quotes Antiphanes ap. Athen. Χ. 444. Β, ὅστις δὲ μεῖζον ἢ κατ ̓ ἄνθρωπον povs, and in illustration of the general sentiment, Dionys. Antt. VIII. 25, νεμεσᾶται ὑπὸ θεῶν τὰ ὑπερέχοντα καὶ τρέπεται πάλιν εἰς τὸ μηδέν. μάλιστα δὲ τοῦτο πάσχει τὰ σκληρὰ καὶ μεγάλαυχα φρονήματα (βάλλεται jag "Ooog diodev negauvós, Esch. Agam. 457, as Horace, feriunt summos fulgura montes). 720. dùs eμáprvos, at the moment of his departure. The temporal signification of the participle is defined with greater clearness and precision by the addition of silú; before, of äua before or after, and of sira, śπura, ivταῦθα δή after it. In the first case the participle should be rendered by a substantive. See Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 565, Obs. 2; see note to v. 443, supra. 721. "Avous, rash, inconsiderate. See note to v. 716, supra. The Oxford Translator observes that "the reason which is here given for the misfortune of Aias is precisely that of which Aristotle approves, who, after having rejected the two extremes of vice and virtue, proceeds to state his idea of a character adapted to Tragedy::-'And such a man is he, who neither in virtue and uprightness is transcendent, nor yet changes his lot to misfortune through vice and depravity, but one that does it through some error, and that a man of high renown and prosperity, such as were Edipus and Thyestes.' Poetics, sect. 25." 722. avròv ivvé. "Evvé is generally dicere, narrare, exponere. Here it has the more unusual sense of alloqui, in which signification #gorevv, as at v. 815, infra, and Trach. 402, is more commonly employed. But Sophokles frequently substitutes the simple for the compound verb; and constructs it with the same case as that which is usually found only with the compound verb. Thus, for iniσrcipiola, at v. 1061, we find στρέφεσθαι ; for ἀνακρίνειν, κρίνειν (see my note to Antig. 397); for ἀνατέλο λειν, τέλλειν, Elektr. 699; for ἐμβάλλειν, βάλλειν, Philoht. 67, Trach. 916, 940 ; for ἐμμένειν, μένειν, Antig. 169 ; for ἐμπίπτειν, πίπτειν, Trach. 597; for xaтaysλãv, yeλãv, Philokt. 1125. Homer has used the simple εἰπεῖν in the same meaning as that here given to ἐννέπειν. Cf. Π. 12. 60, 210; 13. 725; 17. 237; 20. 375." WUNDER. The ordinary construction is ἐννέπειν τινι οι πρός τινα, as at Elektr. 1439. On the accusative, cf. Hes. Opp. 190, 260; Porson to Eur. Med. 719; Dindorf to Elektr. 556; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 135. With this advice of Telamon to Aias, Lobeck directs us to compare the similar address of Peleus to Achilles, Il. 9. 254. 724. Ὁ δ ̓ ὑψικόμπως. SCHOL. : παρατήρει κἀνθάδε τὴν προσθήκην τοῦ ποιητοῦ, ὅτι προσῆψε τῷ Αἴαντι γλωσσαργίαν, μονονουχὶ θεραπεύων τὸν θεατὴν μὴ ἄχθεσθαι τῇ συμφορᾷ τοῦ Αἴαντος· προσῳκειωμένοι γὰρ ἤδη τῇ ἀρετῇ αὐτοῦ, σχεδὸν καὶ τῷ ποιητῇ ὀργίζονται. 725. ὁμοῦ. SCHOL. : ἀντὶ τῆς σύν· τὸ δὲ ἑξῆς, θεοῖς ὁμοῦ. 728. Τοσόνδ ̓ ἐκόμπει μῦθον. On the accusative, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 566. 1, and compare v. 1168, infra, i↓ńλ' ixóμæUIG. 729. Δίας ̓Αθάνας, ἡνίκ ̓ ὀτρύνουσά νιν. Lobeck, Hermann, and Wunder explain, δίας ̓Αθάνας, ἡνίκ ̓ ὤτρυνέ νιν, αὐδωμένης, by a sudden change of the construction with which the verse had been commenced, but we doubt whether this opinion can be defended by the quotation of a similar example from any classical Greek writer. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 161, supposes that the genitive is dependent upon os at v. 731, whilst Neue refers it to avripave. If the explanation by a supposed anacoluthon is deemed inadmissible, it would be better to erase the period after μubov, and to read τοσόνδ ̓ ἐκόμπει μῦθον εἶτα δεύτερον δίας ̓Αθάνας, ἡνίκ ̓, κ. τ. λ. Compare Antig. 11, ἐμοὶ μὲν οὐδεὶς μῦθος, ̓Αντιγόνη, φίλων, οὔθ ̓ ἡδὺς οὔτ ̓ ἀλγεινὸς, InETO. Supra, v. 222; Thuk. 8. 15; Cic. Verr. 3. 44. 106, mihi Ætnensium brevis est oratio. See Musgrave to Eur. Ion. 650. · ηὐδατο. Böckh to Pind. Ol. 2. 99 is mistaken in supposing that this verb is employed in a passive signification. See note to v. 610, supra. 733. xal' ĥμãs....μáxn. Matthiä renders, ibi ubi ego constitero, nunquam perrumpet pugna (see Gr. Gr. 581). Hermann, per me, quantum in me est, non perrumpet hostis ordines nostros. Lobeck, on the other hand, believes the meaning to be rather this: nunquam hostes meos ordines perfringent, ¡ýžovσiv ňμãs. “By the words xal' μãs are denoted those things quæ nobis sunt ex adverso et juxta posita. Cf. Xen. Kyr. 7. 1. 16; Plutarch. V. Mar. c. 26; Id. V. Ages. c. 18; Demosth. Phil. 3. 25. In the same way, therefore, as those who were opposed in battle-array to the Fidenates are described as οἱ κατὰ Φιδηναίους ταχθέντες, Dionys. Antt. III. 24. 483, Aias might have said οἱ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς ταχθέντες, οι μαχόμενοι οὔποτε ἐκρήξουσι.” This explanation accepted by Ellendt and Wunder, and, if we understand it rightly, makes the pronoun, μs, common to both the preposition and the verb. 734. Τοιοῖσδε τοῖς. Hermann has edited rooide ra on his own conjecture, and is followed by Dindorf. ἀστεργῆ. SCHOL.: ἀμάλακτον, ἀδιάθετον. Cf. Ed. Tyr. 226; Lykophr. 1166. Lobeck remarks that the gyn as is displayed in the selection by Aias of that mode of repelling the attack made upon the leaders of the Achaians which would inflict upon them the greatest opprobrium and disgrace, when it was within his power to have achieved the same result in many other ways. · Οι κατ' ἄνθρω Tov, in the following verse, see note to v. 719, supra. 736. τῇδε θημέρᾳ. See note to v. 714, supra. The MSS. Lb. Aug. C. read τῇδ ̓ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ, which Erfurdt has received. 737. αὐτοῦ. The MS. Flor. Γ. αὐτῷ. For θεῷ, the plural θεοῖς is ex hibited in the margin of Turnebus. Cf. v. 723, supra; Ed Tyr. 146. 738. ' Τεύκρος. But this man .... .... I mean, Teukros. When the substantive or proper name follows the article used as a demonstrative pronoun after the insertion of several words with which it stands in no immediate grammatical relation, it is to be regarded as a mere supplementary addition for the purpose of more precise explanation. Compare Philokt, 371, ὁ δ ̓ εἶπε Οδυσσεύς. Ι. 1. 409, 472; 4. 20, 329 ; 5. 133, 663, 907; 8. 425; 12. 196. On the circumstances under which the article was employed by the Attics in its primitive demonstrative signification, see Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 50. 1 ; Rost, Gr. Gr. 98. 7; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 444; Bernhardy, Synt. 304; Liddell and Scott, s. 'O, II. 2. 739. ἐπιστολάς. SCHOL. : ἐντολάς. Cf. Ed. Kol. 1601 ; Trach. 493 ; Ed. Tyr. 106; Esch. Prom. 3. 740. Εἰ δ ̓ ἀπεστερήμεθα. But if we have been disappointed in our purpose, i. e. if we have arrived too late to secure the fulfilment of the injunctions which were charged upon us, that we should prevent the departure of Aias from his tent. With the signification in which ἀποστερεῖν is here employed, compare the similar usage of ἐξαμαρτάνειν, in Elektr. 1039, 1207; Ed. Tyr. 621; Philokt. 95. - In a conditional sentence with si, the indicative is used in both the hypothetical and consequent clause, if no uncertainty as to the consequence is intended to be expressed. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 852. 1. 742. Ω δαΐα Τέκμησσα. SCHOL. : τίνος ἕνεκεν οὖν ἐποίησεν ἐξιοῦσαν τὴν Τέκμησσαν; ἵνα μετὰ τοῦ χοροῦ ἀκούσῃ τὰ περὶ τοῦ Αἴαντος· ὡς ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις δράμασιν, ἔν τε Ηλέκτρᾳ καὶ Οἰδίποδι, ἅμα τῷ χορῷ τὰς τῶν γυναικῶν προόδους ποιεῖ, ἵνα μὴ δισσολογῶσιν οἱ ἄγγελοι. Ρητέον οὖν, ὅτι ὁ Αἴας ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὴν κατ ̓ οἶκον εὔξασθαι τοῖς θεοῖς, εἰπών, καὶ δῶμα πάκτου. οὐδὲ μὴν αἰχμαλώτου σχῆμα ἔχουσαν ἔδει συνεχῶς ἐξιέναι, μάλιστα ἐν τοίουτῷ καιρῷ ἀγρυπνηκυῖαν καὶ παρηκολουθηκυῖαν τῇ τοῦ Αἴαντος μανίᾳ. ἔδει οὖν μέγα τι φανῆναι τὸ ἐξάγον αὐτήν. διὸ πρὸς τὸν χορὸν ἐδέησε πρῶτον εἰπεῖν, οἳ ὡς ἐπὶ μεγάλῃ προφάσει ἐκκαλοῦνται αὐτήν. ἄλλως τε οἱ ἀπὸ τοῦ χοροῦ οἰκειότεροί εἰσιν, ὡς πολῖται τοῦ Αἴαντος, ὥστε καὶ ὁ ἄγγελος καλῶς οὐκ ἐζήτησε μεῖζον πρόσωπον, ἀλλὰ τὸν Αἴαντα οὐ καταλαβὼν ἔνδον, πρὸς τὸν χορόν φησιν. εἰς ἀνάγκην δὲ γεγονὼς ὁ ποιητὴς τοῦ διλογῆσαι, οὐδαμοῦ προσκορὴς ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ τὰ δεύτερα διὰ βραχέων ἐξήνεγκεν. On the adjective data, misera, see note to v. 318, supra. 744. Ξυρεῖ γὰρ ἐν χρῷ. SCHOL.: ἅπτεται τῶν ἀναγκαίων τοῦ χρωτός· καὶ ἔστι παροιμία ἐπὶ τῶν ἐπικινδύνων πραγμάτων, ξυρεῖ ἐν χρῷ· ἐνίοτε γὰρ καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἐφάπτεται ὁ σίδηρος. Αλλως. μέχρι βάθους ἐφικνεῖται, ὥστε μὴ χαίρειν. τοῦτο· τοῦτο τὸ πρᾶγμα. 748. πρᾶξιν ἣν ἤλγησ ̓ ἐγώ. On the accusative with ἤλγησα, see note to v. 136, supra. Reiske and Jacobs, in Spec. Emendd. p. 9, direct us to substitute βάξιν for πρᾶξιν, but Lobeck has shown that the common reading is unobjectionable by citing Æsch. Prom. 720 ; Trach. 151. Add v. 750, infra; Trach. 193, ἀνδρὸς εὐτυχῆ κλύουσα πρᾶξιν τήνδε. With φέρων, afferens, nuncians, cf. 757, infra; Antig. 1172; d. Kol. 420; Æsch. Agam. 647, 873; Pers. 248 ; Eur. Heh. 663. The expression πρᾶξιν φέρειν is, therefore, equivalent to φέρειν ἀγγελίαν πράξεως or ἀγγέλο λειν πρᾶξιν. 749. ἄνθρωπε. “ Cf. v. 1098, infra. Aldus reads ὦ 'νθρωπε in both verses. Turnebus reads ἄνθρωπε in our verse, and ὦ 'νθρωπε in the latter. Brunck, Bothe, and Erfurdt read ὦ 'νθρωπε in the former, and ἄνθρωπε in the latter. Lobeck reads ἄνθρωπε in both verses. The six Bodleian manuscripts agree with Brunck, except that two of them read wvegwrs instead of ὦ ἄνθρωπε in our line. With the exception of these two verses, we have not observed the vocative ἄνθρωπε in the tragedies, either with or without the interjection. These two verses also exhibit the only instances which we have observed in the tragedies of this kind of crasis or elision, excepting ὤναξ or ὦ 'ναξ, which occurs very frequently.” ELMSLEY. The MSS. Lb. Γ. Δ. Aug. Α. Β. Dresd. A. read ἄνθρωπε. The MS. La. reads with Aldus ὦ ἄνθρωπε, which is received by Hermann. Dindorf and Wunder read ὤνθρωπε. 750. Οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν πρᾶξιν. SCHOL.: πρᾶξιν· τὴν τύχην, εἶτ ̓ οὖν εὐπραγίαν, εἶτ ̓ οὖν δυσπραγίαν. See Wunder to Trach. 148 sq.; Tafel, Pind. Diluce. I. 47; and compare Elektr. 1110, οὐκ οἶδα τὴν σὴν κληδόνα. In 752. ὥστε μ' ὠδίνειν τί φής. SCHOL.: ὥστε ἐμὲ συμβαίνει ζητεῖν μετὰ πόνου τί ἐστιν ὅ λέγεις ἐμφατικῶς τὸ ὠδίνειν· οἰκεῖον γὰρ γυναικί· χαλεπώτατον δὲ τῶν γυναικείων πόνων ἡ ὠδίς. Cf. Trach. 42, 325 ; Eur. Iph. 4. 1221, μητρός, ἢ πρὶν ὠδίνουσι ἐμὲ νῦν δευτέραν ὠδῖνα τήνδε λαμβάνει. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 488. 3, renders, ut anxius exspectem, quid dicas. place of λέγεις, the future might have stood, as at Ar. Nub. 1391, οἶμαί γε τῶν νεωτέρων τὰς καρδίας πηδᾷν ὅ, τι λέξει, i. e. ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ τῶν λεχθησομένων. Cic. Phil. 7, 3, horreo quemadmodum accepturi sitis. But the present is used here in the same force as it possesses at Eur. Hek. 185, δειμαίνω τί ποτ' ἀναστένεις. .... 756. Πάρεστ ̓ ἐκεῖνος . ἐλπίζει φέρειν. Such is the reply of the Messenger to Tekmessa's inquiry where Teukros is, and with what view he had enjoined that Aias should not be permitted to leave his tent. The words iai pigs are replete with difficulty, but are, nevertheless, exhibited by all the manuscripts. SCHOL.: ὀλεθρίαν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀλεθρίως. ἐλπίζει φέρειν, νομίζει, μέλλει δέχεσθαι. In Johnson's edition we read, moreover, the following scholion: ὀλεθρίως ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀλεθρίαν, τὸ δὲ φέρειν τούτεστι δέχεσθαι. The same annotator has added to the succeeding verse: ἐρώτησις. παρὰ τίνος τῶν ἀνθρώπων μαθὼν ὁ Τεῦκρος ἐλπίζει φέρειν καὶ δέχεσθαι τὴν ἔξοδον τήνδε τοῦ Αἴαντος ὀλεθρίαν. Cauter emends ὀλεθρίως; Μusgrave, ὀλεθρίως Αἴαντ ̓ ἐς ἐλπίζει φέρειν, spectare putat ad Ajacis interitum. Bothe has ingeniously conjectured λílu pigs, metuere nos facit, with which Lobeck compares Æsch. Agam. 1444, τέχναι θεσπιῳδοὶ φόβον φέρουσι μα θεῖν. Matthiä thinks that the words before us are a confusion of two constructions, ἐλπίζει ὀλεθρίαν εἶναι and ἐλπίζει ὄλεθρον φέρειν τήνδε ἔξοδον. Lobeck retains the vulgate, and adds the following explanation: Metuit Teucer ne hic exitus Ajacis, quem nunciat, perniciosus ei futurus sit. In opposition to the denial of Hermann that iλí can be applied to denote the expectation of an evil, see Trach. 111, κακὰν ἐλπίζουσαν αἶσαν. Ibid. ν. 296, καὶ τοῦτο τοὔπος ἐστὶν ἀνδρὸς ἔμφρονος· ὅταν καλῶς πράσσῃ τις, ἐλπίζειν κακά. Ar. Avv. 956; Thuk. 1. 1.; 7.61; Polyb. 9. 6.9. We must confess that, notwithstanding repeated consideration, we are unable, on the one hand, to vindicate the reading of the books by sound and satisfactory interpretation, or, on the other, to accept the "lenissima emendatio" by which Bothe supposes that he has succeeded in removing all the difficulties of this passage. Confident as the language and weighty as the reasoning of Wunder in its support may be, we think that he has omitted to notice three points of considerable importance; the first, that the tenses in Bothe's reading can scarcely lead to any other inference than this, that Teukros had brought the apprehension or foreboding alluded to from Mysia; the second, that the use of the pronoun nvds would intimate that the departure of Aias was already known to Teukros, or had been distinctly foreseen by him; and lastly, that to Tekmessa's inquiry why Teukros had enjoined that Aias should not be allowed to quit his tent, the reply, because he brings intelligence that he fears this departure will be destructive to his life, is singularly inappropriate. Since writing the above, we have been favored with the reception of the following note, from which it will be seen that the true interpretation has at last been found. 'May not the true construction be as follows: ἐλπίζει (ὁ Τεῦκρος) τήνδε ἔξοδον φέρειν ὀλεθρίαν (= ἐς ὄλεθρον) Αἴαντος ? With reference to the use of rývds |