that he has descended to the level of comedy in describing Teukros as showing up in few but striking words the Lakedaimonian fashion of exaggeration in its own proper light. Would the reply have been considered inconsistent with the elevated tone of tragic poetry if expressed as follows: He has not killed thee, for thou art living still, but only had it in his thought to kill thee: great, however, is the difference between the wish to perform a deed, and the deed itself? That, in place of such a lengthened rejoinder, Teukros should not only with brevity, but, as the whole circumstances connected with the past recurred to recollection, with asperity, reply, Κτείναντα ; δεινόν γ' εἶπας, εἰ καὶ ζῆς θανών, merits praise and approbation rather than censure. Wondrous as is the art displayed by Sophokles in all parts of his tragedies, his skill is nowhere more visible and triumphant than in the dialogue. The concentrated brevity which he there so frequently employs has, however, in many cases, occasioned great perplexity to his interpreters, and, in particular, has caused many passages in the concluding portions of this play to be but very imperfectly understood by those who have hitherto endeavored to explain them." WUNDER.

1072. rade d'oxoμar. But so far as he is concerned, I am no more. Compare Eur. Alkest. 666, rilynne rovnì os. Xen. Kyr. 5. 4. 11, rò iz ἐμοὶ οἴχομαι, τὸ δὲ ἐπὶ σοὶ σέσωσμαι. Hdt. 1. 124, κατὰ μὲν τούτου προθυμίαν τέθνηκας, κατὰ δὲ τοὺς θεοὺς περιεῖς. On the dative τῷδε, see note to v. 574, supra.

1073. Má vvv ȧripa. As this is the only instance in the Attic tragedians in which the verb aruv occurs, Elmsley directs us to write dripov or rs, and suggests that the author of the following scholion, which was first published in the Florentine edition of 1522, — ἀτίμα, ήγουν ἀτίμους ποίει. ἀτιμάζω γὰρ τὸ καταφρονῶ· ἀτιμῶ, τὸ ἄτιμον ποιῶ· καὶ ἠμιτωμένος, ἐπὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ κατὰ τὸν παθητικὸν παρακείμενον ἐν τῇ τρίτῃ συζυγία, — found árípov, the imperative of arμouv, in his copy. Since, however, the verb ára is found frequently in Homer, from whom Sophokles above all other writers delights to draw, and has been used by Pind. Pyth. 9. 139, and Xen. de Rep. Ath. 1. 14, we cannot see that the common reading is in any way impugned by the objection above mentioned.

1074. Ἐγὼ γὰρ ἂν ψέξαιμι. "The tyro should observe the difference between three forms of expression, either of which the poet might have used here. The reading of the text signifies, Egone deos reprehendam? Ich würde die Götter tadeln? (Shall I censure the gods?) Had the particle äv been omitted, the expression would then be, Egone reprehendum or repre

henderim deos? Ich tadelte or ich hätte die Götter getadelt? (Did I censure or have I censured the gods ?) i. e. Hoccine me facere vel fecisse putas? See Ed. Kol. 1172. The third mode in which the poet might have written is 'Ey yàę téyw brous; Egone reprehendo deos?" HERMANN. With this employment of the optative, compare v. 1281, infra, où yág τι τοῦτον, ἀλλὰ τοὺς θεῶν νόμους φθείροις ἄν. Ar. Αυυ. 819, ἐγὼ θείμην ἄν. Id. Vesp. 1160, ἐγὼ γὰρ ἂν τλαίην ; vouous. The MSS. T. and Aug.

B. read yvos, the latter with yg. vóμous suprascriptum, and the MS. Lips. b. has voμovs in the text, but with yę, nai yivu suprascriptum.

...

1075. E. παρών. SCHOL. : ταῦτα καὶ ἐν ̓Αντιγόνη (ν. 450 sqq., 1070 sqq.). Compare the language made use of at v. 1280 sqq. For Tag the MSS. Bar. a. b. read ragóv.

"It must not be supposed that

On the contrary, it imparts

the participle ragav contributes to the sense. this meaning: Si hic ades, ut mortuos sepeliri prohibeas. By these addenda a certain expression of indignant feeling is frequently intended, similar to that contained in our own phrase, Wenn du kommst und die todten nicht willst begraben lassen (If you come and will not suffer the dead to be buried).” HERMANN. Compare vv. 1100, 1322 below, and see Wunder to Trach. 418. On the use of oux in a conditional clause, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 744, Obs. Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 67. 4, Anm. 1.

1076. Τούς γ' .. πολεμίους. Scil. οὐκ ἐῶ θάπτειν. On the collocation avròs avroũ (for which the MSS. La. г. Bar. b. Mosq. a. read autoũ) see Elmsley to Herakl. 814; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 904. 1; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 468. It will be observed that Menelaos in these words is again guilty of misstatement and exaggeration in representing Aias as peculiarly his foe, and hence the question which follows immediately from Teukros.

6.

Wunder

1078. Mirov iuíos. The MSS. Bar. a. b. Mosq. Ien. Par. C. Harl. read iuírovv, which is preferred by Brunck, Bothe, and Erfurdt. observes, that there is nothing objectionable in the omission of the pronoun us or us, since the sentiment expressed by Menelaos is strictly this: oderat aliquem, qui ipsum oderat, i. e. oderat me, qui ipsum oderam. With the phraseology, compare Plat. Legg. III. 677. D, μiooõvtes μiooõvtaI. Dionys. Antt. VIII. p. 506, μioεły roùs mirouvтas. In place of the common reading irraro, the MSS. Aug. B. Dresd. b. read iioraco. Erfurdt properly observes, that the words, naì où coũr' ¿xioraco, tu quoque illud noras (rather, ac tu hoc noras), are added for the purpose of displaying the futility of the question just proposed by Teukros, who could not possibly have been ignorant of the hatred which Aias bore to him. Hence the sarcastic reply of Teukros, v. 1079, Sane noram: doloso enim suffragio tuo fraudatus est.

1079. Κλέπτης γὰρ, κ. τ. λ. SCHOL. : μια ψήφῳ φασὶ κατακριθῆναι τὸν Αἴαντα ὑπὸ Μενελάου. Pind. Nem. 8. 44, κρυφίαισι γὰρ ἐν ψάφοις Οδυσσῆ Δαναοὶ θεράπευσαν· χρυσέων δ' Αἴας στερηθεὶς ὅπλων φόνῳ πάλαισεν, on which passage Dissen observes as follows. “ κρυφίαις ἐν ψάφοις signifies, if I am not mistaken, dolosis suffragiis, for it was through trickery on the part of some of the arbitrators that Odysseus obtained the majority of votes. Amongst those who resorted to these unworthy means was Menelaos, of whom Teukros complains in Soph. Ai. 1114, comparing him with those jugglers who impose upon spectators by dexterously subtracting the pebbles from one side and adding them to the other. See Casaubon to Athenæus, I. p. 19. B. By this secret tampering with the calculi the victory was insured to Odysseus." Precisely the same explanation had been given long before by Musgrave, in his note to our verse. Compare Lys. ap. Polluc. VII. 260, norαixtovoi rò díxasov. Render, (And justly did he hate thee,) for thou wast detected secretly tampering with the judicial votes against him. On the use of yάg in explanation of a premiss which is suppressed and must be mentally supplied, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 786, Obs. 1; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 69. 14, Anm. 4.

1080. Ἐν τοῖς . · ἐσφάλη. This fault was committed by the judges, and not by me. On the preposition, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 622. 3; Matthiä to Eur. Hippol. 323. Brunck has edited oux from a few manuscripts, but noix is read in the majority of the ancient copies, and in the MSS. La. Lb. Lc.

1081. κλέψειας κακά. See note to v. 188, supra. Aldus reads λάθρα.

For λάθρα,

1082. τινί. On the use of the indefinite for the personal pronoun, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 659. 2; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 51. 16, Anm. 8; Fischer ad Well. Gr. Gr. II. p. 230; Dindorf to Ar. Ran. 552; and our own note to v. 238, supra.

1084. Εν σοι, κ.τ.λ. Observe the brevity and emphatic force of the language here employed, and compare Trach. 1136, άrav rò xeñμe?· ἥμαρτε, χρηστὰ μωμένη. Eur. Phan. 402, ἓν μὲν μέγιστον· οὐκ ἔχει Tapinoiav. On the accusative after the verbal adjective in the second clause, see note on v. 684, supra; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 613. 3.

1085. Σὺ δ'

....

Telásra. With the transposition of the subject of the dependent clause into the object of the principal clause, compare Philokt. 549, ἤκουσα τοὺς ναύτας, ὅτι σοι πάντες εἶεν συννεναυστοληκότες. Eur. Οr. 1557, ἤκουσα . τὴν ἐμὴν ξυνάορον, ὡς οὐ τέθνηκεν. Id. Med. 37, didana d' avràv μń Ti Bouλeúon. So in Latin. Cic. ad Fam. 8. 10,

....

Nosti Marcellum, quam tardus et parum efficax sit, for quam tardus et parum efficax sit Marcellus. Ter. Eun. 3. 5. 62, Metuo fratrem, ne intus siet. Id. Adelph. 5. 4. 20, Illum, ut vivat, optant. Liv. 42. 60, Exspectari nos arbitror, ut respondeamus litteris tuis. Cic. Tusc. 1. 24. 56, Sanguinem, bilem, pituitam, ossa, nervos, venas, omnem denique membrorum et totius corporis figuram videor posse dicere, unde concreta et quomodo facta sint, where consult the admirable note of Chase (pp. 147, 148). 1087. χειμῶνος τὸ πλεῖν. On the construction of the article with the infinitive, see note to v. 114, supra; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 670. Lobeck compares the double accusative with ἐφορμᾷν with such forms as παρορμᾷν τινά τι, παρακαλεῖσθαι, ἐνάγειν τινά τι, and refers us to his observations on Phrynichus, p. 439.. On xuvos (genitivus temporis) consult Jelf's Gr. Gr. 523; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 47. 2; and cf. v. 21, supra. 1088. Ω . . . . εὗρες. "The dative is not used here in place of ou (which the poet would doubtless have written had he thought it equally appropriate), but to express the following sense cui, i. e. apud quem vocem non facile repperisses." WUNDER. Lobeck has illustrated the sentiment by comparing Ar. Lys. 361, pavǹv äv oùx äv sixe. Appian, Bell. Civ. I. 95, οὐδὲ φωνὴν ἔτι οὐδενὸς ἔχοντος ὑπ ̓ ἐκπλήξεως.

1089. xgupsis. The MSS. Ien. Mosq. b. A. Heidelb. read xgupesis, for which Brunck's manuscripts and Aldus exhibit xgvßsis. See Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 318; Elmsley on Eur. Suppl. 543; Buttmann, Ausf. Griech. Sprachl. 92, Anm. 11. On the practice here alluded to, see note to v.

238, supra.

1090. Πατεῖν ναυτίλων. The MSS. Bar. a. b. Bodl. Harl. →. Laud. Ien. Aug. C. Lips. b. Mosq. a. b. and Aldus exhibit vavría, and this is supported also, as Hermann has pointed out, by the authority of the Scholiast to Hesiod, Theog. p. 252, ed. Heins. The reading in the text is defended by the best MSS. and by Eur. Iph. Aul. 340, rã biλovtı dnμoTay. Lobeck observes, that "Plato has either borrowed the sentiment of this sense, or a common proverb in Theat. p. 135. A, iùv dì távty åxogńowμεν, ταπεινωθέντες τῷ λόγῳ, παρέξομεν ὡς ναυτιῶντες πατεῖν τε καὶ χρῆσθαι 8, Ti äv Boúλntal. A more undisguised imitation is also found in Synes. Ep. IV. 163. D, μεθῆκεν ὁ κυβερνήτης τὸ πηδάλιον καὶ καταβαλὼν ἑαυτὸν πατεῖν παρεῖχε τῷ θέλοντι ναυτίλων.”. · παρείχε. Supply ἑαυτόν, surrendered himself. On the suppression of the pronoun see Heindorf to Plat. Gorg. 25; Stallbaum ad eundem, p. 476. D.

1091. καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα, te cum tuis impudentibus dictis. We might have expected the genitive τοῦ σοῦ λάβρου στόματος under the

The

government of the substantive Bonv. See note to v. 1006, supra. accusative may be referred to a blending of two constructions, rò σòv σróμa ἂν κατασβέσειεν, and κατασβέσειεν ἂν τὴν πολλὴν τοῦ σοῦ στόματος βοήν, which is eminently expressive of the indignation of the speaker. Cf. Elektr. 622, ὦ θρέμμ' ἀναιδές, ἦ σ' ἐγὼ καὶ τἄμ' ἔπη καὶ τἄργα τάμα πόλλ' ἄγαν λέγειν ποιεῖ.

1092. Σμικροῦ νέφους, "The allusion is to the hurricane or tempest caused by the meeting and sudden bursting of clouds, which the ancients called izvspías, i. e., as the grammarians explain, ix vépous äveμos. Cf. Senec. Quæst. Nat. 5. 12; Aristot. Probl. V. 26. p. 184, ed Sylb." WESSELING. Add Arist. de Mund. 4; Id. Meteor. 2. 6. 23; Alexis ap. Athen. 8. p. 338. E.

1094. de y'. “Vim autem de y particularum multi etiamnum parum videntur perspexisse: quarum quidem ratio ea est, ut aliquid adaugeant adversando. Cf. Eur. Med. 799, ubi Porsonis veram sententiam exemplis illustrat Elmslejus." REISIG. "Where the second speaker strengthens or corrects the sentiment of the former speaker, the particle ys follows di, with a word sometimes intervening, sometimes not. 'I exceedingly dislike the unmeaning particle y,' says Brunck. Be it so, provided that it is unmeaning; but in this collocation, it exerts its peculiar force." PORSON. Cf. Eur. Orest. 1234; Ar. Eqq. 355, 362, 363. Render, Ay, but I have seen a man filled with folly, or but I moreover have beheld, &c.

1098. "Avlęwπs. Such is the reading of the MSS. Par. 1. 4. Mosq. a. b. Lips. a. b. and Eustathius, p. 681. 5, and which we have preferred to ὦ 'νθρωπε οι άνθρωπε, as exhibited in Aldus and the majority of the MSS., because the vocative with is an address; without it, an appeal or attack. Hence the omission of is peculiarly applicable in threatening or reproachful or vehement exhortation. See Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 45. 3, Anm. 1.

1099. o pavouμsvos. Know that thou shalt be brought to ruin. On the passive sense in which this future participle is here employed, see Elmsley and Brunck to Ar. Acharn. 807, ed Bekk., and on the construction see notes to vv. 446, 908, 1025, supra.

1100. ragav. See note to v. 1075, supra.

1104. .... Tag. Who has it in his power to use compulsion. We have preferred the reading wag, which is exhibited by the MSS. La. pr. Lb. г. A. Aug. B. and Stobæus, Flor. 2. 28, to the Vulgate ága, for reasons which may be learnt from the note to v. 1018, supra.

1105. "Αφερπέ νυν. SCHOL. : οὐδαμῶ ὑπείκει ὁ Τεῦκρος· κἀμοὶ δέ, φησίν,