.... .... ... mony of all the manuscripts, whilst the Scholiast says that alov is for διήνυσαν, ἐπεξῆλθον, ἠγωνίσαντο. In its own strict meaning, however, this verb has the accusative instead of the genitive in Hdt. 8. 29, alov hv Пegoída xwgav, like the Latin verbs egredi, excedere, in Plin. Ep. 7. 33, Historia non debet egredi veritatem; Liv. 2. 2, Nescio an Romani modum excesserint; although in their strict signification, to go out, they are generally constructed with ex. So, also, Aristot. Pol. 3. 14, and metaphorically Nymphiodor. ap. Athen. XII. p. 536. A, rà vóμiμa ižiexsolar. Besides Thuk. 1. 15, ἐκδήμους στρατείας ἐξήεσαν, the verb ἐξίεναι is found with the accusative in Trachin. 159, which passage has not escaped Lobeck, and we read in Xen. Hell. 4. 2. 13, ràv àμçíaλov isvai, to march out of the Isthmus. So, too, Eur. Alkest. 187, nai báraμov. ἐξιοῦσα ; Ibid. 610, ὑμεῖς δὲ προσείπατ ̓ ἐξιοῦσαν ὑστάτην ὁδόν. In the signif cation to rush upon, attack, ¿Qoquãoba is joined with the accusative in Il. 15. 691, ἀλλ ̓ ὥστ ̓ ὀρνίθων πετεηνῶν αἰετὸς αἴθων ἔθνος ἐφορμᾶται. See Göller ad Thuk. 3. 31. On the accusative with ovvigxolai, see below, v. 466, iTi Tò còv déxos Eurñabor, in place of which we find the dative in Ed. Tyr. 572. Cf. Porson to Eur. Phœn. 831 ; Plato, Rep. 7, p. 537, izeidàv rà rgiáxovTO ἔτη ἐκβαίνωσιν ; Ibid. p. 462. Β, ὅταν δὲ δὴ αἱ γυναῖκες καὶ οἱ ἄνδρες τοῦ γεννᾶν ἐκβῶσι τὴν ἡλικίαν ; and again, p. 338. Ε, καὶ τὸν τοῦτο ἐκβαίνοντα κολάζουσιν, where Schneider has received τούτου from the MS. Ven. C, although acknowledging that Touro, the reading of the MS. Ven. B. and Aldus, is æque bonum"; Eur. Herc. F. 82, yaías ögia inßaive; Plat. Sympos. p. 183. Β, ὅτι καὶ ὀμνύντι μόνῳ συγγνώμη παρὰ θεῶν ἐκβάντι τὸν gzov, where, although one manuscript has rv ogxwv, the accusative is read in the MSS. Vat. A. Ven. E. Vind. 2. 7, Par. Aug. and Cyrillus c. Julian. 6, p. 187. In our own passage, sigav is not the strict cognate accusative, nor does it express, as Mitchell observes, the actual cognate notion of the verb, but is rather what Kühner terms the accusative of equivalent notion, i. e. a notion substituted for the true cognate notion, as being that "wherein the action or state or effect of the verb for the time being consists, and being in a sort of opposition to it, as Esch. Choeph. 144, VTκατθανεῖν δίκην = lávarov, which is the dízny, to suffer punishment of death in turn," where, however, Hermann directs us to write avrina¬laviv diny. This equivalent substantive can be resolved into a cognate substantive and a genitive; as at Eur. Or. 1519, ävтavysły póvav versa, as ἀντικατθανεῖν δίκην = = αὐγὴν φόνον, or vice δίκην θανάτου, or it might assume an adjec tival form. Consult note to v. 410, infra. 279. Ὁ δ' ... . ἀεὶ δ'. "The particle dé is frequently repeated in the tenor of the same sentence. When this occurs, the first di must be connected with iv, expressed or understood, in an adversative relation, the second δέ serving merely to continue the sentence. Cf. Trachin. 950; Philokt. 882, 959; but more particularly Elektr. 711 – 714, 917 – 918, 997 – 999." ELLENDT. ὑμνούμενα. SCHOL. : ἀεὶ θρυλούμενα ὑπὸ πάντων ἀνθρώπων καὶ κοινά, ἢ ἀεὶ ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ λεγόμενα πρὸς ἐμέ. The first is the true explanation. Plat. Pol. p. 549. Ε, ὅσα καὶ οἷα φιλοῦσιν αἱ γυναῖκες περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ὕμνειν ; Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 33, τὰ δὲ Παλαμήδους οὐκ ἀκήκοας πάθη; τοῦτον γὰρ δὴ πάντες ὑμνοῦσιν. Cf. Musgrave to Eur. Andr. 628. 280. With the sentiment expressed in this verse compare Нom. П. 6. 490; Eur. Herakl. 477, γυναικὶ γὰρ σιγή τε καὶ τὸ σωφρονεῖν Κάλλιστον. In Esch. Theb. 234, Eteokles is represented as rebuking the chorus of virgins in these words: σὸν δ ̓ αὖ τὸ σιγᾶν καὶ μένειν ἔσω δόμων. Heliodor. Ethiopp. I. p. 36, πρέπειν γὰρ οἶμαι γυναικὶ μὲν σιγὴν, κ. τ. λ. ; Elian. ap. Suid. s. v. Κόσμος· καὶ ἄλλα εἰργάσατο ἀσεβείας ἐχόμενα, ἃ μοι σιγῶντι κόσμον φέρει ; Plautus, Rud. 4. 4. 70, Tacita bona 'st mulier semper, quam loquens. The Schol. Barocc. to this verse writes : ἐκ τῶν τοῦ Καλλιστράτου· ὥσπερ γὰρ τὰ φύλλα κόσμον τοῖς δένδρεσι φέρει, τὰ δὲ ἔρια τοῖς προβάτοις, ἡ δὲ χαίτη τοῖς ἵπποις, ἡ δὲ γενειὰς τοῖς ἀνδράσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡ σιωπὴ κόσμον ταῖς γυναιξὶ φέρει. .... .... 282. Καὶ τὰς πάθας. SCHOL. : τοῦτο μὲν ἀγνοεῖ ἡ Τέκμησσα λέγειν, τοῦτο δὲ προεῖπεν αὐτὰ ὁ ποιητής· ὡς ἐνοχλεῖν οὐ δεῖ τὸν θεατὴν ταυτολογοῦντα. Suidas s. v. Πάθας exhibits καὶ τὰς μὲν ἔνδον . φράζειν πάθας, the word ἔνδον being manifestly erroneous. The MS. Dresd. a. and the Triclinian editions read λέγειν τύχας, but πάθας is defended, not only by the best manuscripts, but also by Ed. Kol. 7, στέργειν γὰρ αἱ πάθαι, κ.τ.λ. ; Antig. 978 ; Ast to Plat. Legg. III. 2, p. 146 ; Koen. ad Greg. Cor. p. 425. As the Scholiast observes, the term belongs rather to the poet's knowledge than to Tekmessa's. Ellendt justifies its employment propter strages editas ab Aiace, de quibus certe infelicissime ominabatur Tecmessa." σε 284. κύνας βοτῆρας. SCHOL.: ὕφ ̓ ἣν ἀναγνωστέον, τοὺς ποιμενικοὺς κύνας· οὐ γὰρ ἀναιρεῖ κατὰ τὴν σκηνὴν ἄνθρωπον. 285. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν, κ. τ. λ. Compare the statement made at v. 229 sqq., of which our passage is a mere repetition. Αὐχενίζειν is cervice cadenda caput amputare; ἄνω τρέποντα σφάζειν, capite resupinato guttur ferire, see Eustathius, p. 134. 7; ῥαχίζειν, spinam dorsi secare.” HERMANN. 288. Τέλος δ ̓ ὑπάξας. SCHOL. : ἡ μὲν Τέκμησσα ἠγνόει, τίνι διείλεκται· ἡμεῖς δὲ μεμαθήκαμεν ἐκ τοῦ προλόγου, ὅτι ̓Αθηνᾶ ἦν ἡ λαλήσασα αὐτῷ· τὸ δὲ σκιᾷ τινί, ὅτι οὐ συνέβαλε τὰ περὶ τὴν θεόν. Some manuscripts and Aldus read iratas; the MS. Laur. B. and Scholiast raigas; but the preponderance of authority is greatly in favor of ὑπάξας οι ὑπαΐξας. Ellendt shows that or is the verbum proprium of persons quitting the house; or, of persons reëntering it. 289. Λόγους ἀνέσπα. Eustathius, p. 679. 63 : ἐπὶ ἀλαζονείας τὸ ἀνασπᾶν, ὡς δηλοῖ παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ τὸ λόγους ἀνέσπα. HESYCHIUS: ἀνασπᾷ, ἐπαίρει. Menander, Fragm. p. 153, πόθεν τούτους ἀνεσπάκασιν οὗτοι τοὺς λόγους. Ar. Ach. 1069, τὰς ἀφοῦς ἀνεσπακὼς ὥσπερ τι δεινὸν ἀγγελῶν. Render, therefore, he uttered words of boastful vaunt. 290. γέλων πολύν. The MSS. T. Ien. Toλùv yiλwv. Hence the proverbial expression, Alávreios yśλws, on which see note to v. 230 supra. 291. ἐκτίσαιτ'. "In our opinion, Lobeck and Erfurdt have acted injudiciously in not reading ixricar' with Musgrave and Bothe. Although Tekmessa makes use of the plural number, aurav, she alludes to the flagellation which Aias was about to inflict on Odysseus, when he was called out of his tent by Athene. See vv. 105 110. If we retain ἐκτίσαιτο, Aias must be understood to speak of what he had already done, not of what he intended to do. Compare Trach. 793, Tò dvowágsvvov λixτgov ἐνδατούμενος Σοῦ τῆς ταλαίνης, καὶ τὸν Οἰνέως γάμον, Οἷον κατακτήσαιτο avμáveny Bíov. Musgrave observes, that, if the poet had represented Aias as speaking of a past transaction, he would not have added iv to inriCRITO." ELMSLEY. This eminent scholar appears to have too hastily approved the emendation of Musgrave. Ὕβριν ἐκτίνεσθαι would, according to general usage, signify to exact payment for, or to revenge the insolent conduct of another. But Tekmessa here describes the exultation of Aias on account of the cruel vengeance which he had wreaked upon the Atreide and Odysseus; so that the words any üße make no allusion to haughty insolence on the part of the sons of Atreus and Odysseus, but are limited exclusively to the revenge taken by Aias. We should therefore have expected that τιμωρίαν oι τίσιν would have been used by the poet. As Sophokles, however, wished to specify more accurately the precise character of the vengeance or atonement taken, or, in other words, to attract attention to the outrageous cruelty with which Aias had revenged the treatment he had sustained at the hands of his adversaries (vv. 111–113), he has substituted ße, which must be understood in a passive signification, and as expressing the idea which would have been conveyed had Tí occupied its place. Hence the language here employed is equivalent to this : ὡς ὑβριστικὴν (αἰκιστικὴν) τίσιν ἐκτίσαιτο. Lobeck rightly defends the aorist by remarking that the ßes of Aias towards his imaginary foes commenced with their captivity, many of them at the time of his conversation with Athene having been already slain, and the remainder bound, carried off, and treated with various indignities. On the participle iv, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 557, note 2. 292. izažas. The MSS. La. Aug. C. and several others awaïgas. 294. άτης. "We must understand here, not only the slaughter perpetrated on the flocks by Aias, but the calamity in which he had involved himself by that act of madness." WUNDER. .... 295. ἐν δ ̓ ἐρειπίοις . povov. Prostratus autem sedebat in prostratis cadaveribus cæsarum ovium. So Wunder, who observes, that, just as ipsíπια νεκρῶν is put here for ἐρειφθέντες νεκροί, we find πτώματα νεκρῶν for TETOVTES vengo in Eur. Phon. 1490. Objectionable as the expression guptis ero may appear to us, it is kept in countenance by v. 312, infra, ἐν μέσοις βοτοῖς σιδηροκμῆσιν ἥσυχος θακεῖ πεσών, where θακεῖ πεσών is, to say the least, quite as incongruous as igupteis To, and by Virg. Æn. 7. 94, ovium effultus tergo stratisque jacebat velleribus. The word povos is frequently used by the Tragedians to denote id quod occisum est. Cf. below, v. 521, νεοσφαγῆ . . . . φόνον ; Eur. Elektr. 92, αἷμα μηλείου φόνου, the blood of the slaughtered sheep, where see Seidler's note; Orest. 992, Μυρτίλου φόνον δικὼν ἐς οἶδμα πόντου ; Ibid. 1358, πρὶν ἐτύμως ἴδω τὸν Ἑλένας φόνον καθαιμακτὸν ἐν δόμοις κείμενον. The use of cades by the Latin poets is similar. Virg. Æn. 10. 245, crastina lux . . . . ingentes Rutulæ spectabit cædis acervos. 297. ἀπρὶξ ὄνυξι. Hermann directs us to combine these words, and to regard them as a single adverb. Wakefield, Silv. Cr. 2. 24, substitutes Tigi in place of xsgi, which word, he says, cannot stand with ovo. The poets, however, frequently avail themselves of this σxãμa nar' ¿1⁄2‚x», as it is termed, and associate the names of two parts of the body, one of which would be sufficiently indicated by the mention of the other, either with or without the copula. Hom. I. 10. 158, λàž rodi nivńoas. Below, τ. 1091 sqq., οὕτω δὲ καὶ σὲ καὶ τὸ σὸν λάβρον στόμα σμικροῦ νέφους τάχ ̓ ἄν τις ἐκπνεύσας μέγας χειμῶν κατασβέσεις τὴν πολλὴν βοήν. Eur. Phon. 1390, ἔγχος ἐκ χερὸς τῆσδ ̓ ἀπ ̓ ὠλένης βαλεῖν ; Quint. Cal. 13. 9, χειρὶ δράγδην ἔγκατ ̓ ἔχοντες. Plut. V. Cat. Maj. c. 20, Ty xugi muž #aisi. Cf. Matthia's Gr. Gr. 636; Kühner, 858. 3. 299. τὰ δείν “ Without the article, δείν ̓ ἀπειλήσων ἔπη, Eur. Suppl. 542; with it, Dio Cass. 45. 30, Tñs Qwvñs rà davà insīva λεγούσης, signifying those things which were known to the auditors, as at Eur. Or. 376, ὃς τὰ δείν ̓ ἔτλη κακά. But in our own verse those threats are meant which persons grievously enraged generally utter to themselves, i. e. he threatened me with death, τὰ ἔσχατα ἠπείλησε, Aristid. Panath. p. 109, T. 1. In the same way, Eur. Phan. 185, ὃς τὰ δείν ἐφυβρίζει πόλει, i. e. excisionem ; Xen. Kyr. 4. 2. 35, πάντα τὰ χαλεπὰ ἀνεῖπε.” LOBECK. Add v. 1164, below : σὲ δὴ τὰ δεινὰ ῥήματ ̓ ἀγγέλ λουσί μοι πλῆναι. Philokt. 108, οὐκ αἰσχρὸν ἡγεῖ δῆτα τὰ ψευδῆ λέγειν ; 300. Brunck, who first admitted pavoíny into the text, believed it to be the optative of the aor. ἔφανον. In this acceptation, φανοίην is certainly contra linguam. The 2 aor. ἔφανον does not exist ; and if it did, its optative would be φάνοιμι. But if we agree with Burmann, as quoted by Erfurdt, in considering pavoíny as the optative of the contracted future Çava, it may safely be pronounced a legitimate Greek word. In my note to Ed. Tyr. 538, I have pointed out ἐροίη in Xenophon, and διαβαλοίην in Plato. With regard to the construction, Erfurdt properly compares ἀφει δήσοι, Antig. 414; ἀφαιρήσοιτο, Philokt. 376. So Xen. Sympos. 1. 7, ὡς δὲ πάνυ ἀχθόμενος φανερὸς ἦν, εἰ μὴ ἕψοιντο, συνηκολούθησαν. We prefer φανοίην τo φανείη for the following reasons : - the difference between εἰ μὴ φανοίην and εἰ μὴ φανείη is the same as the difference between εἰ μὴ φανῶ and ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Εἰ μὴ φανοίην has the same relation to εἰ μὴ φανῶ that εἰ μὴ φανείη has to ἐὰν μὴ φανῇ. Now it appears to us that the active future is rather more proper in this place than the passive subjunctive. We would rather say, I will burn your house, if you do not put ten pounds in a certain place, than, I will burn your house unless ten pounds are put in a certain place. Compare Antig. 306, εἰ μὴ τὸν αὐτόχειρα τοῦδε τοῦ τάφου Εὑρόντες ἐκφανεῖτ ̓ ἐς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐμοὺς, Οὐχ ̓ ὑμῖν Αΐδης μοῦνος ἀρκέσει, πρὶν ἄν, κ.τ.λ. ; Ibid. 324, Κόμψευέ νυν τὴν δόξαν. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὴ φα νεῖτέ μοι τοὺς δρῶντας, ἐξερεῖθ ̓ ὅτι Τὰ δειλὰ κέρδη πημονὰς ἐργάζεται. The passage before us would be exactly similar to these passages, if the poet had put the threats of Aias into his own mouth, instead of throwing them into Tekmessa's narrative. Lobeck reads pavoíny with Brunck; Erfurdt reads φανείη with Porson. Bothe reads neither φανοίην nor φανείη, but rejects the verse as spurious.” ELMSLEY. 301. κυροῖ. The common copies read κνρεῖ, and the Scholiast κύροι, το which he appends the following observations : τὸ κυρῶ περισπωμένως φησὶν ἡ συνήθεια καὶ ̓Αττικοί· ἐν δὲ εὐκτικοῖς βαρύνουσιν αὐτὸ ̓Αττικοὶ μετὰ ἐκτά. σεως τοῦ υ, κύροι λέγοντες ἀντὶ τοῦ κυροίη· νῦν δὲ ἀντὶ τοῦ κυρεῖ ὁριστικοῦ κεῖται. Elmsley, however, asserts that, with the exception of one passage |