to this : ὡς ὑβριστικὴν (αἰκιστικὴν) τίσιν ἐκτίσαιτο. Lobeck rightly defends the aorist by remarking that the ßgs of Aias towards his imaginary foes commenced with their captivity, many of them at the time of his conversation with Athene having been already slain, and the remainder bound, carried off, and treated with various indignities. On the participle iv, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 557, note 2.

292. izažas. The MSS. La. Aug. C. and several others waigas.

294. ἄτης. "We must understand here, not only the slaughter perpetrated on the flocks by Aias, but the calamity in which he had involved himself by that act of madness." WUNDER.

295. ἐν δ ̓ ἐρειπίοις . . . . φόνου. Prostratus autem sedebat in prostratis cadaveribus cæsarum ovium. So Wunder, who observes, that, just as igiπια νεκρῶν is put here for ἐρειφθέντες νεκροί, we find πτώματα νεκρῶν for TETOVTES VEXgo in Eur. Phan. 1490. Objectionable as the expression pupils ero may appear to us, it is kept in countenance by v. 312, infra, ἐν μέσοις βοτοῖς σιδηροκμῆσιν ἥσυχος θακεῖ πεσών, where fακεῖ πεσών is, to say the least, quite as incongruous as igupleìs (ero, and by Virg. Æn. 7. 94, ovium effultus tergo stratisque jacebat velleribus. The word povos is frequently used by the Tragedians to denote id quod occisum est. Cf. below, v. 521, νεοσφαγῆ . . . . φόνον ; Eur. Elektr. 92, αἷμα μηλείου φόνου, the blood of the slaughtered sheep, where see Seidler's note; Orest. 992, Μυρτίλου φόνον δικὼν ἐς οἶδμα πόντου ; Ibid. 1358, πρὶν ἐτύμως ἴδω τὸν Ελένας φόνον καθαιμακτὸν ἐν δόμοις κείμενον. The use of cades by the Latin poets is similar. Virg. Æn. 10. 245, crastina lux. . . . ingentes Rutulæ spectabit cædis acervos.

297. ἀπρὶξ ὄνυξι. Hermann directs us to combine these words, and to regard them as a single adverb. Wakefield, Silv. Cr. 2. 24, substitutes Tigi in place of xsgi, which word, he says, cannot stand with ovğı. The poets, however, frequently avail themselves of this σxãμa xar' »x», as it is termed, and associate the names of two parts of the body, one of which would be sufficiently indicated by the mention of the other, either with or without the copula. Hom. I. 10. 158, λàğ wodì xivnoas. Below, v. 1091 sqq., οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα σμικροῦ νέφους τάχ ̓ ἄν τις ἐκπνεύσας μέγας χειμῶν κατασβέσεις τὴν πολλὴν βοήν. Eur. Phon. 1390, ἔγχος ἐκ χερὸς τῆσδ ̓ ἀπ ̓ ὠλένης βαλεῖν ; Quint. Cal. 13. 9, χειρὶ δράγδην ἔγκατ ̓ ἔχοντες. Plut. V. Cat. Maj. c. 20, rỹ xugi mùż waisv.

Cf. Matthia's Gr. Gr. 636; Kühner, 858. 3.

299. τὰ δείν

....

· ἔπη.

“Without the article, δείν ̓ ἀπειλήσων ἔπη,

Eur. Suppl. 542; with it, Dio Cass. 45. 30, rns Qwvñs rà davà insïuæ

λεγούσης, signifying those things which were known to the auditors, as at Eur. Or. 376, ὃς τὰ δείν ̓ ἔτλη κακά. But in our own verse those threats are meant which persons grievously enraged generally utter to themselves, i. e. he threatened me with death, τὰ ἔσχατα ἠπείλησε, Aristid. Panath. p. 109, T. 1. In the same way, Eur. Phan. 185, ὃς τὰ δείν ἐφυβρίζει πόλει, i. e. excisionem ; Xen. Kyr. 4. 2. 35, πάντα τὰ χαλεπὰ ἀνεῖπε.” LOBECK. Add v. 1164, below : σὲ δὴ τὰ δεινὰ ῥήματ' ἀγγέλ λουσί μοι πλῆναι. Philokt. 108, οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγεῖ δῆτα τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν; 300. "Brunck, who first admitted pavoíny into the text, believed it to be the optative of the 2 aor. ἔφανον. In this acceptation, φανοίην is certainly contra linguam. The 2 aor. ἔφανον does not exist ; and if it did, its optative would be φάνοιμι. But if we agree with Burmann, as quoted by Erfurdt, in considering pavoíny as the optative of the contracted future Cava, it may safely be pronounced a legitimate Greek word. In my note to Ed. Tyr. 538, I have pointed out ἐροίη in Xenophon, and διαβαλοίην in Plato. With regard to the construction, Erfurdt properly compares άφειδήσοι, Antig. 414; ἀφαιρήσοιτο, Philoht. 376. So Xen. Sympos. 1. 7, ὡς δὲ πάνυ ἀχθόμενος φανερὸς ἦν, εἰ μὴ ἕψοιντο, συνηκολούθησαν. We prefer φανοίην to φανείη for the following reasons : - the difference between εἰ μὴ φανοίην and εἰ μὴ φανείη is the same as the difference between εἰ μὴ φανῶ and ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Εἰ μὴ φανοίην has the same relation to εἰ μὴ φανῶ that εἰ μὴ φανείη has to ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Now it appears to us that the active future is rather more proper in this place than the passive subjunctive. We would rather say, I will burn your house, if you do not put ten pounds in a certain place, than, I will burn your house unless ten pounds are put in a certain place. Compare Antig. 306, μὴ τὸν αὐτόχειρα τοῦδε τοῦ τάφου Εὑρόντες ἐκφανεῖτ ̓ ἐς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐμοὺς, Οὐχ ̓ ὑμῖν Αΐδης μοῦνος ἀρκέσει, πρὶν ἄν, κ.τ.λ. ; Ibid. 324, Κόμψευέ νυν τὴν δόξαν. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὴ φανεῖτέ μοι τοὺς δρῶντας, ἐξερεῖθ ̓ ὅτι Τὰ δειλὰ κέρδη πημονὰς ἐργάζεται. The passage before us would be exactly similar to these passages, if the poet had put the threats of Aias into his own mouth, instead of throwing them into Tekmessa's narrative.

1

Lobeck reads φανοίην with Brunck ; Erfurdt reads pavein with Porson. Bothe reads neither φανοίην nor φανείη, but rejects the verse as spurious.” ELMSLEY.

301. κυροῖ. The common copies read κυρεί, and the Scholiast κύροι, το which he appends the following observations : τὸ κυρῶ περισπωμένως φησὶν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ̓Αττικοί· ἐν δὲ εὐκτικοῖς βαρύνουσιν αὐτὸ ̓Αττικοὶ μετὰ ἐκτάσεως τοῦ υ, κύροι λέγοντες ἀντὶ τοῦ κυροίη· νῦν δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ κυρεῖ ὁριστικοῦ κεῖται. Elmsley, however, asserts that, with the exception of one passage

(Ed. Kol. 1159), the barytone form zúgw, like dixw and ww, is found only in the writings of the grammarians. Buttmann, Gr. Gr. II. p. 377, in allusion to our passage, says, "die Lesart des Scholiasten, zúgo, ist gemüthlicher." In the present instance, we are inclined to consider the remark of the Scholiast as a sufficient reason for changing zugsì into zugoï, although we do not assent to the statement of Elmsley, that the barytone verb is not found in the writings of the Attic poets. The true distinction seems rather to be this, that they employ the form zugs wherever the metre will permit, and zúgs only where the metre requires the lengthening of the first syllable, as in Ed. Kol. 1159, θύων ἔκῦρον, ἡνίχ ̓ ὡρμώμην ἐγώ ; Eur. Hippol. 746, σεμνὸν τέρμονα κύρων | οὐρανοῦ ; and a verse cited from some unknown comic poet by Hesychius, s. v. zũgov: oür' ¿¡æov oùòìv ægòs oè xúgov, yúval. Elmsley remarks further, that a similar variety of both reading and construction occurs in v. 685 of the present tragedy, where Erfurdt says, "'Agxiro an ¿gxíou scribas, ad rationem grammaticum nihil interest, sed illud meliores codices tuentur." A third instance is found in v. 713, where some manuscripts read λ, but all the editions 201. In all passages of this kind, we should expect to find the optative, but every tyro knows that we frequently meet with the indicative. On the omission of v, see note to v. 9 supra.

66

302. φίλοι. Hermann draws attention to the very felicitous introduction of this word, and imagines that Tekmessa, overwhelmed with grief at the recollection that her hasty explanation of the circumstances above narrated had caused Aias such distress, made use of the epithet in order to deprecate the anger with which the Chorus must have heard the recital of her indiscretion.

....

306. Πρὸς γὰρ •x. For he was ever in the habit of maintaining that such a mode of lamentation was characteristic of a craven and abject soul. Cf. vv. 557, 1015; Matthiä's Gr. Gr. 316. d. The adjective Bagutxos here signifies doloris impatiens. Cf. Plut. Symp. IX. 5. 739. E, ἐν ὀδυρμοῖς καὶ βαρυθυμίαις καὶ μερίμναις ; Id. V. Alex. c. 70, ὑπὸ λύπης καὶ βαρυθυμίας, cited by Lobeck. Εξηγεῖτο may be regarded as occupying the place of the simple yo, or as used in the sense of dictitare and declarare, as at Æsch. Prom. 214, τοιαῦτ ̓ ἐμοῦ λόγοισιν ἐξηγουμένου. Γόους ἔχειν for γιᾶσθαι is a periphrasis similar to μολπὰν ἔχειν for μέλπεola, Philokt. 213. See notes to vv. 180, 515.

308. antos öğśwv xwxvμάτwy. Sine acutarum lamentationum strepitu. The Tragedians are especially addicted to the use of adjectives compounded with a privative in construction with a genitive, in which adjectives the

See

idea is implied generally which is more specifically expressed by the subjoined genitive. Cf. Elektr. 36, ἄσκευος ἀσπίδων ; d. Kol. 786, ἄνατος κακῶν ; 865, ἄφωνος ἀρᾶς ; Eur. Phan. 334, ἄπεπλος φαρέων. Schäfer, Mel. Cr. in Dion. H. I. p. 137; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 172. 309.ταῦρος ὡς βρυχώμενος. "In the MS. Par. D., μvnúμsvos is suprascriptum, which has been received by Triclinius, as more appropriate to a bull. All the other manuscripts and Eustathius, p. 1145. 3, Bevxúμivos. Cf. Ed. Tyr. 1265, deivà Beuxneeís, for which the middle is more common, Plat. Phadon. p. 177. D, ἀναβρυχησάμενος ; Apollon. IV. 19, γοερῇ βρυχήσατ' avín; Nonn. X. 83, nivven ßeuxnoaro Qwvn; and elsewhere very frequently of those giving vent to audible lamentation, whilst μvxãolas is not so used. The grammarians limit Bgxnua to the roar of lions, and μúnnua to the bellowing of oxen; yet we read in Hes. Theog. 832, rałgos ἐριβρύχης ; Theokrit. Id. 25. 137, ταῦροι ἐβρυχῶντο. In Oppian. Cyn. 4. 165, μυκᾶσθαι βρύχημα, and Nonn. XXIX. 311, βρυχηδὸν ἐμυκήσαντο, both words are combined." LOBECK. Add μúnnμa μiya ißguxńcato, Dio Cass. 68. 24 ; Beo xả Evo Garp

Lexilog. p. 204, English translation.

Trạch. 802. See Buttmann's

312. Σιδηροκμῆσιν. SCHOL.: τῷ σιδήρῳ φονευθεῖσιν, ὡς ἀνδροκμῆσινο Compare Esch. Choeph. 360, doginμns λaós, slain with the spear. That an adjective terminating in ús -ñros should be used as a neuter is exceedingly rare. In Philokt. 19 we read dupireños avλíou, and in Eur. Elektr. 375, ἐν πένητι σώματι.

313. dñaós kotiv s TI dearsíwv. On this construction, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 677, 684, Obs. 1.

....

317. Φίλων . . λόγοις. All the manuscripts read φίλοι. The correction óyos is due to Stobæus, Serm. CXIII. 8. According to the reading of the books, Tekmessa says that persons who are influenced by feelings of reciprocal friendship yield readily to their friends; according to the reading of Stobæus, that such men as Aias are easily subdued by the advice of friends. Cf. d. Kol. 1193, ἀλλὰ νουθετούμενοι φίλων ἐπῳδαῖς ἐξεπάδονται φύσιν. If the former reading should be retained, we prefer the explanation of the Scholiast : οἱ τοιοίδε φίλοι, ὁποῖοι ἐστε ὑμεῖς, νικῶνται φίλων, ἤγουν ἡττῶνται· ἡττᾶται δὲ ὁ ἐρῶν τινος καὶ πολλὴν ἀγάπην εἰς αὐτὸν τρέφων· κρατεῖ δὲ ὁ ἐρώμενος. With the construction νικᾶσθαί τινος, compare v. 1291 below: παῦσαι· κρατεῖς τοι, τῶν φίλων νικώμενος ; Aristoph. Nub. 1088, τί δῆτ ̓ ἐρεῖς, ἢν τοῦτο νικηθῇς ἐμοῦ; Other examples are cited by Abresch to Esch. Suppl. 1012, Valcknäer to Eur. Hippol. 458, and Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 357.

Τι

319. διαπεφοιβάσθαι. SCHOL. : ἐκμεμηνέναι, παρὰ τὸν φοῖσον· ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν φοιβωμένων καὶ ἐνθουσιώντων· καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι μανίᾳ τινὶ ὅμοιον πάσχουσί From the former part of this scholion, Valcknäer ad Ammon. p. 149 infers that διαπεφοιτάσθαι is the genuine reading. The MS. Laur. a. διαπεφοιβᾶσθαι. "The feeble and unnecessary μv, separated as it is by the sense from the remainder of the line, is exceedingly offensive. In the following instance, the offensiveness is diminished by the emphasis which falls upon the pronoun. Eur. Hel. 310, Ἔσται τάδ', οὐδὲ μέμψεται πόσις ποτὲ Ἡμῖν. σὺ δ ̓ αὐτὸς, ἐγγὺς ὤν, εἴσει τάδε. The following punctuation, although not quite free from objection, pleases us better than that of the common copies : Τέκμησσα, δεινὰ, παῖ Τελ. λέγεις, Ἡμῖν τὸν ἄ. δ. κακοῖς. Compare v. 215, Μανίᾳ γὰρ ἁλοὺς ἡμῖν ὁ κλεινὸς Νύκτερος Αἴας ἀπελωβήθη.” ELMSLEY.

327. Ώμοι τάλαιν'. Εὐρύσακες. SCHOL. : ἀπορούσης τὸ ἦθος· τὸ μὲν ἀποιμώζει, τὸ δὲ καλεῖ τὸν παῖδα· εἶτα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἐπαπορεῖ, τί ποτε με νοινῷ· καὶ πάλιν καλεῖ τὸν παῖδα, καὶ ἑαυτὴν ἀπολοφύρεται· λεληθότως δὲ ἐνεφάνισε καὶ τὸ τοῦ παιδὸς ὄνομα· ἐδεδίει δὲ, μὴ ἀνέλῃ αὑτὸν μαινόμενος.

329. Τεύκρον καλῶ, κ.τ.λ. SCHOL. : ἐπιζητεῖ Τεῦκρον, ἵνα παράθηται αὐτῷ τὸν παῖδα, ὃν ἀφίησι τῷ χορῷ, μὴ εὑρὼν τὸν Τεῦκρον· τὸ δὲ ἀπεῖναι Τεῦκρον χρήσιμον τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ· παρὼν γὰρ ἐκώλυεν ἂν αὐτὸν πρᾶξαι ἃ ἐβούλετο· νῦν δὲ μόνης τῆς γυναικὸς ἐγένετο κρείττων. Where Teukros was at this conjuncture may be learnt from v. 678 below. That the Greeks, whilst besieging Troy, were frequently absent from their camp upon expeditions whose object was plunder, is distinctly asserted by Thukydides, 1. 11. 1: φαίνονται δὲ [οἱ Ἕλληνες] πρὸς γεωργίαν τῆς Χερσονήσου τραπόμενοι καὶ ληστείαν τῆς τροφῆς ἀπορίᾳ. For ἢ τόν, the reading of the books, Brunck has written ἦ τόν. But compare Eur. Or. 1423, σὺ δ ̓ ἦσθα που τότ ̓; ἢ πάλαι φεύγεις φόβῳ; Heh. 765, εὗρες δὲ ποῦ νιν; ἤ τις ἤνεγκεν νεκρόν; supra, v. 102, τί γὰρ δὴ παῖς ὁ τοῦ Λαερτίου, ποῦ σοι τύχης ἕστη κεν; ἢ πεφευγέ σε ;

331. ̓Αλλ' ἀνοίγετε. "From the employment of the plural form, it may perhaps be inferred that Tekmessa was accompanied by one or two female attendants." HERMANN. Lobeck more naturally supposes, that by the use of the plural nothing more is meant than aperite aliquis, on which formula see Huschke to Tibull. I. 6. 39; and compare Esch. Choeph. 873, ἀλλ' ἀνοίξατε ; infra, v. 568, οὐ ξυνέρξεθ ̓ ὡς τάχος ;

332. κἀπ ̓ ἐμοί. just made by Aias. Aias will probably be more moderate at the sight of me." HERMANN.

"The particle xaí refers to the mention of Teukros The Chorus says, Even if Teukros is not present, yet

" On