and are entirely due to some corrector anxious to improve the language of his author. The participle govoũvras is equally appropriate to the sense of the passage, and is found in precisely the same antithesis, at Trach. 1230, τὸ μὲν νοσοῦντι θυμοῦσθαι κακόν· τὸ δ ̓ ὧδ ̓ ὁρᾶν φρονοῦντα τις ποτ ̓ ἂν φέροι;

262. λύπῃ ἐλήλαται. SCHOL. : ὑπὸ λύπης ἐλαύνεται. On the employment of αú in the figurative sense of vexare, agitare, see below, vv. 479, 714; Eur. Androm. 30; Iph. T. 79; Ion. 1619; Soph. Ed. Tyr. 28; Ed. Kol. 1747. So also in prose-writers. Plat. Phædr. p. 240. D, ἀλλ' ὑπ ̓ ἀνάγκης τε καὶ οἴστρου ἐλαύνεται; Demosth. Phil. 3. 54, θεὸς τὰ πράγματα ἐλαύνει. On the adverbial use of πᾶς = πάντως, prorsus, see Jelf's Gr. Gr. 714, Obs. 2; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 516, and compare infra, v. 494, ἐν σοὶ πᾶς ἔγωγε σώζομαι ; ν. 686, πᾶς .... θανεῖν. 264. Aga. "This particle has here the same force as äga oix, nonne. So also below, v. 1220; Elektr. 614, 790, 816; Ed. Tyr. 822; Ed. Kol. 753, 780. Cf. Hermann ad Vig. p. 823, and Matthiä's Gr. Gr. 614." WUNDER. Add Monk to Eur. Alkest. 351; Porson, Præf. ad Hek. p. xiv.

265. Ξύμφημι δή σοι. With the commencement of this senarius Lobeck aptly compares Ed. Kol. 1748; Elektr. 1257. Add Ed. Tyr. 553, 642; Philokt. 1310. δέδοικα μὴ 'κ θεοῦ πληγή τις ἥκῃ. Nearly all the manuscripts and old editions have x, as Plut. V. Pelop. X., igārs un diaragarra, where Schäfer has restored the conjunctive. "Erfurdt reads

x on the authority of Suidas and one manuscript. Perhaps the true reading is xs. The words un й×ŋ or μà йs signify ne venerit. Erfurdt justly remarks that x does not signify venio, but veni. In the same manner, doua signifies abii, not abeo. Both these verbs are more nearly allied to ἐλήλυθα than to ἔρχομαι. Now it is well known that after δέδοικα μń, öga μń, &c., the Greeks frequently employ the indicative to express that sense which the Latins express by the præter-perfect of the subjunctive. Thus, the Chorus in the Orestes of Euripides, believing that Orestes is dead, says to Elektra, ν. 208, Ὅρα παροῦσα, παρθέν ̓ Ἠλέκτρα, πέλας Μὴ κατθανών σε σύγγονος λέληθ' ὅδε. See Budæus, p. 252, ed. 1548; Hoogeveen, pp. 708, 709. Among the examples produced by the grammarians is the following passage of Demosthenes (De Fals. Leg. p. 342, 8): Καὶ τὸ χρόνον γεγενῆσθαι μετὰ τὴν πρεσβείαν πολὺν, δέδοικα μή τινα λήθην, ἢ συνήθειαν τῶν ἀδικημάτων ὑμῖν ἐμπεποιήκει. Are we to read ἐμπεποιήκε with Lambinus and Markland, or iμTony with Reiske? We do not condemn the subjunctive, but we strongly suspect that, if Demosthenes had

employed it in this passage, he would have said isoinnòs. The orators generally, if not always, express this subjunctive and its corresponding optative by the auxiliary verb and the participle. Thus we find in the same relation βεβοηθηκὼς ᾖ, p. 345. 29 ; συμβεβηκός εἴη, p. 351.9; πεποιηκότες εἴητε (εἶτε), p. 363. 19; δεδωκότες ἦτε, p. 411. 3. To return to Sophokles, the same arguments which lead us to suspect that is the true reading in the verse before us, induce us to propose ßißnns, Philokt. 493." ELMSLEY. The conjecture of this acute critic is supported by the authority of the MS. Ven., which exhibits, and by the scholion μǹ 2 in the MS. Ien. It is condemned, although without remark, by Matthia ad Eur. Phon. 93, and is pronounced inferior to x by Hermann and most subsequent editors.

266. Is yág, for nãs yàg ou, how can it but be, i. e. yes assuredly. See Matth. Gr. Gr. 611. 4; Scholefield, Append. ad sch. Eumen. 577; Koen. ad Greg. Cor. p. 144; and compare Xen. Mem. 4. 4. 13, oùxouv ὁ μὲν τὰ δίκαια πράττων δίκαιος, ὁ δὲ τὰ ἄδικα ἄδικος; Πῶς γὰρ οὔ; 268. Ως ὧδ ̓ ἐχόντων, κ. τ. λ. That this is so you must be assured. On the construction of us with the participle, where we might have expected r with a finite verb, or, as in Latin, the accusative with the infinitive, ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν ἐπίστασο, see Lobeck to this verse, Blomfield ad Æsch. Agam. 1364, and Matthia's Gr. Gr. 569. 7. Cf. also Philokt. 253; Antig. 1063; Ed. Kol. 1583; Plat. Crit. p. 108. B, ŵs imagxovons avrậ ovyzváμns forw. Tekmessa, in her reply, as Jäger accurately teaches, opposes ἐπίστασθαί σε χρή to the language of the Chorus, δέδοικα μή, etc., in the following sense: certa res est, a dis immissam Ajaci insaniam esse, non dubia, ut tibi videtur, i. e. that the malady of Aias is the infliction of some deity is not a mere matter of fearful conjecture, but of certainty and fact. Wunder compares Ter. Andr. 3. 2. 30: opinor, narras; non recte accipis certa res est.

269. #gociπtato. So Aldus and the manuscripts, with Eustathius, p. 527. 52. Brunck, relying upon the authority of the old grammarians, says that rapa is not Attic. He has accordingly displaced the common reading rara for Tirera, at Eur. Ion. 90, Ar. Avv. 573, 574, and in our own passage has written gorerrero. Porson to Eur. Med. 1 observes that “ the Attics employ in the present πέτομαι, πέταμαι, in the aorist ἐπτόμην, ἐπτάμην, the former of which I consider preferable, although not to be introduced in opposition to manuscripts. Brunck, therefore, has well edited vsætóμav in Soph. Aj. 657.” Mœris, p. 311, wíroμasπέτεται Αττικοί ; πέταμαι· πέταται Ἕλληνες. See Matth. Gr. Gr.

246, p. 428; Thom. M. p. 473; Græv. ad Luc. Soloc. t. 9. p. 485; Lobeck ad Phryn. p. 323 sq. Dindorf compares Æsch. Prom. 644, θεόσσυτον χειμῶνα καὶ διαφθορὰν | μορφῆς, ὅθεν μοι σχετλίᾳ προσέπτατο ; Eur. Alhest. 420, ἐπίσταμαί τε κοὐκ ἄφνω κακὸν τόδε | προσέπτατο.

5.

271. ὡς κοινωνὸς ὤν. The comparative particle ὡς in construction with the participle denotes the thought, opinion, supposition, or view in which, or the pretext under which, the action or state expressed by the participle is conceived to exist. It may be rendered by quippe. Cf. infra, 1043, οὐκ αὐτὸς ἐξέπλευσεν, ὡς αὐτοῦ κρατῶν ; supra, v. 64, ὡς ἄνδρας....ἔχων ; Elektr. 1025, ὡς οὐχὶ συνδράσουσα νουθετεῖς τάδε. See Jelf's Gr. Gr. 701 ; Liddell and Scott, s. 272. ἄκρας νυκτός. SCHOL. : περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον. πιθανῶς δὲ καὶ τὸ τοῦ χρόνου πρόσκειται· οἱ γὰρ ἐπιβουλεύοντες τότε τὰς ἐξόδους ποιοῦνται, ὥστε λαθεῖν τὰς παραφυλακάς. ἡνίχ ̓ ἕσπεροι.] ἢ ὅτε οὐκ ἔφαινον ἔτι οἱ ἔσπεροι ἀστέρες, ἢ ὅτε ἐσβέσθησαν οἱ λύχνοι. συνετῶς δὲ καὶ οὐ κατὰ μαινόμενον, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ καιροῦ γὰρ ἐννοίας ἐπιβουλεύοντος, ἐπιθέσθαι περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον. λαμπτῆρες δὲ, οἱ κατὰ τὴν οἰκίαν φαίνοντες λύχνοι. “The former writing, οἱ ἔσπεροι ἀστέρες, is approved by Spanheim ad Callim. Η. in Del. 303 ; the latter is justly preferred by Valcknäer to Hdt. 7. 215. For although the stars are termed λαμπτῆρες by Manetho, 5. 426, and ἔσπερα λύχνα by Nonnus, 2. 324, it is nevertheless clear that in our passage the foculi or grates are meant, upon which dry wood and pine were burnt for the illumination of the sleeping apartments. Galenus, Ereg. p. 512, λαμπτήρ ὃν οἱ πολλοὶ φανὸν, παρὰ μέντοι τοῖς ̓Αττικοῖς ἐν ᾧ ξύλα κατεκαίετο παρίξοντα φῶς. Eustathius, p. 1848. 32, λαμπτῆρες ἐσχάραι μετέωροι ἢ χυτρόποδες, ἐφ ̓ ὧν ἔκαιον. Cf. Odyss. 18. 304, αὐτίκα λαμπτῆρας τρεῖς ἔστασαν ἐν μεγάροισιν, ὄφρα φαείνοιεν. Theokrit. Id. 25. 47. In this way the Greeks were accustomed to distinguish the appearance and decline of day, marking the commencement of night by the lighting up of lamps, ἀρχομένης ἡμέρας, μεσούσης, δείλης ὀψίας, περὶ λύχνων ἁφάς, Liban. Decl. T. III. 127. So also Herodotus, 1. c. Dionysius, Antt. 11. 33, Diodoros, 19. 43, and Nikephoros, Breviar. p. 42. B, call twilight περὶ λύχνων Σφάς ; Athenæus, XII. 526. C, μεχρὶ λύχνων ἁφῶν, and the same usage is attributed to the Attics by a grammarian in Anecd. Gr. p. 470, ap' ἑσπέρας οὐκ ἀπεσπέρας ἀλλὰ περὶ λύχνων ἁφάς. The expression vespertina lumina is found in Ammian. Marcell. 16. 8. 9, and they were brought in during the interval which followed the removal of the tables. This period of time was, moreover, called lumina prima, and primam facem (see Oudendorp. ad Apul. Met. II. c. 27), and by more recent writers lucernarum

From the mere mention of the

horam, rò λvxvxov (see Voss. de Vit. Serm. 3. 21), the precise time being somewhat more accurately stated by Galen. de Prænot. ad Epig. 11. 638, Τ. XIV., ὥρας ἐννάτης ἄρτι λύχνων ἡμμένων. In the more advanced hours of the night, these lights either went out spontaneously, or were extinguished : περὶ πρωτὴν φυλακὴν, ἐν ᾧ τῆς ὥρας οἱ πλεῖστοι τὰς ἑσπερία ους σβεννύντες δᾷδας τῇ τῶν ὕπνων ἡγεμονίᾳ τὸ τῶν βλεφάρων ἐκδιδόασι στάdov, Nikeph. Greg. Hist. 15. 8, unless for purposes of convivial enjoyment in lucem proferuntur vigiles lucerna, Hor. Od. 3. 8. 14, which period is denoted by the phrase extrema lucerna, Propert. El. 3. 8. 1. From these considerations, it is evident that Aias did not start upon his expedition prima nocte, as Schäfer asserts, but when the night was considerably advanced, or περὶ πρῶτον ὕπνον, as the Scholiast explains and supports by the additional circumstance that this was an appropriate time for the consummation of his plot, as then all would be buried in deep sleep." LOBECK. Cf. infra, 278, àλλà võv ye ñã; süde orgarós; Dissen to Pind. Pyth. 11. 17; Klausen to Esch. Agam. 737. λaμanges or foculi, we have therefore ample proof as to the time at which Sophokles intended to represent the foray of Aias to have taken place. So Quintus Calaber, 5. 352 sq., distinctly testifies that Aias sallied forth during the night for the purpose of destroying the leaders of the army, and that upon the dawn of day, discovering the mental delusion by which the execution of his project had been defeated, he laid violent hands upon himself. Pindar, Isthm. 4. 58, whilst making no allusion to the slaughter of the cattle, states that he destroyed himself ¿ig iv vuxrí, which expression, according to the Scholiast to that passage, may mean either the close of day, quum noctescit, or midnight, or the still further advanced period of the night. The last of these explanations is, however, supported by the testimony of Arktinos, who narrates that Aias destroyed himself Tegi Tòv gov. Other writers, as Ovid, Met. 13. 391, represent Aias to have fallen upon his sword in the assembly convened for the purpose of adjudicating the arms of Achilles, and Parrhasius has followed this representation in Armorum Judicio, Plin. XXXV. c. 5. The attack made upon the flocks, which is inconsistent with this statement, is expressly mentioned by Lesches, Excc. Proculi, p. 10, ἡ τῶν ὅπλων κρίσις γίνεται καὶ Ὀδυσσεὺς κατὰ βούλησιν ̓Αθηνᾶς λαμβάνει, Αἴας δὲ ἐμμανὴς γενόμενος τήν τε λείαν τῶν ̓Αχαιῶν λυμαίνεται καὶ ἑαυτὸν ἀναιρεῖ, as also by Lycophron, v. 454 ; Hor. Serm. 2. 3. 211; Hygin. Fab. CVII., and others. The same myth is adopted by Sophokles as essential to the integrity of the plot, but the mental delusion is kept carefully separate from his death. The poet

thought it more consistent with the dignity of the hero that he should be portrayed as seeking death, not from the blind impulse of madness, nor in the mere impotence of despair and rage, but from the free and unfettered decision of his own intellect and will." LOBECK.

274. nevás, bootless, vain. SCHOL. : κενάς· τὰς οὐκέτι χρησίμως γενομένας. Cf. Antig. 749, κενὰς γνώμας ; infra, v. 453, ὅστις κεναῖσιν ἐλπίσιν θερμαίνεται ; Elektr. 403, τὸ θηρᾶσθαι κενά.

275. ἐπιπλήσσω, reprove, or chide. Cf. d. Kol. 1727, τί τίδ ̓ ἐπέπληξας ; Plat. Protag. p. 319. D, τούτοις οὐδεὶς τοῦτο ἐπιπλήττει, where this verb has the construction usually found with verbs expressing similar notions ; Hdt. 3. 142, τὰ τῷ πέλας ἐπιπλήσσω ; Æsch. Prom. 80, τραχύτητα μὴ ἐπίπλησοέ μοι. At Plat. Protag. p. 327. A, xãs távтa nai ἐδίδασκε καὶ ἐπέπληττε τὸν μὴ καλῶς αὐλοῦντα, Stallbaum observes, that, as no other instance has yet been found in which the verb izinkúttey is constructed with an accusative of the person, I prefer to regard the accusative as dependent upon the more remote verb." The example he requires may be found in Il. 23. 580, καί μ ̓ οὔτινά φημι ἄλλον ἐπιπλήξειν Aavaav, where this verb is joined, in the same way as μμosoba, with the accusative, without the notion of transmission of blame.

66

....

....

276. Alas. Hermann has edited Alav from the MS. Par. 1 and Suidas. See note to v. 89, supra. τί τήνδ' ἀφορμᾶς πεῖραν. The MSS. Par. 1, г. . Aug. C. Lips. 1. 2, and apparently the MS. Laur. 1, with Suidas, exhibit the reading in the text; the other manuscripts ipogpas, which is approved by Brunck. Hermann, while admitting that the latter verb might stand, has preferred apoguas, “quia de abitu Aiacis intempesta nocte sermo est." So, too, Lobeck, who remarks that i vde πεῖραν ἐφορμᾷς would signify τί ἐπὶ πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς, as πρᾶξιν ἐφ ̓ ἣν euro, Elian. H. Ann. 10. 34, and that Tekmessa, merely seeing Aias making preparations to leave his tent, could not, in her ignorance of his purpose and intention, have said τί ἐπὶ τήνδε τὴν πεῖραν ὁρμᾶς; The Scholiast, misled by v. 274, incorrectly explains Tigav by Togíav or idóv. Compare v. 2 supra; below, v. 445, weiga ris Curnréæ, à¤' ås ... . duλώσω, and 1001, κεἰ μὴ θεῶν τις τήνδε πεῖραν ἔσβεσεν. With the construction ἀφορμᾶς πεῖραν, compare Thuk. 1. 3, ταύτην τὴν στρατείαν ξυνῆλ lov (coire societatem), which is perhaps equivalent to στρατείαν ξυνελθόντες TonovTO. See Hermann to Trach. 158; Xen. Hell. 1. 2. 17, λλas ἐξόδους ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Demosth. 1353. 24, στρατείαν ἐκείνην ἐξέρχεσθαι ; Trachin. 505, παγκόνιτ ̓ ἐξῆλθον ἄεθλ ̓ ἀγώνων, where Wunder has edited

vov from a conjecture of Wakefield, in opposition to the unanimous testi