note. sides. "Videbas, i. e. intelligebas. 'Ogav and idev frequently signify, not so much oculis cernere, as mente videre or intelligere. Cf. Ed. Tyr. 45, 284; Ed. Kol. 1730; Philokt. 98, 839. So also εἰσορᾶν, V. Consult Matthiä on Eur. Bacch. 1298; Siebelis on Pausan. 127, supra. T. IV. p. 137. used for oda." They are greatly mistaken who suppose that idov is here 971. καὶ θανὼν ἀποφθίσειν. The manuscripts exhibit this reading without any variation. Suidas, s. v. 'Aroplíμsvov, interprets as follows: άroφθίσειν· ἀνελεῖν, θανατῶσαι. Τεῦκρός φησι πρὸς τὸν νεκρὸν τοῦ Αἴαντος· εἶδες, ὡς χρόνῳ ἔμελλέ σ' Εκτωρ καὶ θανὼν ἀποφθίσειν. From these remarks, Hermann concludes that the aorist infinitive droplira is the genuine reading. Dindorf writes opisy, but cf. Ed. Tyr. 538, yvwgicos. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 181, Obs. 2. a. Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. B. II. s. 146. 972. Σκέψασθε . Bgorov. The MSS. Bar. a. b. Laud. Dresd. b. and Aldus omit rv. Brunck restored rv rúx" from other manuscripts, although not the first to do so, for it so appears in three editions at least, the two Juntine and the Frankfurt. The insertion of the article is necessary to the sense (cf. Philokt. 1098, Æsch. Pers. 438, etc.), and, as Porson to Eur. Or. 412 remarks, contributes greatly to the music of the verse. .... 973. Εκτωρ μὲν, κ.τ.λ. The MS. Suidæ Leid. s. v. "Avruyss and the old editions exhibit où dà Tour'. On the exchange of gifts between Hektor and Aias, see Hom. I. 8. 308, ὡς ἄρα φωνήσας δῶκε ξίφος ἀργυρόηλον, σὺν κολεῷ τε φέρων καὶ ἐϋδμήτω τελαμῶνι· Αἴας δὲ ζωστῆρα δίδου φοίνικι φασι vóv. idwenen. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 368. 3; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. ; Elmsley to Eur. Herakl. 757. 974. Zworng. That Hektor was bound to the chariot of Achilles by means of the very girdle which had been given him by Aias is a statement at variance with the Homeric representation in Il. 22. 397, but is ingeniously introduced by Sophokles in illustration of the sentiment contained in v. 629, supra, ixtęŵv üdwga dãga noin óvno,μa. Wesseling compares Anthol. Pal. VII. 151, Εκτωρ Αἴαντι ξίφος ὤπασεν, Ἕκτορι δ' Αἴας ζωστῆς· ¿μporśgwv ʼn xúgis sis lávarov. See Hygin. Fab. CXII.; Schöll, Einleitung, S. 72. gibeís, strictus. SCHOL. : ἐξαφθεὶς, ἐκδεσμηθείς. With the pregnant force of the preposition in the expression #gurbis intıxāv i avruywv, which Musgrave denies to be Greek, compare Il. 10. 475, it iπδιφριάδος ἱμᾶσι δέδεντο ; Ibid. 23. 398, ἐκ δίφροιο ἔδησε ; Od. 22. 175, 192; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 646. c; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 68. 17. 5; Schäfer ad Demosth. p. 13. 17. On the word "vrvž, denoting strictly the rail or rim of the chariot to which the reins were commonly fastened when the chariot was stopped, but here signifying the chariot itself, see Liddell and Scott, s. v., and compare Elektr. 746; Eur. Phon. 1193. 975. 'ExvάTTET' alv. Continua tractatione laceratus est. The MSS. A. O. Par. E. Bar. b. Harl. read iyváμærer'. Aldus and the majority of the manuscripts exhibit yvárrer', whilst the reading in the text is found in the MSS. La. Lb. Aug. B. Dresd. b. and the MS. Suidæ Leid. s. v. Пgsis. See Eustathius, p. 150. 31; Dorville, Misc. Obss. IX. p. 118; Hemsterhuis ad Lucian. T. I. p. 86; Blomfield, Gl. in Æsch. Pers. 582. According to the grammarians, xvárτw was the form used by the more ancient Attic writers, and yvárra by the later. Cf. Greg. Cor. de Dial. Att. 85; Polluc. VII. 37; Pierson to Moer. p. 31; Jacobs to Anth. Pal. pp. 29, 103; Brunck and Dobree to Ar. Plut. 166; Porson to Eur. Hek. 298; Schneider to Plat. Civ. T. III. 279; and Lobeck to this verse. Here, again, Sophokles is at variance with the representation of the Homeric Epos (Il. 22. 395–405), according to which the body of Hektor sustained no laceration, but was simply covered by the dust through which it had been dragged. In Il. 24. 14 - 21, we are told in express terms that the indignity described in our passage was averted by the intervention of Apollo, when his remains were, on a subsequent occasion, dragged thrice around the tomb of Patroklos. ἔς τ ̓ ἀπέψυξεν βίον. Until he had breathed forth his life. The temporal conjunctions are constructed with the indicative, when a precise and definite time is objectively assumed for the occurrence of a certain or actual fact. Xen. Hell. 1. 1. 3, ἐμάχοντο, μέχρις οἱ ̓Αθηναῖοι ἀνέπλευσαν. Id. Kyr. 7. 5. 6, ξυνεῖρον ἀπιόντες, ἔστε ἐπὶ ταῖς σκηναῖς ἐγένοντο. Id. Anab. 2. 5. 30, Ὁ δὲ Κλέαρχος ἰσχυρῶς natéTeiver, cote disπgázaro. Cf. Æsch. Prom. 458; Soph. Elektr. 753; Antig. 415; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 840. Homer (Il. 22. 361-395) describes the death of Hektor to have occurred before Achilles despoiled him of his arms, whilst the language of Sophokles would lead us to infer that he bound him, while yet living, to his triumphal car, and lacerated his body by continual dragging, until he at length gave up the ghost. See Heyne's Excc. ad Virg. Æn. 2. 977. Javacíμm. See note to v. 491, supra. 979. Κἀκεῖνον .... ygios. Hermann, Wunder, and other editors, erase the comma after "A.dns, in order that the accusative invov, scil. Cwστῆρα, may be made to depend on δημιουργός, in conformity with the construction explained in Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 422; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 114. We think the addition of the adjective žygios an insuperable obstacle to the reception of this view, and consider the accusative of the pronoun to be placed under the government of ixáλnevos by the brachylogical figure termed zeugma, in which a verb that in sense belongs only to one subject or object is connected with several. See Dorvill. ad Chariton. p. 395; Græv. ad Flor. III. 21. 26; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 895. d. δημιουργὸς ἄγριος. "Qui solet esse rerum mortiferarum faber." LOBECK. 980. Ἐγὼ μὲν οὖν. The MSS. Laud. Mosq. a. Aug. B. C. Lips. a. and Aldus read yà μèv v, which is preferred by Hermann and Dindorf. With the sentiment, Wunder compares Esch. Agam. 1463, rí yàg Beorois ἄνευ Διὸς τελεῖται; τί τῶνδ ̓ οὐ θεοκραντόν ἐστι; .... 983. Κεῖνος στεργέτω. SCHOL. : τὰ ἑαυτοῦ δόγματα· γέγονε δὲ Touto nai zagospμianóv. Monk to Eur. Alkest. 545 corrected ïvos và nɛiyou, which has been adopted by Lobeck and Hermann. It derives some support from the language of the Scholiast and the reading xavos Taxeivov of the MS. A. insīva, quæ ibi et apud ipsum sunt, i. e. let him rejoice in his own sentiments; rádi, quæ hic et apud me sunt, which I have just uttered. On the use of the pronoun zivos, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 655, Obs. 3; Bernhardy, Synt. p. 277; and with the sentiment itself, compare Eur. Suppl. 466, σοὶ μὲν δοκείτω ταῦτ ̓, ἐμοὶ δὲ τἀντία; Evenos Epigr. Αpp. N. 23, σοὶ μὲν ταῦτα δοκοῦντ ̓, ἔστω ἐμοὶ δὲ τάδε. 984. Μὴ τεῖνε μακράν. SCHOL. : ἀντὶ τοῦ μὴ ἀπότεινε, λόγον δηλονότι· τὸ ἀποτείνειν γὰρ ἐπὶ λόγου λέγεται, οἷον ἀπέτεινε λόγον μακράν. See Wunder to Elektr. 1240, and compare Ed. Kol. 1120; Trach. 679; Ar. Lys. 1134; Ruhnken ad Plat. Tim. p. 162; Elmsley to Med. 1318; Boissonade to Philostrat. 645. .... Plat. 986. κακοῖς avág. On the construction of yλã, with the dative, see note to v. 903, supra. With the employment of a dń for års or ola dń, Lobeck compares Demosth. Ep. V. 1490. A, ä dù úroλaμßávwv. Phedr. p. 244. Ε, ἀλλὰ μὴν νόσων γε καὶ πόνων τῶν μεγίστων, ἃ δὴ παλαιῶν ἐκ μηνιμάτων ποθὲν ἔν τισι τῶν γενῶν, Nicand. Alex. 215, βοάᾳ ἃ τις ἐμπελάδην φὼς Prioσ àμnbris. Add Plat. Legg. VI. 778. A. 20. Wunder renders, more correctly, adveniat. Cf. Elektr. 387; Ed. Kol. 353. 988. Ts d'. The MS. Lips. b. reads rís iori. μανία ἀπαλλαγὴν εὕρετο. ἀμφιβρότην κώδειαν ἀπὸ ixoTo. SCHOL. : On the collocation of avea and its attraction into the same case with the relative pronoun, see Porson and Schäfer to Eur. Hek. 1030; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 824. II. 1; and compare Elektr. 160; Trach. 430; Philokt. 1138, 1327; Hom. Il. 8. 131; Pind. Ol. 14. 21; Cicero de Legg. 3. 5. 12, hæc est enim, quam Scipio laudat in libris et quam maxime probat temperationem reipublicæ; Id. Tusc. 1. 18, Quam quisque norit artem, in hac se exerceat. 989. .... · ἐστείλαμεν. "Versis vicibus Philokt. 1037, ixil oüxor' ἂν στόλον ἐπλεύσατ ̓ ἂν τόνδ ̓ οὔνεκ ̓ ἀνδρὸς ἀθλίου.” On the dative ᾧ, for whose sake, see note to v. 837, supra. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 629, 630. SCHOL. : ὑβριστικὸν τὸ ἦθος Μενελάου· ἴσως ἐκ "Recte Schaeferus punctum post wvw delevit, "The same punc Compare also Philokt. 991. Οὗτος, σε φωνῶ. τῆς συνωμοσίας Οδυσσέως. jungens σε φωνῶ (jubeo) μὴ ξυγκομίζειν.” ERFURDT. tuation is exhibited in my note on Ed. Tyr. 350. 101, and v. 722, supra." ELMSLEY. "The editors generally follow Schäfer in removing the comma after wvw, in order to connect pavã or μù žvynoμílu, jubeo te, but they, nevertheless, quote no instance in support of such a construction of the verb pwvw, nor do they show why, in the absence of a verb signifying to command or to forbid, μù žvyroμí¿sı may not be taken as used for the imperative." LOBECK. "The punctuation of Lobeck must be rejected as altogether erroneous. For, in the first place, if the words Qwv stand alone, they can only signify I call thee. See ν. 73, Αἴαντα φωνῶ· στεῖχε δωμάτων πάρος. Had Menelaos called Teukros to his presence, in the same way as Athene, in the verse just cited, summons Aias from his tent, there would be no obstacle in the way of our receiving such an explanation; but since he comes upon the stage, and advances to Teukros, not to summon him into his presence, but to utter a command, he cannot be understood to say, I call or summon thee: whilst, on the other hand, if it should be thought that ouros, os Qwvw means he, dich rede ich an, it must first be shown that the words QwvETY TIva are used by the Tragedians in this sense. In the second place, we are not acquainted with a single instance in which a Greek writer, after such a preliminary address as ouros, σ Qwvw, has used the infinitive to express a command. If, on the other hand, we follow Schäfer in regarding the infinitive as dependent upon pwvw, we obtain a sense admirably suited to the context, and exceedingly appropriate to the character and position of Menelaos. That there is nothing objectionable in such a mode of construction is shown by v. 1033, infra, nai σo #goQwvã róvde μn láπT, and by a similar employment of the verb aidav, in the sense of xsλsów, with the infinitive. Cf. Elektr. 233; Ed. Kol. 864, 932; and v. 72, supra." WUNDER. will be sufficient to observe, in reply to the objection which has been urged by some eminent critics of our day against the appearance of Menelaos and Agamemnon amongst the persona of this Tragedy, that the arrangement of the whole play, and the repeated mention of the Atreidai (cf. vv. It 97, 98, 188, 241, 289, 369, 420, 436, 591, 631, 676, 796, 880, 896, 904, supra) leave no other alternative. The representation of the poet, that they must have perished by the hand of Aias, if Athene had not specially interfered for their protection, demands their appearance, if only for the purpose of enforcing punishment against the man who had been detected in the commission of an act of such unquestionable guilt. No mention whatever ought to have been made of them, if propriety required their exclusion from the scene; no statement that they were chargeable with the calamity upon which the action of the play is altogether based, and still less any intimation that Aias had been betrayed by the violence of his resentment into an attempt which was wholly indefensible, should, on such a supposition, have been even remotely hinted by the poet. Looking, too, to the connection which subsisted between them and Aias, as leaders of the expedition in which he had embarked, and to the fact that they were, in authority and station, the most distinguished persons in the camp before Troy, was it possible for Sophokles to represent them as totally devoid of all desire for vengeance upon the man who had sought their lives, as quite unconcerned amid the general tumult and excitement of the Greeks, as standing far aloof in undisturbed tranquillity, careless alike of their own fate and that of their deadliest foe? Schöll asserts, that the strife concerning the interment of the corpse of Aias is not even "eine poetische Nothwendigkeit." We agree with him, that the necessity for its introduction is not poetical it is unavoidable and real. No other kind of punishment could now be inflicted upon Aias than his exclusion from the tomb, and on the haste with which his enemies would proceed to the infliction of this indignity Aias himself (v. 781 sq.) had confidently reckoned. So, too, the Chorus (vv. 984-986), when it first descries the approach of Menelaos, intimates plainly its fears concerning the object of his visit, and urges Teukros to consider at once in what way he will commit his brother's body to the grave, and hold parley with the enemy. Since, then, no doubt could possibly exist in the minds of the spectators as to the course which the Atreidai would pursue, as soon as intelligence had reached them of the death of their great foe, and the play had been so constructed previously as to require their appearance on the scene, we may, in passing, remark in this another reason for the introduction of a champion so stout, so zealous, so able, as Teukros. (See note to v. 920, supra.) There is little doubt, moreover, that the poet sought to gratify Athenian pride and prejudice by displaying in the broadest relief the injustice and arrogance of the Spartan character, as exemplified in the |