934. τοῦδε . . . . μέλειν. See note to v. 653, supra.

935. ἀνὴρ κεῖνος.

κεῖνα.

The MSS. T. . read insivos; the MSS. La. Lb. On the inferential force of the particle ov, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 737. 2; Porson to Eur. Med. 585; and compare Philokt. 1306; Ed. Kol. 1199; Esch. Choeph. 95.

938. Οδός θ' ὁδῶν πασῶν.

This is the reading of the Membranæ and the majority of the MSS. The MSS. La. (eraso &) Lb. T. A. read ùraσῶν. Turnebus has edited ὁδός τ' ανιάσασα δὴ πασῶν ὁδῶν, which is supported by the authority of one or two manuscripts. Brunck, on account of the absence of the cæsura in the common reading, prefers idŵr l'àñaσῶν ὁδὸς ἀν. δή.

The

939. ἣν δὴ νῦν ἔβην. "The Edinburgh Reviewer (Vol. XIX. p. 79) observes, that the metre requires to be considered as an enclitic. See a note on anovs dá vvv in the Mus. Crit. Vol. II. p. 189." ELMSLEY. note referred to, from the same pen, is to Eur. Iph. Taur. 1009: “"Azovs δή νυν. Scribendum dvov, ut in Orest. 231, 1179; Ar. Ran. 372. Eadem correctio fiat infra 1145; Suppl. 857; Iph. T. 753; Kykl. 440; Hel. 1041; Ion. 1539; Herakl. Fur. 1255; Soph. Elektr. 947." More correctly a writer in the Phil. Mus. I. 227 : "In dvvv after an imperative, v is always enclitic; in vũ, dà or dà vv with an indicative, it always bears the meaning of time." See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 719, 720. 2. On the accusative

τῶν ἑξῆς.

sc. dóv, see notes to vv. 42, 836, supra. 942. Οξεία . . . . θεοῦ τινός. SCHOL.: οὐ κοινῶς τὸ ὀξὺ ἐπὶ τῆς φήμης, ἀλλ ̓ ὁρμὴν ἴσχει ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀξιώματι προβεβηκόσι. τὸ δὲ ὡς θεοῦ, ἤτοι ὡς ἀπὸ θεοῦ, ἢ ὥσπερ θεοῦ· τοῦτο δὲ πρὸς τὴν φήμην μόνον, ἐπεὶ γίνεται βλάσφημον διὰ “ Read θεῶν τινός. The tragic poets usually say θεῶν τις rather than θεός τις. See vv. 430, 1001; Ed. Tyr. 42, 396; Antig. 598; Trach. 119; Philokt. 19€; Elektr. 696. In the same manner ixegy is better than εχθρός τις, φίλων τις than φίλος τις, ete.” ELMSLEY. In opposition to this dictum, Lobeck cites Hom. Od. 10. 141; Pind Isthm. 8. 21; Apollon. Rh. II. 438; Theokrit. 20. 20; and a number of passages from prosewriters, not one of which is to the point, as Elmsley's observation is limited to the Tragedians. See, however, Æsch. Agam. 672, brós tis, oùx ävégwños, οἴακος θιγών, Eur. Med. 248, ἢ πρὸς φίλον τιν, and consult Bast. Ep. Crit. p. 214. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 230. The true distinction is that laid down by Hermann: "Ita recte dicas (v ;), servari aliquem ab aliquo deorum, ubi quum sponte intelligatur, deos esse, qui servent hominem, illud tantum spectatur, non illum certum quendam, sed aliquem deorum esse. Sed ubi deum esse, non hominem dicere voles, singulari uteris."

“ Το ὡς θεοῦ τινός supply βάζοντος, in the same way as at Trach. 768, ἀρτίκολλος ὥστε τέκτονος, the participle κολλῶντος is to be understood, and render, celeriter velut deo divulgante percrebuit mortis tuæ fama. Allusion is doubtless made in these words to the prayer of Aias to Zeus at v. 784, above, Πέμψον τιν ἡμῖν ἄγγελον, κακὴν φάτιν Τεύκρῳ φέροντα, and the swift rumor testifies to the fulfilment of his dying supplication." LOBECK. On the genitive σου, see note to v. 220, supra.

944. δείλαιος. The MSS. La. Lb. Γ. Δ. Θ. and Aldus read δύστηνος. 947. Ἴδ' ἐκκάλυψον. ScHoL.: πρὸς τὸν χορόν φησιν ἢ τινὰ τῶν θερα. πόντων· ἡ γὰρ Τέκμησσα ἐπὶ τὸν παῖδα ἀπῄει. See note to v. 930, supra. With the general sentiment, Lobeck aptly compares Eur. Med. 1311, ἐκλύεθ ̓ ἁρμούς, ὡς ἴδω διπλοῦν κακόν. Hippol. 803, ἐκλύσαθ ̓ ἁρμούς, ὡς ἴδω πικρὰν θέαν.

948. Ω δυσθέατον . . . . πικρᾶς. Eustathius, p. 409. 45, ὁ Σοφοκλῆς ἐν στίχῳ ἑνὶ οὐκ ὤκνησε διπλόην θέσθαι συντάξεως, εἰπών, ὦ δυσθέατον ὄμμα καὶ τόλμης πικρᾶς. ἔχων γὰρ φάναι, ὦ δυσθέατον ὄμμα καὶ τόλμη πικρά, ὅμως ἐξήλλαξε τὴν φράσιν διὰ τὸ καὶ οὕτω καὶ οὕτω δύνασθαι λέγεσθαι, οἷον, ὦ δυσθεάτου καὶ ὄψεως καὶ τολμήματος, καὶ πάλιν, ὦ δυσθέ ατος ὄψις καὶ τόλμημα. “So also Theokrit. XV. 124, ὦ ἔβενος, ὢ χρυσὸς, ὢ ἐκ λευκῶ ἐλέφαντος αἰετῶ .... φέροντος. Tryphiodor. 395, ὤμοι ἐμῶν αχέων, ὤμοι πατρώϊον ἄστυ. Liban. Declam. T. IV. p. 1015, ὦ κάλλους υἱέων, ὦ πλοκάμων ὥρα, ὢ προσώπου χάριτες, ὢ στέρνων φιλτάτων. Eur. Med. 496, φεῦ δεξιὰ χείρ', ἧς σὺ πόλλ ̓ ἐλαμβάνου, καὶ τῶνδε γονάτων. In this last example, however, another construction may be obtained by erasing the comma after ἐλαμβάνου.” LOBECK.

949. κατασπείρας. SCHOL.: δαιμονίως καὶ τὸ σπείρας, οἷον, ἀρχὴν κακῶν παρασχών· ἢ τὸ σπείρας ἐπὶ πλήθους κακῶν τακτέον. See Dissen to Pind. Nem. VIII. p. 479.

950. Ποῖ γὰρ μολεῖν μοι, κ τ. λ. Suidas, s. v. Ποῖ, reads με. Elmsley, Addend. ad Herakl. v. 693, observes correctly, that, whether we adopt the reading μοι or με, the participle αρήξαντ' is nevertheless to be regarded as in the accusative case. See his observations on Eur. Med. 553, and on (Ed. Kol. 1435." HERMANN. It frequently happens, even in prose-writers, that the accusative of the participle is referred to the infinitive, either as subject or predicate, when the accompanying substantive or pronoun, which might also have been joined to the infinitive in the accusative, is constructed according to the government of the primary verb. Plat. Lach. 186. D, παρακελεύομαί σοι μὴ ἀφίεσθαι Λάχητος . . . . ἀλλ' ἐρωτᾷν, λέγοντα, κ. τ. λ., where παρακελεύομαί σε μὴ ἀφίεσθαι would

....

Xen. Anab. 1. 2. 1, vig

....

have been equally correct. παρήγγειλεν λαβόντα τοὺς ἄνδρας. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 675. b; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 55. 2. 7, and Index to Xen. Anab. s. v. Accusative; Lobeck to this verse; Klausen to Esch. Choeph. 391; Porson to Ar. Plut. 286.

952. Η πού με Τελαμών. SCHOL.: ἅμα μὲν πρὸς τῆς ἱστορίας, ὅτι ἐκβέβληται, ἅμα δὲ καὶ πρὸς τὸ πιθανὸν τῆς ὑπονοίας. All the manuscripts and Suidas, s. v. Εὐπρόσωπος, exhibit ἦ που Τελαμών, contra metrum. The reading of the text, which has been received by all modern editors, is due to the emendation of Toup and Küster. See note to v. 850, supra ; Elmsley to Eur. Med. 1275; Edinb. Review. XXXVII. p. 69. It was extensively believed amongst the ancients, that the death of Aias was attributed to the neglect of Teukros by Telamon. Cf. Pausan. 1. 28. 12, Τεῦκρον πρῶτον λόγος ἔχει Τελαμῶνι οὕτως ἀπολογήσασθαι, μηδὲν ἐς τὸν Alavros bávatov sigyárba. Schol. Pind. ad Nem. 4. 76, i yàg Tsūnges ἐλθὼν μετὰ τὴν ἅλωσιν Ἰλίου ἐς Σαλαμῖνα, καὶ ὑπονοηθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Τελαμῶνος, ὡς αἴτιος γεγονὼς του φόνου τῷ Αἴαντι, φυγὼν ᾤκισε τὴν Κύπρον καὶ ἔσχεν avτñ≤ TÙν de̟xúν. See the annotators to Hor. Od. 1. 7. 25, and to Cic. de Orat. II. 46.

955. Mnd' suTUxouvτi. Яdiov yeλãv. The MS. La. reads "λswv (yg. Яdiov); the MS. Lb. "λɛw¥ ; the MS. T. swy; and the MSS. A. Aug. B. dov, the latter with the “ Homo ἀγέλαστος nunquam ἡδὺ γελᾷ, sed fieri potest ut

Not even when in happy circumstances.

gloss οἰκεῖον.

aliquando rideat diov rou siwtóros." LOBECK.

956. Οὗτος τί κρύψει;

SCHOL. : οἷον τίνος ἀπόσχοιτο λόγου.

957. Τὸν ἐκ . . . . νόθον. That I the bastard son of his slave won in war. "The expression dógv Toλéμov signifies booty taken in war, or in the present instance a γυνὴ δορίαλωτος. Compare v. 210, λέχος δουριάλωτον, where Tekmessa is meant. The allusion here is to Hesione, who was both a dogos vigas (see note to v. 410, supra), and of foreign birth; on which account Teukros, who was her son, fears that he may be called voos by his father. According to Attic modes of thinking, the sons of an Athenian citizen by a mother who, however illustrious her descent, was yet of foreign extraction, were stigmatized as illegitimate, and by the laws of Solon were forbidden the jus civitatis. See Cuper. Obss. 1. 26. (Add C. F. Hermann's Manual of Grecian Antiqq. 118.) The epithet vélos, although not in an invidious sense, is applied to Teukros by Homer, Il. 8. 284, in order to distinguish him from Aias. In the words before us he predicts a twofold accusation on the part of Telamon; that through

See Ar.

cowardice, and a traitorous desire to enjoy his brother's inheritance, he has betrayed him to his death; for vodo, so long as any legitimate children survived, were not admitted to a share of the paternal wealth. Avv. 1648, and the observations of the Scholiasts there." 959. ὡς τὰ σὰ . . . . νέμοιμι σούς. “The words τὰ σὰ

JAEGER.

κράτη do not

Cf. Ed. Tyr.

signify, as Brunck supposes, opes tuas, but imperium tuum. 237, γῆς τῆσδ', ἧς ἐγὼ κράτη τε καὶ θρόνους νέμω. Elektr. 651, δόμους ̓Ατρειδῶν σκῆπτρά τ ̓ ἀμφέπειν τάδε. It is almost unnecessary to observe that the optative viμm is here correctly employed, on account of the participle godóvra, or rather of the sense denoted by the participle, T #godwxa." WUNDER.

SCHOL.: τὸ μὲν δύσοργος ἐκ

Cic. ad Att.

With the ex

961. δύσοργος. Ad viam proclivis. φύσεως· λέγει γὰρ αὐτὸν ἀεὶ σκυθρωπόν· τὸ δὲ ἐν γήρᾳ βαρὺς εἰς ἐπίτασιν. For irascibility increases with advancing years. XIV. 24, amariorem me facit senectus; stomachor omnia. pression yng Bagus, Lobeck compares Ed. Tyr. 17, oùv Ælian. V. H. IX. 7, Bagùs væò yńgws. On the force of the preposition, see note to v. 463, supra. Wunder to Philokt. 60.

yńga Bagús ;

962. πρὸς οὐδὲν . . . . θυμούμενος. "Levissimam quamque ob causam ad jurgia irritabilis." BRUNCK. On the words gòs ovdiv, for no cause, for the slightest reason, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 591. ß.

963. áπožjiptńcoμal. The MSS. La. corr. Lb. A. →. Bar. Laud. Ven. Dresd. b. Aug. B. Lips. a. read άæoppsøńcoμas. A similar diversity in the reading of the manuscripts is found in Eur. Hek. 335, Androm. 10; but in Esch. Suppl. 487, Soph. Elektr. 512, all the books exhibit ippipenv. See Porson, Adv. p. 195, Buttmann, Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. 100, Anm. 10. Cf. v. 788, supra. On the proleptic predicate ȧrworós, see note to v. 69. "The poet represents Teukros as here predicting, in conformity with events which subsequently happened, what would be his future fate. For returning from the Trojan war without his brother, his father refused him a reception in his native land, he was driven into exile. See Vell. Paterc. 1. 1; Virg. Æn. 1. 619.” JAEGER. See other authori

ties cited in note to v. 952, supra.

964. λόγοισιν. SCHOL. : ταῖς τοῦ πατρὸς λοιδορίαις.

966. παῦρα δ ̓ ὠφελήσιμα. The common reading is παῦρα δ ̓ ὠφελή. op, which is defended by Toup ad Suid. II. p. 87, who adds the following explanation: in Troade multi sunt inimici, et qui wąsλño,μor, in paucis ὠφελήσιμοι sunt ! Lobeck cites Demosth. 430. 5; Isokrat. Ep. IV. 414. 7; Diod. XIII. 41; Dionys. Antt. 70. p. 1678, where the ex

pression πολλὰ χρήσιμος is found. Add Menand. Fr. p. 170, via xeńσιμος. Demosth. p. 193. 26, daλò oùòèv xenoiμn. In our passage, however, such an interpretation is wholly inadmissible. The true reading was first restored by Johnson.

968. πῶς ἀποσπάσω. SCHOL. : πῶς, φησί, τὸ σῶμα ἀπὸ τοῦ ξίφους ἑλκύσω ; συμπληρῶσαι δὲ βούλεται καὶ θάπτειν αὐτόν· καλῶς δὲ τῇ μὲν Τεκμήσση περιῆψε τὸ σκεπάσαι αὐτόν, ὡς γυναικί, τῷ δὲ Τεύκρῳ, ὡς ἀνδρὶ καὶ ἀδελφῷ, τὰ δέοντα ποιεῖν περὶ τὸ σῶμα. The MS. La. omits σ'.

969. Τοῦδ' αιόλου κνώδοντος. SCHOL.: τῆς ἀκμῆς τοῦ ξίφους, τῆς ὀξείας εἰς τὸ καίνειν, ὡς ὁδούς· ἰδοῦσι γὰρ περιβάλλεται ὀξέσιν· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ἄκρου τὸ ξίφος δηλοῖ. Choeroboschus ap. Bekker. Anecd. Gr. p. 1395, xaçà Σοφοκλεῖ τοῦδ ̓ αἰόλου κνώδοντος ἀντὶ τοῦ ξίφους. Cf. Antig. 1233, διπλοῦς κνώδοντας. Nicet. Annal. XV. 5. 302, τὸν σφαγέα κνώδοντα. The word xvwdwv (from xv) denotes strictly the cross-bars or projecting teeth on swords and hunting-spears (Silius, Pun. 1. 515; Xen. de Ven. 10. 3 ; Polluc. 5. 22), but is here used synecdochically, like the Latin mucro, to signify a sword. Lobeck doubts whether alóλos xvwdwv means a dark, i. e. a bloody sword, or is to be understood in the same manner as the Homeric expressions αιόλος ζωστήρ, θώρηξ, etc. Wunder's opinion, in note to v. 147, supra, is, that the epithet alóλos refers to the changing hues of light and shade on a well-polished blade. It appears to us that it points rather to the hilt, and that ingo, piercing, belongs to the blade.

970. Φονέως.

See note to v. 773, supra. Musgrave to Eur. Ion. 1252. ἄρ ̓. This particle, whose origin and primary meaning are still undetermined, is often used in poetry (more frequently with the imperfect) to express the full discovery of a truth which previously had not been fully apprehended, but is now actually visible. Hermann renders by ergo, then. In Xen. Kyr. 7. 3. 6, ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ Κῦρος ἐπαίσατο ἄρα τὸν ngov, Hartung explains it to mean an unexpectedly vehement action. Jelf, or rather Kühner (Gr. Gr. 788. 5) thinks it implies the discovery of a mistake, and that the action of Cyrus is a proof of his perception of it, whilst Klotz reduces it to the notion of conformity to the nature of things, and adds non mirum est Cyrum postquam mortem hominis familiaris audivit, femur percussisse; quo luctum proderet, sed rebus ita comparatis prorsus consentaneum, ut etiam hoc loco ga fere igitur significet." With its position in our verse, compare Elektr. 935, ¿yà dì oùv xaçã λóyous τοιούσδ ̓ ἔχουσ ̓ ἔσπευδον, οὐκ εἰδυῖ ̓ ἄρα ἵν ̓ ἦμεν ἄτης. Ibid. 1185. On the collocation of the substantive in the same clause with its relative pronoun, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 474. a, and the numerous examples cited in Lobeck's

: