conduct of Menelaos. (Cf. Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthumsk. I. 1, p. 68 sqq., 134 sqq.; Müller, Dor. II. p. 108; Böckh de Tragg. Gr. p. 179; Bähr on Herod. VI. 108, p. 379.) For it will be observed that there is a marked difference between the more subdued bearing and deportment of Agamemnon, heartily as he, without doubt, shared his brother's hatred to Aias, and the coarse insolence and cowardly malignity of Menelaos. In the exuberance of his joy at the death of his enemy, he cannot forbear hastening in person to sneer at Teukros, and forbid funeral honors to the hero whom, when living, he did not dare to face. Although he states that he had come at the command of his brother, the ruler of the Grecian army, he takes pains to represent that the burial was forbidden by his own decree (ν. 994, δοκοῦντ ̓ ἐμοί, δοκοῦντα δ ̓ ὅς κραίνει στρατοῦ); and this, for the unworthy purpose of heaping additional pain and insult upon Teukros, who in rank and dignity was equal to himself. The same contemptible arrogance is shown by his affectation of the plural number, when speaking of himself, in order to impart greater haughtiness to his diction. is evident in his very step (v. 990).

""T is he; I ken the manner of his gait;

He rises on the toe; that spirit of his

In aspiration lifts him from the earth."

Nay, it

Compare particularly v. 996 sqq., 1011 – 1016, infra, in which verses his pusillanimity and mean jealousy of the superior valor of Aias, whom he insolently calls vdga dnμórny, are no less conspicuous, than his impertinent assumption of superiority in the insulting language he levels at Teukros in ν. 1064, ὁ τοξότης ἔοικεν οὐ σμικρὸν φρονεῖν. His subtle malignity of purpose is detected and reproved by the Chorus at the conclusion of his first address (vv. 1035, 1036). He had the opportunity of showing in mild terms the justice and equity of his demand that punishment should be inflicted upon Aias, but he makes no effort to avoid the display (see v. 1031 sqq.) of the far greater pleasure he shall derive, as the enemy of Aias, from dishonoring his remains, than, as a judge, from bringing him to righteous and reasonable punishment. As a climax to the representations of his utter meanness, he is represented at v. 1079 as a convicted λrs nporoos, and the mode in which he parries the accusation serves but to enhance its probability. With all this he is painted as a man who is wicked and despicable in purpose and intention, rather than in overt act and deed, as wholly deficient in the courage and boldness which sometimes rescue a villain from contempt, however worthy, in other respects, his qualifications for it.

See, particularly,

Litera

993. ávńλwoas. Brunck, on the authority of the MSS. Aug. B. Par. 1, has edited váλwoas, and this has been received as more Attic by Erfurdt, Bothe, Dindorf, and other editors. "All the preceding editions and the other manuscripts read avλwoas. The modern Atticists teach, that the verb ἀναλῶ or ἀναλίσκω preserves the vowel & unchanged in those infections in which other verbs change it into ". If the reader wishes to know their sentiments at large, he has nothing to do but to follow the clew which is presented to him in Brunck's note on this verse. Valckenaer ad Eur. Phon. 591, in whose words we subjoin the reason which is assigned for the immutability of the vowel in this verb: verbi, semper producta, non erat augmenti capax, propterea formas vulgares ἀνήλωκα, ἀνήλωσα, ανήλωμαι, etc., repudiantes Attici scribere sueverant ἀνάλωκα, ἀνάλωσα, ἀνάλωμαι, etc. We have two reasons for believing that the doctrine contained in these words is erroneous. In the first place, these pretended Atticisms violate the analogy of the language, which is much more strictly preserved in the ancient dialects than in that corrupt jargon, which the Alexandrine grammarians considered as the standard of the Greek language, because it happened to be their own mother-tongue. If ἀναλῶ makes ἀνάλωσα on account of the long vowel, why do we find ἠρίστησα, ἤθλησα (d. Kol. 564), ᾆσα, ᾖξα, instead of ἀρίστησα, ἄθλησα, aca, a? If the long had been supposed by the Athenians to supersede the augment, they would have written and pronounced aga, ágáμnv, ἁλάμην, rather than ἦρα, ἠράμην, ἡλάμην, as the a is long in the oblique modes of these aorists. In the second place, we find άvýλwoa, &c., in inscriptions which were engraven long before the Attic dialect began to decline from its purity. The following words occur in the Choiseul inscription, which was engraven in the same year (Olymp. XCII. 3) in which the Philoktetes of Sophokles was acted: ΑΘΕΝΑΙΟΙ ΑΝΕΛΟΣΑΝ ΕΠΙ ΓΛΑΥΚΙΠΠΟ ΑΡΧΟΝΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΕΣ ΒΟΛΕΣ ΕΙ ΚΛΕΓΕΝΕΣ ΠΑΛΑΙΕΥΣ ΠΡΟΤΟΣ ΕΓΡΑΜΜΑΤΕΥΕ. That is, ̓Αθηναῖοι ἀνήλωσαν ἐπὶ Γλαυκίππου ἄρχοντος, καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς βουλῆς ᾗ Κλει γενῆς ̔Αλαιεὺς πρῶτος ἐγραμμάτευε. In the Sandwich inscription in the Library of Trinity College, Cambridge, which has been copiously illustrated by Taylor, we find the word ANHANOH in the thirty-first line of the anterior face. This inscription, although less ancient than the former, was set up while Demosthenes was a little boy, and, in our judgment, vastly outweighs the testimony of Libanius, which is produced by that judicious grammarian, Thomas Magister, in favor of váλwoяy." ELM

SLEY.

994. Δοκοῦντ ̓ ἐμοὶ, δοκοῦντα δ'. The MSS. Par. C. T. Aug. Β. C. read doxouvrá ', upon which Brunck observes, Sic scriptum in C. T. quod aliorum librorum lectioni prastat δοκοῦντα δ'. "This alteration, which is adopted by Bothe, Lobeck, Schäfer, and Erfurdt, is the very reverse of an improvement. When the same word is repeated in this manner in both members of a sentence, the particle ought not to be admitted into the latter member, unless it appears in the former. The following passages,

among others, may be produced in defence of the common reading of this verse: Ed. Tyr. 312, 1224, 1489; Ed. Kol. 1342, 1389, 1399; Antig. 807; Philokt. 663, 779; Elektr. 105, 267, 987, 1171, 1446. In all those which follow, it is expressed: Ed. Tyr. 4, 25, 66, 219, 259, 521; Œd. Kol. 141, 279, 610; Antig. 93, 200, 897, 1068; Trach. 791, 1197; Philokt. 1370; Elektr. 88, 193, 959. When is contained in the first member, it ought to be repeated in the second. (See note to v. 794, supra.) Elektr. 1098, "Ας', ὦ γυναῖκες, ὀρθά τ ̓ εἰσηκούσαμεν, Ὀρθῶς θ ̓ ὁδοιποροῦμεν vda xe? Somer; This reading is silently exhibited by Brunck. ceding editions read d'instead of ', in this passage, and also in v. 794, above." ELMSLEY. On the suppression of αὐτῷ, i. e. Αγαμέμνονι, the antecedent to the relative pronoun in the second clause, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 817.4; Schäfer to Elektr. 1060; Wunder to Philokt. 137 sq.; Stallbaum to Plat. Civ. p. 373. B; and compare Antig. 36, 873, 1335; Trach. 350 ; Philokt. 662, 957; Eur. Orest. 591. So very often in Latin writers. Sallust, Cat. 58, maximum est periculum (scil. iis), qui maxime timent.

The pre

996. ἐλπίσαντες .... ἄγειν. The common reading is ἄξειν. Aldus and the MSS. Laud. Ven. Aug. Dresd. b. Lips. a. b. La. exhibit the reading in the text, the latter, however, with suprascriptum. "The present infinitive is far better suited to this passage than the future. For Menelaos says this: Quum sic existimassemus, nos talem eum ex patria huc adduxisse, qui socius nobis et amicus esset. Compare v. 1041, below, où às äyu τὸν ἄνδρ' ̓Αχαιοῖς δεῦρο σύμμαχον λαβών;” WUNDER. The future infinitive is frequently a mere introduction of the transcribers. At Ed. Kol. 91, xáμT, the true reading, has been displaced in many MSS. for xáμ4. Compare v. 757, iλπílu Pégeiv. Cæs. Bell. Civ. III. 8, magnitudine pœnæ reliquos deterrere sperans.

998. Εξεύρομεν ζητοῦντες ἐχθίω Φρυγῶν. Quærendo invenimus Phrygibus inimiciorem, as Chærem. Stob. I. 9, p. 236, ed. Heer., oux σTIV OUDEY TWY ἐν ἀνθρώποις, ὅ, τι οὐκ ἐν χρόνῳ ζητοῦσιν ἐξευρίσκεται. Lobeck aptly cites Ar. Plut. 105, οὐ γὰρ εὑρήσεις ἐμοῦ ζητῶν ἔτ ̓ ἄνδρα τοὺς τρόπους βελτίονα. Id. Ran. 91, γόνιμον δὲ ποιητὴν ἂν οὐχ εὕροις ἔτι ζητῶν ἄν. Pind. Ol. 13.

161, εὑρήσεις ἐρευνῶν. Lucian. Nekyom. 4, εὕρισκον ἐπισκοπῶν. Demosth. 469. 5, οὐ δύναμαι σκοπούμενος εὕρειν.

999. SCHOL. : πρῶτον κεφάλαιον, ὅτι ἐπίβουλος ἦν τῶν Ἑλλήνων, δεύτερον, ὅτι ἀπειθής. ἐντεῦθεν δὲ τὴν πρόφασιν τῆς ἀντιλογίας λήψεται ὁ Τεῦκρος, ὅτι οὐκ εἰσὶν αὐτῷ βασιλεῖς οἱ ̓Ατρεῖδαι.

1000. ὡς ὅλοι δορί. SCHOL. : γράφεται ὡς ἐλοιδόρει, ὡς λοιδορούμενος ἐπηγγείλατο, ταῦτα γὰρ εἶπεν ὁ Αἴας, than which it is impossible to conceive any thing more exquisitely absurd. At what time and in whose presence? Certainly not before the Greeks, for he attacked them in the dead of night in order that his onslaught might be the more unexpected. Not before he slew the cattle, for at the commencement of this play Odysseus is represented as merely suspecting Aias, and as being by no means sure that he had committed the offence. On the other hand, if the boast were made after its perpetration, and was communicated to Menelaos at the same time with the intelligence of his death, why should he introduce the mention of it by a term so opposite in meaning to the importance which he would have attributed to it, at the very commencement of a speech which is intended to magnify and in no respect to extenuate the guilt of Aias? Nevertheless, this reading has commended itself to the favor of Erfurdt and Bothe! Hermann suspects that the Scholiast was misled by the various reading dogs for dogi, and adds, “Itaque abeat posthae scriptura ista (ἐλοιδορεῖ), unde venit, ad errores librariorum.”

1002. τήνδε.... θανόντες. SCHOL. : κατὰ ταύτην τὴν τύχην. Hermann explains the accusative run upon the supposition that the poet has substituted the words θανόντες ἂν προὐκείμεθα for ἐλάχομεν. Compare Antig. 110, 1248. Wunder refers it to the participle θανόντες, considering the whole expression equivalent to τοῦτον τὸν θάνατον, ὃν ὅδε ἔιληχεν τετυχηκότες οι ειληχότες. That there is no objection to the construction, ἀπεθάνομεν ἂν τὸν ὅν οὗτος ἔιληχε θάνατον (μόρον, τύχην), or more briefly, τὸν Αἴαντος ἂν θάνατον ἀπεθάνομεν, has been clearly shown in the learned Dissert. de Fig. Etymolog. in Lobeck's Paralip. p. 515. Consult notes to νν. 276, 410, 414, supra, and compare Hom. Od. 1. 166, ἀπόλωλε κακὸν μόρον. Nonn. Paraphr. 8. 45, θανεῖν βρόχιον μόρον. Achill. Tat. 1. p. 122,. διπλοῦν θάνατον θανεῖν.

1004. Νῦν δ'. Nunc autem, nunc vero. These particles are often used to express an opposition between an imaginary and real state of things. Cf. v. 425, supra; Elektr. 335; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 719. 2. · ἐνήλλαξεν πεσεῖν. See note to v. 637, supra.

1005. πρὸς μῆλα. "The grammarians have observed that Sophokles

has employed the word unλa in a still wider sense, to denote beasts of chase, since he has represented Achilles av μñλov Ongavra. See Eustathius, p. 877. 51, p. 1648. 63. In the verse before us it must evidently be understood as including the flocks of sheep and oxen." HERMANN. The verse referred to in the preceding note will be found in Soph. Fragm. 911, ed. Dind. Jacobs imagines that Menelaos designedly employs μña, in preference to dyiλas, in order to make his language more sarcastic.

....

1006. αὐτὸν.... σῶμα τυμβεῦσαι τάφῳ. On the phrase τυμβεύειν τάφῳ, which is equivalent in sense to rá‡w naλúfai, Antig. 28, see Wunder to Elektr. 399. “The expression συμβεῦσαι αὐτὸν σῶμα is explained by the Scholiast as the σχῆμα καθ ̓ ὅλον καὶ κατὰ μέρος, and the same view is taken by Bernhardy, Synt. p. 120. Nothing can be more incorrect. Upon the same principle that Thukydides has said τὸν πόνον. ἀπέδειξα οὐκ ὀρθῶς αὐτὸν ὑποπτευόμενον, might Sophokles have written τὸν Αἴαντα οὐδεὶς τοσοῦτον σθένει ὥστε αὐτὸν τυμβεῦσαι. Since, however, he had placed auró at the commencement of the sentence, he adds rapa for the purpose of more precise definition." LOBECK. Wunder compares Elektr. 696, στάντες δ ̓, ὅθ ̓ αὐτοὺς οἱ τεταγμένοι βραβῆς κληροῖς ἔπηλαν καὶ κατέστησαν δίφρους ; ν. 1091, infra, τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα.... τὴν πολλὴν βοήν. Add Eur. Iph. Τaur. 1429, ὡς λαβόντες αὐτοὺς ἢ κατὰ στυφλοῦ πέτρας ῥίψωμεν, ἢ σκόλοψι πήξωμεν δέμας. See Seidler to Eur. Troad. 397. Not much unlike is Virg. Æn. 9. 486, nec te tua funera mater produxi. 1008. χλωρὰν ψάμαθον, yellow sand. So Shakspeare, Tempest, Act I. Sc. 2: "Come unto these yellow sands." Hom. Il. 11. 631, μéas xawgóv.

1010. gs. See note to v. 75, supra.

living, see note to v. 906, supra.

Οι βλέποντος, whilst

1012. Javóvros y'. The MSS. A. Bar. a. b. and the books of the Triclinian recension incorrectly omit the particle y'.

1013. παρευθύνοντες. SCHOL. REC.: ἐκτρέποντες· ἀπὸ τῶν μὴ ἐώντων τινὰς βαδίζειν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ὁδόν, ἀλλὰ παρεκκλινόντων αὐτούς. "In this passage the participle apparently denotes compelling to obedience, and xrgoív is added in the same sense as that in which we have seen in xugós to be used in v. 27, supra." WUNDER.

1015. Kairo, and yet. In this usage xairo corresponds very nearly with the corrective quamquam of the Latins. For an admirable explanation of its force in this passage, as introducing a statement apparently in contradiction with the character of Aias, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 772. 1. κακοῦ πρὸς ἀνδρός. It is characteristic of a worthless man. See notes to vv. 306, 557, supra.

·ävdga dnμórnv. A plebeian. These words are