which he had wreaked upon the Atreidæ and Odysseus; so that the words on üße make no allusion to haughty insolence on the part of the sons of Atreus and Odysseus, but are limited exclusively to the revenge taken by Aias. We should therefore have expected that τιμωρίαν οι τίσιν would have been used by the poet. As Sophokles, however, wished to specify more accurately the precise character of the vengeance or atonement taken, or, in other words, to attract attention to the outrageous cruelty with which Aias had revenged the treatment he had sustained at the hands of his adversaries (vv. 111-113), he has substituted ße, which must be understood in a passive signification, and as expressing the idea which would have been conveyed had Tío occupied its place. Hence the language here employed is equivalent |