reader will, moreover, observe that the introduction of the vengeance taken by Atreus on his brother Thyestes and on his wife Aerope, in the narrative detailed in these five verses (1231 - 1235), is extremely appropriate to the purpose and intention of the poet. Cf. Schol. ad Eur. Orest., 1. c." WUNDER.

1234. ἐπακτὸν ἄνδρα. SCHOL. : τὸν μοιχόν.

1235. ἐλλοῖς. SCHOL. : τοῖς ἀφώνοις. Aldus reads άλλοῖς. Cf. Blomfield, Gl. in Esch. Pers. 583; Hes. Scut. 212, 12λoxas ixtũ;.

1238. τὰ πρῶτ ̓ ἀριστεύσας.

See note on v. 410, supra.

1239. qúou μs. On the construction, see note to v. 432, and for information upon the details respecting his own birth into which Teukros now enters, consult note on v. 410, supra.

1243. τοὺς πρὸς αἵματος. SCHOL. : τοὺς συγγενεῖς. Cf. Elektr. 1125, ἀλλ ̓ ἢ φίλων τις ἢ πρὸς αἵματος. Jelf's Gr. Gr. 632. 2. a. Krüger, Hermann ad Vig. p. 660. It is

Griech. Sprachl. 68. 37, Anm. 1. scarcely necessary to observe, that Aias alone is meant. See Wunder on Ed. Tyr. 361. - The MSS. Lb. Aug. B. C. Dresd. b. read ẞλastāv. 1245, οὐδ ̓ ἐπαισχύνει λέγων. The MSS. La. Lb. Γ. Δ. Θ. Aug. Β. C. and Aldus read ἐπαισχύνῃ, or what amounts to it, ἐπ ̓ αἰσχύνῃ. · Eldicke, Spec. Suspic. p. 6, conjectures aixón 'yyeλav, for which Erfurdt prefers ywv. To the participle supply raura." LOBECK. "Hermann interprets nec pudet te id profiteri, a sentiment too frigid to be Sophoklean. Nevertheless, I confess that I am unable to suggest an explanation that is more satisfactory." WUNDER. There is no need of alteration. The participle ayw signifies jubens (cf. Ed. Kol. 840, xadãv néyw 001), and ὠθεῖς is equivalent to ὠθεῖσθαι ποιεῖς or κελεύεις. See Stallbaum and Heindorf ad Plat. Protag. p. 324. D, and compare Cornel. Nep. V. 4, Cimon complures pauperes mortuos . . . . suo sumtu extulit. Render, Whom now overwhelmed by such (i. e. so great) calamities thou art causing to be thrust forth unburied, nor art ashamed at the command. On the construction, see note on v. 481, supra.

1247. Βαλεῖτε χἠμᾶς. SCHOL. : ἑαυτὸν λέγει καὶ τὴν Τέκμησσαν καὶ τὸν Εὐρυσάκην. “ It must be understood that Teukros, in saying βαλεῖτε xus, nos etiam projicietis, plainly intimates his intention, if any outrage is offered to the remains of Aias, of repelling force by force. The reason for his resolution is set forth in the following verse, isì naλóv μoi, x. t. 2. The employment of the singular number grovovμέvy μo, although the words nuas resis immediately precede, is necessary to the sense, because it could not be supposed that Tekmessa and Eurysakes would engage in con

Iflict with the Atreidai. The assertion contained in the entire clause, roDTov si.... σvynsíμsvous, is, therefore, this si quam Ajaci inferetis injuriam mortuo, nobis tribus illatam putabo et ulciscar." WUNDER.

1248. Tod' Tigrovovμévy, taking trouble, or distress, upon myself on account of him, i. e. Aias. "The MS. La. exhibits the gloss, ye. ÜπięπovouMévous, and the MS. Lb., while it preserves the common reading in the text, has ous between the lines. If this correction should be adopted, po must necessarily be changed into ." NEUE. It is apparent that such an emendation is quite uncalled for, and would be incorrect. If any change were made, the context would require the accusative singular. With the genitive rode dependent upon the preposition in composition with the participle, from which it must be separated in construction, compare Antig. 82, ὑπερδέδοικά σου. Ibid. 627, ἀπάτας λεχέων ὑπεραλγῶν. Ed. Tyr. 264, τοὐμοῦ πατρὸς ὑπερμαχοῦμαι. Infra, v. 1284, τοῦδ ̓ ὑπερμαχεῖς.

66

1250. τῆς σῆς ....λέγω. All the MSS. and the Scholia of Triclinius read σo ' ¡μaípovos, which Brunck renders aut tui etiam fratris, inaccurately, for rs nowhere signifies etiam. Hermann, Erfurdt, Bothe, Lobeck, and Neue substitute that appάquazov, the particle yɛ. The reading in the text, which is adopted by Wunder, is the happy emendation of Dindorf. Aya is not the conjunctive, as Hermann supposes, but a primary verb, to be constructed with iì xaλóv μo, scil. iva. Again, we must not conclude with Brunck, that Teukros calls Helen the wife of Agamemnon (rãs σn; yuvaιxós) in a moment of passion, or by a púλμa μvnmovinov, but that he employs these words in the same sense as Theseus calls the daughters of Oidipous ràs raidas iμãv, Ed. Kol. 1017: — pro illa muliercula, cujus tu causam tueris." DOEDERLEIN.

1252. βουλήσει . . bgaris. You will one day wish to be even a coward rather than bold against me. On the expression θρασὺς εἶναι ἐν ἐμοί, see note on v. 1036, supra. The MSS. Lb. T. Bar. a. read pol; the MS. Lips. b. and Aldus, y'uo; the MS. Aug. C. pos; the MS. Dresd. b. ipoi; and the remainder, as in the text.

1254. "Αναξ Οδυσσεῦ. SCHOL. : ἵνα μὴ εἴη αὐτῶν εἰς μακρὰν ἡ φιλονει κία, διαλλακτὴν εἰσήνεγκε τὸν Ὀδυσσέα· τοιοῦτον γὰρ ὁ καιρὸς ἐζήτει· εἰσῆκταῖ δὲ Ὀδυσσεὺς ὡς σοφὸς καὶ ἀμνησίκακος. Οn καιρόν, opportunely, consult note on v. 34, and on the construction of the words 'kanλvbús, see notes on vv. 908, 1025.

....

1255. Εἰ μὴ . Tágs. Hermann's rendering, si non ades una cum illis accensurus rixam, sed una mecum compositurus, is open to the objection that Odysseus arrived too late rixam una cum illis accendere. The lan

guage has its origin in the current proverbial expressions of the age (cf. Antig. 40; Eur. Hippol. 671; Zenobias, IV. 46; Plutarch, II. p. 1033. E, where Chrysippos is called by Aristokreon στραγγαλίδων Ακαδημαϊκῶν κοπίς, a knife for cutting Academic knots), and should be rendered, si non ades adstricturus (nodum rixæ), sed soluturus. On the use of the future participle to denote purpose and design, see Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 566. 6; Krüger, Griech. Sprachl. 56. 10. 4; and on the conditional or assumptive force of n with the participle ( = εἰ μή with the finite verb), by which the thought is represented as depending on the mind of the subject of the governing verb, compare the admirable explanation of Hermann : σε Μή frequentissime jungitur participiis, quod ubi fit, sensus proprie est, si quis sit ejusmodi ; μὴ δρῶν quem non facere aliquid sumimus; quum οὐ δρῶν sit, qui revera aliquid non facit." See also Jelf's Gr. Gr. 746. 2. 3. Lastly, in illustration of the connection of the negative particle with but one of the participles here employed, Wunder aptly cites, Plat. Civ. p. 421. Α, φύλακες δὲ νόμων τε καὶ πόλεως μὴ ὄντες, ἀλλὰ δοκοῦντες, ὁρᾷς δὴ, ὅτι πᾶσαν ἄρδην πόλιν ἀπολλύασι. Ibid. p. 422. Β, εἷς πύκτης ὡς οἷον τε κάλλιστα ἐπὶ τοῦτο παρεσκευασμένος δυοῖν μὴ πύκταιν, πλουσίοιν δὲ καὶ πιόνοιν, οὐκ ἂν δοκεῖ σοι ῥᾳδίως μάχεσθαι; Ibid. p. 423. D, ὅπως ἂν ἓν τὸ αὑτοῦ ἐπιτηδεύων ἕκαστος μὴ πολλοί, ἀλλὰ εἷς γίγνηται, καὶ οὕτω δὴ ξύμπασα ἡ πόλις μία φύηται, ἀλλὰ μὴ πολλαί. 1257. Βοὴν ̓Ατρειδῶν. SCHOL. : οὐκ ἐξ ἑτοίμου φησὶν, ὅτι ἥκοι ἀναστέλλων τὸν ̓Αγαμέμνονα, ἀλλ ̓ ἐπιμελόμενος, τί πράττουσιν οἱ βασιλεῖς· τὴν δὲ ἑαυτοῦ γνώμην ἐδήλωσε διὰ τοῦ ἀλκίμῳ νεκρῷ, ὅτι γενναίαν αὐτοῦ ἐδήλωσε τὴν τελευτήν. διδάσκει δὲ ὁ λογός, ὅτι οὐ δεῖ κατὰ τεθνεώτων λέγειν, κἂν ἐχθροὶ ὦσιν. On the accusative βοήν, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 575. Odysseus, hearing from a distance the wordy strife between Teukros and Agamemnon, now appears, in order to effect, by his wise intervention, a termination of the inglorious contest. It was one of the leading traits in the character of this chieftain, τὰ πάντα μέτριος, that he never lost sight of the admonition addressed to Agamemnon (v. 1251), ὅρα μὴ τουμόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ σόν. He had indulged in no unworthy triumph at the expense of Aias in his hour of deepest degradation, and it is, therefore, with especial propriety that his first words, τῷδ ̓ ἐπ ̓ ἀλκίμῳ νεκρῷ, convey an unmistakable intimation of his generous purpose to put an end to the unseemly brawl, and to vindicate, by a high-minded and emphatic testimony to the merits of his former foe, the honors which were now his due. The importance attached by both disputants to these simple words is forcibly illustrated by the circumstance, that immediately upon their utter

ance all interchange of angry and offensive language ceases, and by the silent contentedness with which Teukros, seeing the evident desire of Odysseus to render the fullest justice to the services and merits of the departed hero, resigns the controversy to his abler management. When Athene, at the commencement of this play, first brought beneath the notice of Odysseus the lamentable situation of the unhappy Aias, a remembrance of the extreme vicissitudes to which all earthly honor is obnoxious compelled him to declare (v. 121 sqq.), ἐποικτείρω δέ νιν.... οὐδὲν τὸ τούτου μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺμὸν σκοπῶν. With the most thorough consistency, therefore, he at once takes part with Teukros, and urges that, although he can extend forgiveness to those who requite opprobrious language with the like (1260 sq.), deference to the laws of the immortal gods requires that the remains of Aias, once his bitterest foe (1274), but whose valor as the bravest of the Achaians save Achilles only (1278) far transcends his hatred (1295), should be honored with immediate sepulture. His remonstrances and entreaties prevail at length with Agamemnon, but only upon the understanding that the consent to the burial shall be considered as the act of Odysseus and not his own (1306), since his own enmity to Aias will continue unabated (1310). We would call the attention of the student to this fact in especial. The poet distinctly represents the hostility of the Atreidai alone as remaining unsubdued. They had been first to deal unjustly with the departed hero, but they suffer no punishment, and are portrayed as eager only to inflict it. Hence, when the insanity and premature death of Aias had reconciled his memory to gods and men, the punishment of the Atreidai is represented as deferred, and as awaiting them in the hereafter. From this consideration we shall be justified in concluding that the imprecations of Teukros (1327 sqq.) are not introduced, as Schöll insists, for the purpose of developing a new rádos, but to direct the attention of the spectators to the wretched end which the origówOIVOS 'Egvis did ultimately inflict upon one of the transgressors, and to the ignominious history of the other. That Aias in his dying speech omitted to mention the name of Odysseus in the curse which he invoked upon his foes because the poet intended to conduct the dispute respecting his interment to a triumphant and satisfactory termination by his good offices, as Welcker and Schöll contend, may or may not be true, although we think it more probable that it was owing to the more correct view which, upon the restoration of his reason, Aias was enabled to take of the dignity and worth of his illustrious antagonist. From the language of Odysseus at v. 1275, we learn that the fierce hostility between himself and Aias was of

no long duration; that it originated in, and was altogether attributable to, the contest respecting the armor of Achilles (see note to v. 77, page 90). We would, finally, remark that the objection which Teukros urges to the participation of Odysseus in the funeral ceremonies themselves (vv. 1332 sqq.), arose in all probability from the opinion he still had cause to entertain, that Aias had perished under the continued influence of those prejudices against Odysseus which his victory had evoked. The assurance of his own obligations and personal esteem is properly set forth in the concluding words of his refusal (v. 1336 sq.) : σὺ δὲ ἀνὴρ καθ ̓ ἡμᾶς ἐσθλὸς ὢν ixioraro. Odysseus, in no degree offended by the repulse of his magnanimous proposal, but acquiescing with entire submission and cordiality in the sentiments and reasons of Teukros, thereupon retires.

1260. Ποίους ; When, as in the present passage, interrogando irridetur res aliqua, tanquam quæ plane non sit, vel certe nullius sit momenti, there is generally an ellipse of a verb, to be supplied from the context, upon which the interrogative word depends. Cf. Heindorf ad Plat. Charm. 4.7; Reisig, Conject. p. 74." NEUE.

"Maledicta regerere, veluti quandam verborum So Eur. Iph. Aul. 830, airxgòv

1261. συμβαλεῖν ἔπη. pugnam committendo." STEPHANUS.

δέ μοι γυναιξὶ συμβάλλειν λόγους. With the general sentiment compare Hom. I. 20. 250, ὁπποῖόν κ' εἴπησθα ἔπος, τοῖόν κ' ἐπακούσαις. Ter. Andr. 5. 4. 17, Si mihi pergit quæ volt dicere, ea, quæ non volt, audiet. Hor. Sat. 2. 3. 298, Dixerit insanum qui me, totidem audiet.

1263. καί. "When this particle follows an interrogative pronoun or adverb, it intimates that the notion which it precedes is that respecting which we particularly desire to be precisely informed. Porson to Eur. Phon. 1373 explains differently, regarding it as equivalent to dic præterea. Hermann ad Vig. 320 makes the following observation: Qui rí xen nai ays interrogat, is non solum quid, sed etiam an aliquid dicendum sit, dubitat." KRUEGER. "Si dico rí xen xaì λys, proprie hoc quæro, quid

sit dicendum, etiam si solum de dicendo cogitemus, i. e. the questioner omits all allusion to those details respecting which he might inquire, in order to confine himself to this one in especial." KLOTZ. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 759. 2; Elmsley to Eur. Med. 1334; Wunder to Antig. 720; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s. v. In rendering into English, the force of xaí in such a collocation is best given by pronouncing the following word with emphasis.

1265. πρὸς βίαν ἐμοῦ. In spite of me. See Ed. Kol. 662; Hermann ad Vig. p. 664.