kles Aias, p. 130), that, in making the above observation in my former edition, I was not far from conjecturing the truth, I entirely deprecate for I long ago came to the conclusion, that this suspicion of a second edition of the Aias is altogether untenable, and that the proofs alleged by Osann in support of it are but little to be trusted.” LOBECK. The poets frequently employ similar figures to set forth the brevity and evanescent nature of human life. Our own author, in Stob. Serm. 96, p. 127, ὡς οὐδέν ἐσμεν πλὴν σκιαῖς ἐοικότες ; Tyro fr. 587. 6, εἰδώλων σκιᾶς ; Philokt. 946, καπνοῦ σκιάν, εἴδωλον ; (Ed. Tyr. 1186, Ιὼ γενεαὶ βροτῶν, ὡς ὑμᾶς ἴσα καὶ τὸ μηδὲν ζώσας ἐναριθμῶ; Æsch. Prom. 449, ὀνειράτων | ἀλίγκιοι μορφαῖσι ; Agam. 840, εὖ γὰρ ἐξεπίσταμαι ὁμιλίας κάτοπτρον, εἴδωλον σκιᾶς | δοκοῦντας εἶναι κάρτα πρευμενεῖς ἐμοί ; Id. Fragm. 282, τὸ γὰρ βρότειον σπέρμ' εφήμερα φρονεῖ καὶ πιστὸν οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ἢ καπνοῦ σκιά ; Eur. Fr. ol, ap. Stob. 116. 4, ὀνείρων δ ̓ ἕρπομεν μιμήματα ; Pind. Pyth. VIII. 135, σκιᾶς ὄναρ ἄνθρωπος ; Hor. Od. 4. 7. 14, Pulvis et umbra sumus. 127. ὑπέρκοπον. SCHOL. : ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑπέρκομπον. φασὶ τὸν Αἴαντα τρίτου ἠσεβηκέναι περὶ τοὺς θεούς· πρῶτον μὲν ἐκβαλεῖν τοῦ δίφρου τὴν ̓Αθηνῶν, βουλομένην αὐτῷ συμμαχεῖν· δεύτερον ἀπαλεῖψαι τὴν γλαῦκα τὴν ἐγγε γραμμένην τῷ ὅπλῳ αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἔθους πατρῴου· τρίτον ὅτι οὐκ ἐπείσθη τῷ πατρὶ συμβουλεύοντι πείθεσθαι τοῖς θεοῖς. The Scholiast is undoubtedly correct in the third circumstance he mentions (see below, vv. 723, sqq.), but it may fairly be doubted whether the alleged story of the erasure of his hereditary device, or the rude rejection of Athene's proffered aid on the battle-field by Aias, are here specifically alluded to by the poet, on account of the language he employs at v 118 supra, where prudence in counsel is mentioned by the goddess as having previously been no less a characteristic of Aias than his well-known bravery in action. In place of ὑπέρκοπον, some manuscripts ὑπέρκομπον, which Blomfield to Æsch. Theb. 795 con. siders a mere form of ὑπέρκοπος (the letter μ being frequently introduced, by an error of the copyists, before β and w, as in ὄμβριμος for ὄβριμος), and would always correct, even in opposition to the testimony of the manuscripts and old Edd., because, in all the passages in which it is read, the metre admits of ὑπέρκοπος, whilst in some, as in sch. Choeph. 143, Theb. 1. c., and our own verse, it is wholly adverse to the retention of ὑπέρκομπος. He adds, however, at the end of his note, that they possibly may be different words; and that this is the case is shown by Lobeck, who compares the three adjectives ὑπέρκομπος, ὑπέρκοπος, and ὑπέρκοτος. In the first, each part of the compound is of equal force; in the second (fr. κόπτω), the meaning of the verb is somewhat overshadowed, and that of the preposition predominates, as in μεσόκοπος ; — whilst ὑπέρκοτος, 104 = the third, which Matthiä to Eur. Herc. F. 1059 supposes to have been 129. öynov ägņ, ne superbiam sumas, concipias. I have followed the MSS. La. Ven. . Mosq. a. Aug. C. Lips. a. b., in opposition to the majority of the manuscripts, Stobæus, l. c., and Eustathius, p. 807. 20, all which authorities exhibit ons. Both age and agσbaι are used in the sense of sibi sumere or animo concipere, as may be learnt by referring to v. 75 above, and by comparing the following passages: Trach. 80, 491, Eur. Iph. Aul. 1574, Diodor. XXXI. p. 127, Theokr. 5. 20, Oppian. The tyro will observe that in Cyn. 2. 63, cited by Lobeck and Wunder. the aor. 1. act. and mid. the a is always long; see Eur. Or. 3; Kykl. 471. On the quantity of the future, see Porson to Eur. Med. 848 ; Elmsley to Eur. Herakl. 323; Wellauer to Æsch. Pers. 781; Spitzner's El. of Greek Prosody, 50. 4, note. Brunck Such is the reading preserved by Suidas and Stobæus, 130. βάθει. 11. cc., and exhibited by the MSS. Laur. a. Ven. T. and the majority of the ancient copies. Aldus, and some few manuscripts of lower reputation, Bags, which, from a comparison of such passages as Eur. Iph. T. 419, Elektr. 129, is preferred by Wesseling, Lobeck, and Schäfer. remarks that ẞágu is a mere gloss introduced by some corrector into the text, from a belief that it harmonized better with ßgibus. Calling to mind, however, such words as βαθυπλούσιος, βαθύπλουτος, βαθυκτέανος, and such passages as Midea Balior λourεiv, Tyrt. III. 6, the Homeric Balù λήιον, and βαθεῖς τε καὶ ἐῤῥωμένους ἄνδρας, divites ac potentes, Xen. Ek. 11. 10, we can see no grammatical or poetical reason for preferring ßág, and subscribe fully to the observation of Hermann: "Virtus hæc est Græcæ poesis, quod in consociandis translationibus non logicam veritatem, sed vim, quam singula ad animum movendum habent, respicit." Cf. Blomfield, Gloss. ad Esch. Pers. 741, and Dorvill. ad Chariton, p. 232. 134. SCHOL.: Πιθανῶς αὐτῷ ὁ χορὸς ἐσκεύασται ἀπὸ Σαλαμινίων ἀν δρῶν, τοῦτο μὲν παῤῥησιαζομένων ὡς ἐλευθέρων, τοῦτο δὲ συμπαθῶς ἐχόντων ὡς πολιτῶν, καὶ αἰδημόνως λαλούντων ὡς ὑπηκόων· οὐ γὰρ πιθανὸν ἐξ ̓Αχαιών εἰσάγειν, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ συνάχθεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τὸ μὴ προσκρούειν τῷ βασιλεῖ· τὸ δὲ τῶν αἰχμαλώτων κηδεμονικὸν μὲν, ὡς Αἰσχύλος ἐν Θρήσσαις, οὐ μὴν εὐπρόσωπον· ὅρα γὰρ, οἷον αἰχμαλώτους ἐπιτιμᾶν τῷ Μενελάω. (V. 1035.) Πιθανὴ δὲ καὶ ἡ εἴσοδος· ἀκούσας γὰρ ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς παρὰ τῆς ̓Αθηνᾶς· Δείξω δὲ σοὶ καὶ τὴν περιφανῆ νόσον, ὡς πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποισιν εἰσιδῶν θροεῖς· καὶ μαθὼν τὸ σαφὲς, δεδήλωκε τοῖς ̓Αχαιοῖς· ταύτης οὖν τῆς φήμης ἀκούσαντες οἱ Σαλαμίνιοι παραγεγόνασι, μηδέπω ὑπὸ τῆς εὐνοίας πεπεισμένοι ὡς αὐτὸς εἴη ὁ πράξας, ἀλλ ̓ ἀπιστοῦντες ὡς ὑπὸ ἐχθροῦ πεπλάσθαι οἰόμενοι. Ὁ δὲ νοῦς σοῦ μὲν εὖ πράσσοντος ἐν χαρᾷ ἐσμεν, καὶ τὸ ἀνάπαλιν· τὸ δὲ ὅλον ἐν σοί ἐσμεν· τὰ δὲ πράγματα νῦν τοῦ Αἴαντος φαῦλά εἰσι, καὶ οὐκ ἐνεχώρει αὐτῷ διηγήσασθαι τὰ ἀνδραγαθήματα. On this system of anapæsts, see the Scholiast to Eur. Phan. 246, and Introduction. Τελαμώνιε παῖ. "The poets often substitute an adjective derived from proper names, in place of the genitives of those names." Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 446. 10. Cf. v. 759 below, τοῦ Θεστορείου μαντέως ; Hom. Il. 1. 69, Κάλχας Θεστο ρίδης ; Ibid. 13. 67, Αἴαντα.... Τελαμώνιον υἱόν ; Soph. d. Τyr. 267, τῷ Λαβδακείῳ παιδί ; Elektr. 570, Λητώα κόρη ; Eur. Herc. F. 136, τὸν Ἡράκλειον πατέρα. For an imitation of this usage by the Latin writers, see Ov. Met. 1. 473, Virg. Æn. 7. 1, Tibull. 3. 6. 24, and consult note to v. 49 supra. 135. ἀγχιάλου. 'Salamis was so near the shore that it appeared to touch the Agean Sea on the other side only: see Strabo, 9, p. 603. Α. Hence it could be called both αμφίρυτος and ἀγχίαλος, as is proved by the example of Geminus, who, in Anth. Pal. IX. 288, thus writes: ὑβρίζων Μαραθῶνα καὶ ἀγχιάλου Σαλαμῖνος ἔργα.” LOBECK. See Porson's Advers. p. 183; Blomfield, Gl. in Pers. 889. This explanation is far from satisfactory; and the circumstance that a later writer, in all probability with our own passage before his eyes, has applied this epithet to Salamis, is certainly no proof of the accuracy of the otherwise not very luminous interpretation near the sea, because the island itself is near the shore. Hermann, approving the rendering of Lobeck, thinks that the epithet is applied to the city, and not to the island, of Salamis. Yet in #sch. Pers. 898, Lemnos, which had no city of that name, and to which this adjective, if it is to be taken as signifying near the mainland (πρόσγειος), does not apply, is called ἀγχίαλος. Wunder considers the meaning of ἀγχίαλος to be in mari situs (just as in Antig. 953, ἀγχίπολις is used in the same sense as ἔμπολις οι ἐγχώριος), and that of the two adjectives combined, Salamina circum circa mari adlui. In this view he is supported by the eminent authority of Professors Felton and Sophocles. SCHOL. : βάθρον ἀγχιάλου· τὸ θεμέλιον, τὸ ἕδρασμα· ἀντὶ τοῦ, δι ̓ ὃν ἵσταται ἡ Σαλαμίς, οὐ πάντως δὲ αἱ ἀγχίαλοι καὶ ἀμφίαλοί εἰσιν, οἵα ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ ̓Αλεξάνδρεια, ἀγχίαλος μὲν, οὐκ ἀμφίαλος δέ· αἱ δὲ νῆσοι καὶ ἀγχίαλοι καὶ ἀμφίαλοί εἰσιν. For the connection of two epithets with one noun in comparisons, see Hom. I. 11. 32, Æsch. Agam. 155, and consult the scholarly note of Elmsley to Eur. Heraklid. 750. * Σαλαμῖνος βάθρον is periphrastic for Σαλαμίνα, as Δωδώνης βάθρα, Eur. Phan. 1010; Τροίας βάθρον, Iph. Αul. 1273.” MusGRAVE. So below, v. 818, πατρῷον ἑστίας βάθρον. 136. Σὲ μὲν εὖ πράσσοντ ̓ ἐπιχαίρω. SCHOL. : ἀντὶ τοῦ, σοῦ μὲν εὖ πράσσοντος. ἢ οὕτως· εἰς σὲ μὲν εὖ πράττοντα ἐπιχαίρω, ἵνα λείπῃ ἡ εἰς. Brunck to Philokt. 1314, and Elmsley to Iph. T. 930, Ed. Kol. 1119, erroneously suppose, with many of the ancient critics, as for example the Scholiast to Hom. Il. 6. 479, καί ποτέ τις εἴπῃ ἀνιόντα, that in this and similar passages in which we find an accusative of the person constituting the feeling of joy, dislike, &c., there is an ellipsis of the participles ἴδων, ὁρῶν, οι ἀκούων. Suidas, s. v. χαίρω σε (see Eur. Rhes. 390, and compare Id. Hippol. 1340, χαίρω θνήσκοντας ; Fr. Sisyph. III. χαίρω σε ἐλθόντα τόν τε μικρὸν ἐξολωλότα ; Fr. Dan. 17, ἥδεται δόμους πληρουμένους ; Soph. Philokt. 1314, ἥσθην πατέρα τε τὸν ἐμὸν εὐλογοῦντά σε ; Cratinus, Fragm. p. 43, γέγηθα τὸν ἄνδρα ; Heliod. VIII. 16, 28, ήσθην ἀπαγγελθέντα μοι τὸν νεανίαν ; Ηom. Π. 13. 352, ἤχθετο δαμναμένους ; infra, v. 748, ἣν ἤλγησ ̓ ἐγώ), gives no explanation of the construction, but merely says that it was denominated the Schema Oropicum. An old gloss interprets by χαίρω ἐπί σε εὖ πράσσοντα, which is not Greek. Schäfer and Erfurdt, condemning the opinion of Brunck, represent the accusative as immediately dependent upon ἐπιχαίρω, as in fact a legitimate and ordinary syn. taxis, to be received without doubt or explanation. With the Scholiast and Lobeck, we believe the construction to be rhetorical, and not grammatical. “That an infinitive could not be tolerated is evident at once; and although σου μὲν εὖ πράσσοντος is required in strictness, yet because the subsequent words σὲ δ ̓ ὅταν.... comprise the gist of the whole declaration, this accusative has attracted the preceding pronoun into its own case." Ammonius teaches that the verb ἐπιχαίρω is said “ de ἐπιχαιρε κάκῳ,” as below, v. 905 ; but, here, also “ de ἐπιχαιραγάθῳ,” as ἐπίχαρ τος in Trach. 1263, Asch. Agam. 704. Hence the observation of the Scholiast : ἐπιχαίρω· ἀντὶ τοῦ συγχαίρω. 137. ζαμενής. SUIDAS : ἀντὶ τοῦ ὀργίλος, καὶ λοίδορος, καὶ βίαιος, violent, vehement, or malignant. The word is derived from μένος and ζά, which some consider the Æolic or Doric form of diá. See Etym. M. p. 407. 18. That it is used as a preposition, at one time with the accusative, at another with the genitive, may be learnt from Theokr. 29. 6, a quotation from an ancient writer in Joann. Gr. de Dial. Æol. p. 394, and the Etym. Μ. 1. c. HESYCHIUS: ζαβάλλειν· ἀντὶ τοῦ διαβάλλειν, whence zabolus, for diabolus, the Devil, Lactant. de Mort. Pers. 16. So in a fragment of Sappho ap. Hephast. p. 69. G, ζαελεξάμην, instead of διελεξάμην. It is, however, better, with most grammarians, to regard it here as an inseparable prefix, used ἐπίτασιν δηλοῦν, like ἀρι-, ἐρι-, ἀγα-, and evidently one and the same with da- in δαφοινός, δάσκιος. See Schol. Ap. Rh. 1. 1029, 1159. Kidd on Dawes's Misc. Cr. pp. 346, 144; Blomfield, Gl. Pers. 321; Boeckh. Corp. Inscr. 1, p. 724. b, extr.; Liddell and Scott, s. v.; Müller's Dorians, Vol. II. p. 494. Upon ἐπέβη, invasit, see Hermann to Eur. Iph. T. 826, and cf. Elektr. 492, Philokt. 194; on the accusative, consult note to v. 82 above. 138. ἐκ Δαναῶν. With the pleonastic use of the preposition, compare the similar employment of ἀπό in v. 201 below ; Elektr. 619; Antig. 95, 193 ; Plat. Sympos. p. 197. Ε, οὗτος ὁ παρ ̓ ἐμοῦ λόγος. SUIDAS : κακό. θρους· διάβολος. 140. Πτηνῆς ὡς ὄμμα πελείας. πελείας περιφραστικῶς ἡ πέλεια. πελείας means no more than πέλεια itself. Lobeck more accurately shows that Sophokles has designedly so written, because mental emotion is especially betrayed by quivering movements (nictatio) of the eyes. Hence Aristotle, Physiogn. p. 154, pronounces the οἱ σκαρδαμυκταί timid and fearful. So Arist. Eqq. 292, βλέπειν ἀσκαρδάμυκτον, without blinking, as eaglets at the sun. Compare Ed. Kol. 729, Trach. 527. With the expression στηνῆς πελείας, cf. Philokt. 288, τὰς ὑποπτέρους βάλλον πελείας. SCHOL. : ἐπεὶ περιδεὲς τὸ ζῶον. ὄμμα δὲ 141. Ὡς καὶ .... νυκτός. SCHOL. : ὡς καὶ τῆς παρελθούσης νυκτὸς ἐν φόβῳ γεγονάμεν ἐπὶ τῇ σῇ δυσκλείᾳ· πιθανῶς δὲ οὐκ ἐλέγχει τὸν βασιλέα ὡς ἡμαρτηκότα, ἀλλὰ τὴν δυσπραξίαν προσέλαβεν ὡς ἀπὸ τῆς εἱμαρμένης· πάνυ δὲ εἶνοι ὄντες ἀπιστοῦσι, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνουσιν αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ συκοφαντεῖσθαι· ἐν δέει οὖν καθέστηκα, ὅταν ᾖ τι τοιοῦτο περὶ σέ. With φθιμένης νυκτός, Musgrave compares Æsch. Pers. 377, φέγγος ἡλίου κατέφθιτο. Add Odyss. 11. 330, νὺξ φθῖτ ̓ ἄμβροτος ; 13. 338, φθίνουσιν νύκτες τε καὶ ἤματα ; 10. 470, μηνῶν φθινόντων. Asch. Agam. 7, ἀστέρας, ὅταν φθίνωσιν, ἀντολάς τε τῶν ; Virg. En. 1. 374, Ante diem clauso componet Vesper Olympo. On the genitive, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 523. |