μεμφόμενός σοι, ὡς ἀπαρχὰς δορὸς οὐ λαβὼν, ἐτίσατό σε τῆς λώβης, τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν γενομένης λήθης· ἐτίσατο δὲ ἐννυχίας μηχαναῖς ἐπὶ σοῦ ταύτης τῆς νυκτός. πιθανῶς δὲ πλείονας αἰτίας τιθέασιν ἀποροῦντες· οἱ γὰρ στοχαζό. μένοι οὐ καθ ̓ ἕν ἵστανται. "The first interpretation, as Brunck justly observes, absurd. Even if we allow Mars and Enyalios to have been different deities, we cannot suppose that the poet would designate Mars by a single word, which is equally applicable to Enyalios. Brunck has adopted the emendation of Johnson, Ἢ χαλκοθώραξ ἥντιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. So, also, Bothe and Lobeck. This emendation ought not to be admitted, un

is is capable of being used instead of ris,

....

So

less it can be proved that aliquis. Reiske proposes σοί τιν' Ενυάλιος. Erfurdt reads ὁ χαλκοθώραξ ἤ τιν ̓ Ενυάλιος, Hermann (to Eur. Heh. 991) ἦ τιν' Ενυάλιος, Musgrave μή τιν' Ενυάλιος. The object of all these conjectures is to get rid either of the first or second, so as to connect the adjective xaλzobágağ with the substantive Ενυάλιος. A better mode of accomplishing this end than any which we have mentioned is to read Ἢ χαλκοθώραξ εἴτιν ̓ Ενυάλιος. ν. 879 (841), Τίς ἂν δῆτά μοι τὸν ὠμόθυμον εἴ ποθι πλαζόμενον λεύσο σων ἄπνοι ; Philokt. 1204, ξίφος εἴποθεν, ἢ γένυν, ἢ βελέων τι προπέμψατε. This pleonastic use of i, which the editors of Sophokles do not appear to have understood, has not escaped the observation of Weiske, whose words we subjoin (p. 115, ed. Oxon.): Offendit particula si adjuncto pronomine τis, ut apud Zonaram, v. 8, Εὐτρόπιος δὲ πάντος, ὧν εἴτις λόγος (qui aliquo essent numero), ἐκποδὼν καταστῆσαι βουλόμενος, etc. Sed sic imminuunt Græci rò ris et rivès, aliquis, nonnulli, ut dubitationis notam, si, structura minus accurata, præponant. Loca in Xenoph. Jud. sub ɛi monstravi.' These words might pass for a note on the passage before us, according to our representation of it." ELMSLEY. The emendation of Johnson received by Lobeck, who subjoins the following explanation, Αρης ἐξέμηνεν αὐτὸν ὀργισθεὶς δι ̓ ἥντινα δὴ ὀλιγωρίαν τῆς συμμαχίας, is sufficiently set aside by the acute observation of Elmsley, that such an employment of the pronoun Tis is altogether alien to the practice of the Tragedians. It is, moreover, equally opposed to the sense of our passage, for ἥντινα μομφὰν ξυνοῦ δορὸς ἔχων must signify cherishing some dissatisfaction, whatever it may be, on account of his (unrecompensed) assistance in the battle. Such an interpretation might, perhaps, stand, if the poet had not, by the genitive limiting poμpáv, intimated a specific reason for the discontent of Enyalios. Hermann is now disposed to receive the suggestion of Elmsley, but remarks rightly that it is highly incorrect to describe this use of as pleonastic, since it is in fact elliptic, and requires that

we should supply

from the participle xv, in the following sense : μομφὰν ἔχων, εἴ τινα εἶχεν. Yet this explanation, from dissatisfaction, if he has entertained any, seems entirely opposite to the meaning of the Chorus, who would not have enumerated Enyalios among the deities hostile to Aias, had it entertained so decided a doubt upon the subject. A more satisfactory use of Elmsley's emendation is that suggested by Lobeck, who proposes that we should connect with the primary verb, "Agns irisato λáßny, aut Mars si forte ultus est injuriam, for on this point the Chorus was involved in some uncertainty. In the midst of all this doubt, we have thought it best, although with considerable hesitation, to follow Dindorf in admitting Hermann's original correction' into the text, but cannot avoid expressing a wish that the conjecture of Reiske, ooí tiv', was sustained by some manuscript authority. Another difficulty has arisen from the circumstance that Homer represents Ares as fighting for the Trojans, whilst Aias is intimated in our passage to have received assistance also from this deity. Lobeck supposes that the aid referred to was bestowed in an expedition against Teuthras, or some adjacent town. Yet it appears improbable that Ares, whilst friendly to the Trojans, should have lent support to their enemies in their attacks upon towns which were friendly to the cause of his allies. Although it is undisputed that 'Evváλ105 is used in the Iliad as a frequent epithet of Ares, or as a proper name for Ares, (cf. Il. 17. 211; 2. 651; 7. 166; 13. 519; 17. 309; and many other places,) it seems equally clear, from the language of the Schol. Ven. to Il. 17. 211, that, in later times, the Athenians honored Enyalios as a distinct deity; and the same inference may be drawn from Ar. Pac. 457; Dionys. A. R. 3. 48; Eustathius, p. 944. 55; and the form of the oath taken by the Attic Ephebi : ἵστορες θεοί, Αγραυλος, Ενυάλιος, "Αρης, Ζεύς. Eustathius 1. c. represents him as a son of Saturn and Rhea, and this legend probably induced the Scholiast to speak of Ares as his rougyos and inferior in dignity; others, again, describe him to have been the πάρεδρος of Ares, παρέπεσθαι αὐτῷ τὸν Ἐνυάλιον, ὡς ̓Αθήνῃ τὴν Νίκην καὶ 'Agríμidi Tàv 'Exárny, Etym. Gud. p. 188. 12; whilst a third tradition, narrated by Eustathius, p. 673. 22, derives the appellation from a Thracian king slain by Ares on account of his inhospitality. For more detailed information see Creuz. Symb. II. 611, and the long and learned note of Lobeck to this line.

180. Μομφὰν ἔχων. "Elektr. 897, 1176, 1283; Philokt. 1309; Æsch. Prom. 445, λέξω δὲ, μέμψιν οὔτιν ̓ ἀνθρώποις ἔχων ; Eur. Οr. 1062, πρώτ τά σοι μομφὴν ἔχω ; Phen. 773, ὥστ ̓ ἐμοὶ μομφὰς ἔχειν. The sense is

somewhat different in Pind. Isthm. 3. 54, μομφὼν ἔχει παιδέσσιν Ἑλλάνων, invidiam facit, and in Eur. Herakl. 969, woλλǹv äg' ïées péμfi9, subibis.” NEUE. With ξυνοῦ δορός, here equivalent to ξυμμαχίας, and to which δόρυ μονοστόλον, δόρυ μονομάχον, are opposed in Eur. Phan. 759, 1356, compare Eur. Andr. 525, dógv rúμμaxov. Lobeck is in error when he asserts, that, besides the present passage, uvós, which is a mere dialectic variation of xoivos from the root KYN, is found only in Æsch. Theb. 379, Suppl. 370, since it occurs also in (Ed. Kol. 1752, unless Hermann's emendation uvatonta should be admitted there, and is used as an epithet of 'Evváλos by Homer, Il. 18. 309. The general sense of the entire passage is as follows: Or is it that Enyalios with brazen breastplate, feeling indignant on account of his assisting spear (i. e. on account of some enterprise in which he lent you a support you never gratefully acknowledged), has avenged the insult by means of (i. e. by leading you into) these nightly machinations.

SCHOL.:

182. Qgevólεv, propriæ mentis impulsu, of your own free will. φρενόθεν· ήγουν οἴκοθεν, ἀπὸ οἰκείας γνώσεως. Compare Asch. Choeph. 107, in gevós; Agam. 1515, Ogevòs in pixías; Soph. Antig. 492, ἐπήβολος . . ἐπ ̓ ἀριστερά. SCHOL.: οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀφρονεῖς, ὡς ἄνευ αἰτίας ἐμπεσεῖν τοῖς ποιμνίοις. ἀριστερὰ δὲ τὰ μωρὰ οἱ παλαιοὶ ἐκάλουν, δέξια δὲ τὰ συνετά. Passow renders du wichest linkshin, d. i. vom Rechten ab, but see Liddell and Scott, s. v.

Τόσσον

See Monk to Eur. Alk.

184. Τόσσον. Some manuscripts and Suidas Τόσον ἐν ποίμναισι. is read in Esch. Agam. 140. Below, v. 369, iλéoσas; Antig. 1223, μέσση ; 1236, μέσσον ; Philokt. 1163, πέλασσον. 234; Wellauer to Æsch. Agam. 138; and the numerous examples cited by Lobeck to this line. It is doubtful whether we should join Torrey with the preceding words, ir' gioregà ßas, or with those which follow, ποίμναις πίτνων. The Scholiast appears to sanction the former course, and so Hermann, who inserts a comma after the pronoun.

185. Ηκοι γὰρ ἄν. SCHOL.: ἔοικε γὰρ εἶναι θεῖα νόσος. θεῖα δὲ ἡ ἐκ θεοῦ κατασκήψασα εἰς αὐτόν. τὴν δὲ νόσον αὐτοῦ φήμην ̓Αργείων ὠνόμασεν. With the expression sia vóros compare v. 137, #λnyà Aíos. "In this clause, as also in the preceding, orors. TiTv, a reason is advanced' for the opinion expressed in the strophe. Hence the particle yúg is placed at the commencement of both sentences, in opposition to our own usage, which would demand the employment of an adversative particle in the last. Similarly in Æsch. Agam. 538, seq.: rà d'aûre xigow naì xgorŃv, πλέον στύγος· εἶναι γὰρ ἦσαν δηΐων πρὸς τείχεσιν· ἐξ οὐρανοῦ γὰρ κἀπὸ γῆς λειμώνιαι δρόσοι κατεψέκαζον.” WUNDER.

187. ὑποβαλλόμενοι κλέπτουσι μύθους, are surreptitiously circulating secret accusations. SCHOL. : ὑποβαλλόμενοι· ὑποβλήτως λέγοντες, ἢ ιδιοποιητά. μενοι· εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθῆ ταῦτα, ἀλλὰ πεπλασμένα ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἢ Οδυσσέως.

188. Κλέπτουσι. SCHOL.: ὑποσπείρουσι. Neue directs us to compare v. 1081 below; Elektr. 37; Ant. 493; Trach. 437; Philokt. 57. On βασιλῆς, for which the greater number of the manuscripts give βασιλεῖς, see note to v. 369 infra.

189. Σισυφιδᾶν. SCHOL. : γρ. Σισυφίδα. λέγεται γὰρ ἡ ̓Αντίκλεια ἀποστελλομένη ἀπὸ ̓Αρκαδίας ἐπὶ Ἰθάκην πρὸς Λαέρτην ἐπὶ γάμον, κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν Σισύφῳ συνελθεῖν, ἐξ οὗ ἦν φύσει Οδυσσεύς. ὁ δὲ Σίσυφος Κορίνθου βασιλεὺς, πανοῦργος ἀνὴρ, περὶ οὗ φησιν Ὅμηρος· (Π. 6. 153.) ὁ κέρδιστος γένετ ̓ ἀνδρῶν· ὅστις ὑπὸ τοὺς ὄνυχας καὶ τὰς ἁπλὰς τῶν ζώων ἑαυτοῦ μονογράμματον ἔγραψε τὸ ὄνομα αὑτοῦ. Αὐτόλυκος δὲ κατ ̓ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ Εκέκαστο κλεπτοσύνῃ θ ̓ ὅρκῳ τε· (Od. 19. 395.) καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ κλεπτό. μενα παρ' αὐτοῦ τὴν μορφὴν ἤλλασσεν. κλέψας οὖν καὶ Σισύφου θρέμματα καὶ μεταβολών, ὅμως οὐκ ἔλαβε τὸν Σίσυφον, ἐπέγνω γὰρ αὐτὰ διὰ τῶν μονογραμμάτων· ἐπὶ τούτοις δὲ ἐξευμενιζόμενος τὸν Σίσυφον ἐξένισεν αὐτὸν, καὶ τὴν θυγατέρα αὑτοῦ ̓Αντίκλειαν συγκατέκλινεν αὐτῷ, καὶ ἔγκυον ἐξ αὐτοῦ γενομένην τὴν παῖδα συνώκισε Λαέρτη, διὸ Σισύφου ὁ Ὀδυσσεύς. τὸν δὲ Οδυσσέα Σισύφου συνήθως φησὶ Σοφοκλῆς καὶ ἐν Συνδείπνῳ· Ω πάντα πράσσων, ὡς ὁ Σίσυφος πολὺς ἔνδηλος ἐν σοὶ πανταχοῦ, μητρὸς πατήρ. καὶ Αἰσχύλος ἐν Όπλων κρίσει· ̓Αλλ' ̓Αντικλείας ἆσσον ἦλθε Σίσυφος, τῆς σῆς λέγω τοι μητρὸς, ἥ σ ̓ ἐγείνατο. καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐν Κύκλωπι (v. 102). Χαῖρ ̓, ὦ ξέν'· ὅστις δ ̓ εἶ, φράσον, πάτραν τε σήν. Ιθακος Οδυσσεὺς, γῆς Κεφαλλήνων ἄναξ. Οἶδ ̓ ἄνδρα κρόταλον, δριμὺ Σισύφου γένος. φαίνεται δὲ τὸ κακόηθες αὐτῷ καὶ διὰ τῆς γενέσεως. The later tradition, to which the Scholiast refers, that Antikleia was pregnant by Sisyphus previously to her marriage with Laërtes, and gave birth to Odysseus either after her arrival at Ithaka or on her journey to that island, is stated by Hyginus, Fab. 201. Cf. Philokt. 417, with the note of the Scholiast; Eur. Iph. A. 514; Ov. Met. 13. 32; Serv. ad Virg. An. 6. 529; Plut. Quæst. Græc. 43; and the passages cited by the Scholiast to our own line. To the genitive τᾶς ἀσώτου . . . . γενεας, Brunck directs us to supply τις ; Wunder, ὁ, from the article in the preceding verse ; Hermann, βασιλεύς ; and Lobeck, ἔκγονος, which he derives from γενεᾶς. See Matth. Gr. Gr. 323 and note; comparing v. 202 below, Eur. Kykl. 41, πᾶ δή μοι γενναίων μὲν πατέρων, γενναίων τ ̓ ἐκ τοκάδων, scil. γένεθλα ή Arist. Ach. 549, ἀλλ' ὦ τηθῶν ἀνδρειοτάτων, scil. θρέμματα.

ἀσώτου.

SCHOL : τῆς ἐξώλου;

καὶ μὴ δυναμένης σώζεσθαι ; Aristot. Εth. Nicom. 4. 1, τοὺς ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἐς ἀκολασίαν δαπανηροὺς, ἀσώτους καλοῦμεν. The use of ἄνολβος, below, v. 1100, is somewhat similar. Klausen to Æsch. Agam. 1513 renders perniciosus.

190. Μὴ μή μ', ἄναξ. SCHOL. : τὸ πλῆρες· μή μή μοι. "So also Suidas. Nevertheless it is incorrect that can suffer elision before a short vowel.” HERMANN. This eminent scholar decides that μ' is the accusative, and explains by stating that two constructions are blended into one in the sense, ne tibi malum in me opprobrium contrahe. The dativus ethicus is, however, so appropriate, and the expression μή μοι, μή μοι σύγε, is so frequently found before the imperative, or conjunctive used imperatively, that it is better to suppose, with Wunder, that Sophokles has availed himself of a license found in the epic poets (cf. Hom. Il. 14. 165), than to have recourse to the involved reasoning by which Hermann and Matthiä (Gr. Gr. 633. 7) would have us believe μ' to be the accusative. That the diphthong, as strongly maintained by the greater number of authorities, is never elided in the dramatists, seems doubtful. Cf. Philokt. 718, ἀλλὰ δέδοικ ̓, ὦ παι, μή μ' ἀτελὴς εὐχή; Eur. Bacch. 820, τοῦ χρόνου δέ σ ̓ οὐ φθονῶ, where see Elmsley. With the concluding words ἐφαλοις κλισίαις (= σκηναῖς ναυτικαῖς, supra, v. 3) ὄμμ ̓ ἔχων, Lobeck aptly compares Hor. Carm. III. 20, eripe te moræ ; ne semper udum Tibur et Esula declive contempleris arvum.

191. ἄρῃ. The MSS. Ric. Aug. B. Dresd. a. and Suidas s. Μή μοι read ἄρης. SCHOL. : ἄρη καὶ περιποιήση, ἤτοι ἐπάρῃς, αὐξήσῃς ἀπὸ σοῦ, scr. ἐπὶ σοῦ. HESYCHIUS: "Αρη, λήψη, οἴση• Σοφοκλῆς Αἴαντι μαστιγοφόρῳ. See note to v. 129 supra.

192. “Ανα, for ἀνάστηθι, is amongst those words whose pronunciation is preserved entire even where a vowel follows; and which, consequently, never throw away the final vowel.” HERMANN. See Matthia, Gr. Gr. 42; Monk to Eur. Alk. 285. Eustathius to Il. 1, p. 75. 9: 'Exsivo dè καινότερον, ἐὰν ἡ ἀνὰ πρόθεσις ἀναβιβασθέντος τοῦ τόνου, λαμβάνηται ἀντὶ ῥήματος τοῦ ἀναστῆθι, ὡς τὸ ἀλλ ̓ ἄνα ἐξ ἑδράνων. SUIDAS : Ανα· ἀνάστηθι. Ὅμηρος καὶ Σοφοκλῆς. ἀλλ ̓ ἄνα ἐξ ἑδράνων. ἀντὶ τοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ ἀνάστηθι ἐκ τῶν θρόνων. καὶ ἄνα, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄναξ, κατὰ ἀποκοπὴν τοῦ ξ. The hiatus is permitted in words of every description, and in every kind of metre, which are used as exclamations. So Philokt. 832, ἔθι ἴθι μοι παίων ;

Eur. Troad. 98.

"I have

192, 193. ὅπου μακραίωνι στηρίζει ποτὲ τῷδ ̓ ἀγωνίῳ σχολᾷ. written ποτί (i. e. πρός) from conjecture, in place of ποτέ, the reading of