བྱ other hand, Eustathius, p. 352. 36, ἐκεῖθεν καὶ ἀπαιόλημα τὸ ἀποπλάνημα καὶ ἀποκάθαρμα, ὃ καθαρολογήσας ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἄλημα στρατοῦ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα λέγει, etc., receives it for πλάνημα, i. e. πλάνος. Bothe, on account of its repetition at v. 369, would substitute róλunua, and Burgess to Esch, Suppl. v. 8 suggests λõua, for the same reason. Thudichum translates in words with which our language will not allow us to contend, du schmutzvollster Bettler, but which perhaps Thersites's portraiture of himself in Troilus and Cressida, referred to by the Oxford translator, may be thought to match:- "No, no, I am a rascal, a scurvy railing knave, a very filthy rogue." Hermann supposes that the adjective xaxomivéσratov is expressive of the contempt in which Aias held the attempt of Odysseus, arrayed in ATWXINÈY OTOλŃv (Eur. Rhes. 504), to penetrate Troy. See Hom. Od. 4. 244, 363, yśλwe'. The MS. Mosq. B. and Suidas s. "Aλnua exhibit the Attic form yawv, but this is never used by the Tragedians except when necessary for the sake of the metre. The Scholiast observes, τοῦτο μάλιστα αὐτοῦ ἅπτεται, τὸ τῷ ἐχθρῷ καταγέλαστον εἶναι. 364. Ξὺν τῷ θεῷ πᾶς καὶ γελᾷ κὠδύρεται. Hermann renders, quivis, quum deo visum est, et ridet et lacrimatur; that is, if we understand him rightly, the Chorus, with the view of inducing Aias to bear the exasperating thought of his adversary's joy with greater equanimity, expresses the general sentiment that joy and grief come from the gods. And so Thudichum mit Gotte lacht und weint ein Jeglicher, which is an exact translation of the Greek, and, as we suppose, identical with the sense intended by Hermann. On the other hand, Wunder, erroneously asserting that the Latin of Hermann is equivalent to "si nunc gaudet ille, erit etiam, ubi dolebit," declares that the Greek expresses rather Et bona et mala, quibus fruuntur homines, a dis mittuntur, and then, without any explanation of the process by which he eliminates this translation, proceeds to affirm the identity of the "precept" which the Chorus here enjoins with that laid upon Philoktetes by Neoptolemos, v. 1316 sq., άνθρωποῖσι τὰς μὲν ἐκ θεῶν τύχας δοθείσας ἐστ ̓ ἀναγκαῖον φέρειν . which is evidently an enunciation of the necessity under which men lie to bear or submit to the dispensations of the gods, and therefore, we need hardly observe, quite distinct from the sentiment expressed in the verse before us, and also in his own translation of it. Excellent commentator as Wunder undoubtedly is, it is yet to be wished, that, in this and many other passages of the Sophoklean plays, he had supplied us with a precise rendering, instead of indulging in periphrastic explanations of the poet's thought. 365. Ιδοιμί νιν. "So Aldus and the Scholiast. Notwithstanding the silence of Brunck, we feel very little doubt that this verse wants a syllable in all the ancient copies, and that the reading of the modern editions, Ἴδοιμι δή νιν, is found in no manuscript, except in those of the Triclinian recension. Perhaps the poet wrote "Idoμ' y viv. So Esch. Choeph. 265, In the present passage, πρὸς τοὺς κρατοῦντας, οὓς ἴδοιμ ̓ ἐγώ ποτε, κ.τ.λ. y appears to have been lost before . In the following passage, was lost after ἐγώ : Eur. Ion. 81, Ἴων ̓ ἐγώ (νιν) πρῶτος ὀνομάζω θεῶν.” ELMSLEY. Hermann emends ἴδοιμί νιν νῦν (for which we should prefer ἴδοιμι vv vv, as more appropriate to the preceding verse), thinking it extremely probable that the transcribers omitted this adverb in consequence of its resemblance to vy, and this is adopted by Schneider. Dindorf formerly, in Zimmermann's Mus. Stud. Antiqq. 1836, I. p. 7, conjectured idow, idow νιν, οι ἴδοιμ', ἴδοιν νιν, quoting Euripides, ἄφρων ἂν εἴην, εἰ τρέφοιν, τὰ τῶν πίλας, and Kratinos, ποδαπὰς ὑμᾶς εἶναι φάσκων, ὦ μείρακας, οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρ TOY; but has more recently edited dodo, omitting the pronoun, a correction to which, in our judgment, few will subscribe. In Suidas, s. Ατώμενος, where our verse is cited, we read ἴδοιμι νιν, ὧδ ̓ ἀτώμενος. With Wunder, we have adhered to the writing of the manuscripts. 367. Μηδὲν μέγ ̓ εἴπης. Equivalent to μὴ κομπάσης. The singular number is also employed in Hom. Od. 22. 288, μù μíya siπsiv; Plat. Phædon. p. 95. B; Hipp. M. 295. A; Theokrit. X. 20; Soph. Elektr. 830, undèv μéy' üons. Compare Virg. Æn. 10. 547, dixerat ille aliquid magnum. Lobeck observes, that μiya ay signifies not only insolentia dicere, but also clara et contenta voce loqui, as at Plat. Rep. V. 449. B ; Protag. 310. B; Amator. 110. B; (in these last two passages rị Qwvn is added); Alcib. I. 110. C; whilst, on the other hand, μɛyáλa λéyɛ has the former meaning only. Cf. Koen. ad Greg. Cor. p. ix.; Heindorf ad Plat. Hipp. M. 34. ἵν ̓ εἶ κακοῦ. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 527; Ed. Kol. 1270, που τις φροντίδος ἔλθῃ ; Ibid. 310, ποῖ φρενῶν ἔλθω ; Eur. Ion. 1271, ἵν ̓ εἶ τύχης. 7 368. Ω Ζεύ, προγόνων προπάτωρ. The story of Zeus having borne away the nymph Ægina from Phlia to the island Enona, afterwards called Ægina, is generally known. Eakos is said to have been the fruit of their intercourse. Cf. Pind. Isthm. 8. 45 sq.; Nem. 8. 10 sqq., with the note of Dissen ; Apollodor. III. 12. 6, Αἴγιναν δὲ εἰσκομίσας ὁ Ζεὺς εἰς τὴν τότε Οἰνωνὴν λεγομένην νῆσον, νῦν δὲ Αἴγιναν ἀπ ̓ ἐκείνης κληθεῖσαν, μίγνυται καὶ τεκνοῖ παῖδα ἐξ αὐτῆς Αἰακόν γαμεῖ δὲ Αἰακὸς Ἐνδηΐδα, τὴν Χείρω νος, ἐξ ἧς αὐτῷ παῖδες ἐγένοντο Πηλεύς τε καὶ Τελαμών. Add Diod. Sic. IV. 72; Philostephan. ap. Schol. Hom. Il. 16. 14; Klausen's Theol. • ... p. 79. Hence the language in which Aias here addresses Zeus, and at v. 779 sq., ἐκ δὲ τῶνδέ μοι σὺ πρῶτος, καὶ γὰρ εἰκὸς, ἄρκεσον. Aias is also termed one of the Eakidæ at v. 609. πῶς ἄν, utinam. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 427. 3. 369. βασιλῆς. “The MS. Par. reads βασιλῇς ; the majority of the manuscripts have βασιλεῖς ; the genuine reading is exhibited by the MSS. Laur. a. Dresd. a. See Draco ap. Straton. p. 115. 18; Herodian ap. Bekk. Anecd. Gr. p. 1195, σημειοῦται δὲ ὁ Ἡρωδιανὸς παρὰ τῷ Σοφοκλεῖ τοὺς βασιλῆς διὰ τοῦ η γραφομένους κατὰ τὴν αἰτιατικὴν, οἷον, τούς τε δισάρχους (sic) ὀλέσας βασιλῆς. ἔστι δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῷ Ξενοφῶντι (Kyr. 1. 1. 2) τοὺς νομῆς διὰ τοῦ η. See my note to Eur. Rhes. 480.” DINDORF. 375. Ἕλεσθ ̓ ἕλεσθέ μ' οἰκήτορα. Some manuscripts ἕλεσθέ μ', ἕλεσθε οἰκήτορα, approved by Brunck. Compare Plaut. Cist. III. 9, accipe me ad te, mors, amicum et benevolum. Hermann has edited ὄνησιν on the authority of the MSS. Lips. A. B. and Suidas, s. 'I. A more important consideration is the construction of these words, which has occasioned much perplexity to the critics. • Hermann, placing a comma after βλέ πειν, joins τιν ̓ εἰς ὄνασιν ἀνθρώπων, as I suppose in the following sense : cum aliquo commodo hominum, which agrees with the explanation of the Schol. Laur., εἰς ἡδονήν. And the Schol. Rom. seems to have followed a somewhat similar course ; for he writes οὔτε θεῶν γένος οὔτε ἀνθρώπων ὁρᾶν ἔτι ἀξιόν μοι εἰς ὠφέλειαν, but in the opposite sense, cum aliqua spe auxilii ab iis accipiendi ; nor can we doubt that he connected ἁμερίων with ἀνθρώ πων, as at Antig. 790, ἁμερίων ἐπ ̓ ἀνθρώπων. I have erased all marks of punctuation, in order that the verb Bain may be constructed with the simple accusative, and also with the preposition.” LOBECK. In other words, the preposition is is omitted in the second clause. Compare the many examples of a similar kind collected by Mehlhorn to Anakreon, p. 71; Wellauer to Æsch. Eum. 673; Lobeck to this verse; and Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 595. 4. Bernhardy to Dion. V. 1037, and in Synt. p. 202, limits this ellipse to Pindar and the Alexandrine poets. But it occurs in the Tragedians also. Antig. 1176, πότερα πατρώας ἢ πρὸς οἰκείας χερὸς ὄλωλεν ; Ibid. 367, ποτὲ μὲν κακόν, ἄλλοτ ̓ ἐπ ̓ ἐσθλὸν ἕρπει ; Trach. 765, σεμνῶν ὀργίων.... κἀπὸ πιείρας δρυός ; Eur. Herakl. 755, μέλλω τῆς γῆς, μέλλω περὶ τῶν δόμων κίνδυνον τεμεῖν. The expression βλέπειν εἰς τινά signifes expectare aliquid ab aliquo. Cf. Antig. 914, τί χρή με τὴν δύστηνον ἐς θεοὺς ἔτι βλέπειν ; Elektr. 925, μηδὲν ἐς κεῖνόν γ ̓ ὅρα ; Eur. Iph. Τ. 1056, εἰς ὑμᾶς βλέπω ; Hes. Opp. 475, οὐδὲ πρὸς ἄλλους αὐγασίαι ; and infra, ν. 489, ἐμοὶ γὰρ οὐκέτ ̓ ἐστιν ὅ τι βλέπω. Wyttenbach, in Bibl. Crit. Vol. II. P. II. p. 43, objects to the word yvos in relation to the gods, and directs us to substitute vós. See, however, Eur. Med. 747; Hippol. 7 ; Hek. 490. With the sentiment, compare Ed. Kol. 829, xoiar λáße θεῶν ἄρηξιν ἢ βροτῶν ; Polyb. XV. 1, πάσης ἐλπίδος ἀποκλεισθῆναι καὶ Tagù brav xai rag' ävłęúñшv; Cic. Verr. IV. 45, quid speras, quid spectas? quem tibi aut deorum aut hominum auxilio putas futurum? Tacit. Hist. V. 3, monuit ne quam deorum hominumve opem exspectarent. The “ summa salutis desperatio" here expressed by Aias has been aptly compared with the state of mind portrayed by Shakspeare in King John, Act 3, Sc. 4: "There's nothing in this world can make me joy; Life is as tedious as a twice-told tale, Vexing the dull ear of a drowsy man; And bitter shame hath spoiled the sweet world's taste, 383. Εἰ τὰ μὲν φθίνει, κ. τ. λ. be said to be given up by all the commentators, as incapable of explanation, and we agree with Wunder in believing that they must remain so, until we are furnished with new manuscripts or new scholia. What has been proposed by way of explanation or emendation, we will place before the student. The Schol. Rom. : e¡ rà μèv plível, dià Tùv (SCHOL. LAUR.: κατὰ τὴν) κρίσιν τῶν ὅπλων, and Triclinius further mentions that some referred the verb give to Athene in an active signification. Dindorf understands, in opposition to both, the destruction of the cattle. Upon the second verse the ancient interpreters make no remark beyond the following in the Schol. Ien. : ὤφειλεν εἰπεῖν τὰ δ ̓ ὁμοῦ, ἵνα ᾖ ἀκόλουθον πρὸς τὸ εἰ τὰ μέν. ἐποίησε δὲ ἐναλλαγήν, from which we may infer that the writer found Tois d', and not road', in his copy; and with regard to the enallage, that he believed Sophokles has employed the familiar inversion rois de iμou πέλας, scil. εἰμί, in place of τὰ δὲ ὁμοῦ πέλας ἐστίν, scil. μοί. Triclinius paraphrases παραπλησίως τοῖς προκειμένοις θρέμμασι, and we may therefore presume that he found ὁμῶς, i. e. ὁμοίως τοῖς πέλας in his manuscript. Elmsley proposes εἰ τὰ μὲν φθίνει, φίλοι, τάδε δ ̓ ὁμοῦ πέλας, believing this to be the meaning: εἰ τὰ μὲν ἄγαθα φθίνει, τάδε δὲ κακὰ πάρεστι. This correction, as he shows, suits the metre required by the corresponding verse in the antistrophe, where the first syllable of Teoía is short, as in v. 1149, and lacks nothing in its support except an instance of the union of the two synonymous words iμou wiλas." Bothe corrects roïo The three words τοῖσδ ̓ ὁμοῦ πέλας may 66 δ ̓ ὁμοῦ πέλας, μωραῖς, οι μωραῖς γ ̓ ἄγραις. Hermann conjectures τοίοισδ' iμo riλas, scil. our, and quotes, as an example of a similar omission, Ed. Kol. 83, is iμoũ ríλas. Ellendt, remarking that rá is not at all necessary in the antistrophic verse, and that iλas is, in all probability, a gloss, expunges both these words, and writes Toloïod' iμov. Neue imagines that τοῖς δ ̓ ὁμοῦ πέλας is put for ἐκείνοις ὁμοῦ πέλας οὖσι, or for ry incïva wiλas siva, but this, if free from other objections, would yield a very inappropriate sense. Lobeck suggests that the poet may have written ríos, which differs very slightly in form from ros, and proposes the following explanation of the thought: If I have lost the honor and dignity I formerly enjoyed, revenge is nevertheless at hand, which I have drawn upon myself by destroying the cattle of the Achaians, and they will speedily rush to attack me. Thudichum maintains that these verses are to be explained by the three following, and that the order in which we might have expected to find them has been inverted by the poet. If there, i. e. in the army, all is lost, and here, i. e. amongst the cattle, whilst I, instead of consummating my vengeance upon my enemies, have achieved this foolish capture, yet the whole host, &c. In our judgment, an opposition is required to εἰ τὰ μὲν φθίνει (which may be referred to the verses immediately preceding, i. e. if all hope of flight or of remaining here in safety is lost), such as τάδ ̓ ἐμοὶ οἰστέα, οι τόδ ̓ ἐμοὶ τλητόν. τια. 385. δίπαλτος. The Roman Scholiast observes that Didymus explained this adjective by παντὶ σθένει, and Pius by λαβὼν τὰ δίπαλτα δορά Hermann considers it equivalent to the Homeric expression xv duo dougs, bene armatus. Ellendt detects in its employment a reference to the two Atreida, who would jointly lead the army against Aias. We prefer to regard it as used here in an active signification, like dogízaλros, Æsch. Agam. 117, to express the fury with which the Greeks would hasten to destroy Aias. Cf. Pind. Pyth. 2. 1, xsıgì didúμg; Hor. Ep. I. 18. 66, Fautor utroque tuum laudabit pollice ludum. .... 387. τοιάδ' Pavey. On the infinitive in exclamations, cf. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 544; and on ran av, see note to v. 119, supra. SCHOL. : γενναιότατον. χρήσιμον. 389. Ἰὼ πόροι ἁλίῤῥοθοι. Harpocration, s. v. Πόριος, interprets ποταμοὶ εἰς τὴν θάλατταν ῥέοντες, which Homer calls ἁλιμυρήεντες. HESYCHIUS: πόροι· ποταμοί. Lobeck, nevertheless, supposes that the expression ógos &λxíppolo denotes here, as at Æsch. Pers. 365, the ocean waves, which Aias beheld in the distance. Cf. Archestr. ap. Athen. VII. 278. C, Αἰγαίου πελάγους ἐνάλιος πόρος ; Æsch. Pers. 453, ἐναλίων πόρων. Brunck translates fluvii in mare prolabentes. |