upon the recovery of his reason, he had come to a full consciousness of the deed he had committed. She portrays his sitting in all the abandon of despair amid the cattle he had slain, speechless, and refusing to partake of either food or drink. Fearing the worst consequences, she implores the Chorus with tears, and by every term of endearment, to enter the tent, and by their well-known presence to kindle other emotions in the mind of her beloved Aias. And at the very instant in which she has succeeded in exciting a vehement yearning in their breasts to behold with their own eyes their mighty leader in his deep misery, a sudden outcry of distress, ringing forth upon the stage from the interior of the tent, heightens their desire to perform those offices of consolation which the humblest friend may hope will not be altogether useless or unacceptable. Now Eurysakes, now Teukros, is invoked. Thereupon, at the express injunction of the Chorus, Tekmessa throws open the doors, and the bloody appearance of the hero, and the other proofs of his unhappy deed, are forthwith revealed. We submit that the poet would have left the very natural emotion of his audience unsatisfied, if he had not permitted them to behold the interior of that most wretched tent. Lastly, the advance of Aias upon the stage would have been wholly inconsistent with the poet's delineation of his character. It is the sense of shame and degradation which has plunged him into the extreme despair depicted by Tekmessa. In such a state of mind, a hero like Aias seeks concealment and solitude, not publicity and the rude gaze of men. These considerations induce us, therefore, to receive the observations of Lobeck with considerable limitation. 336. Μόνοι τ' Hermann long since, in a note to Erfurdt, corrected μóvos r. Lobeck adheres to the writing of the manuscripts, which Wunder declares to be opposed to all grammatical rules. The necessity for alteration is, however, superseded, by regarding the second clause as epexegetical of the antecedent words μόνοι ἐμῶν φίλων. Cf. Eur. Phon. 550, τῷ πλείονι δ ̓ ἀεὶ πολέμιον καθίσταται τοὔλασσον, ἐχθρᾶς θ ̓ ἡμέρας και τάρχεται ; Ibid. 571, ἂν δὲ νικήσῃ σ ̓ ὅδε, Αργεῖά τ ̓ ἔγχη δόρυ τὸ Καδμείων ἔλῃ. il vóμg, in uprightness, in fidelity of duty, i. e. whose attachment has not wavered in consequence of the unhappy circumstances in which your leader is involved. Similarly Antig. 169, μívovras ἐμπέδοις φρονήμασιν. The word ὀρθός is introduced with especial propriety, on account of the comparison which Aias institutes in the following verses between the present state of his fortunes and the condition of a tempesttossed vessel. See Donaldson to Antig. 162 sq. 337. "Idiot's μ'.... xvx^sīta.. Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 422, directs us to ... constructs with upidgoμov, i. e. to regard the whole expression as said poetically for "δεσθε, οἷον ἀμφ ̓ ἐμὲ κῦμα κυκλεῖται. From a comparison of the following passages, - Asch. Prom. 92, ἴδεσθέ μ' οἷα πρὸς θεῶν πάσχω θεός ; Ibid. 1129, ἐσορᾷς μὲ ὡς ἔκδικα πάσχω ; Soph. Trach. 218, Ιδού μ' ἀναταράσσει εὐοῖ μὲ ὁ κισσὸς ἄρτι Βακχείαν ὑποστρέφων ἅμιλλαν ; Antig. 940, λεύσσετε . . τὴν βασίλειαν μούνην λοιπὴν, οἷα πρὸς οΐων ἀνδρῶν πάν σχω, - it seems preferable to refer the accusative of the personal pronoun directly to the verb. Wunder draws attention to the surpassing beauty both of the illustration and of the diction employed by Aias in these verses. In the word nõua he detects an allusion to the gore of the slaughtered beasts, and in the introduction of the comparatively rare and expressive word ans, a reference to the insane impulse which led Aias to perpetrate the butchery. As, therefore, mental alienation was the cause of the slaughter, it is very poetically termed povía, in the same way as we read at Elektr. 96, "Agns poívios, and Antig. 602, Qovía novís. 339. Οἴμ ̓ ὡς ἔοικας, κ.τ.λ. SCHOL. : πρὸς τὴν Τέκμησσαν ὁ λόγος· νομίζω σε ἀληθῆ μοι μεμαρτυρηκέναι περὶ τῆς μανίας τοῦ Αἴαντος· οὕτως γὰρ τὸ πρᾶγμα δείκνυσιν ἡμῖν, ὅτι μανικῶς διετέθη. "On the expression s oxas, cf. Buttmann to Philokt. 1082; Antig. 1270, 1278.” NEUE. On the word @govríorws, Neue objects to the interpretation panxas, which is given by the Scholiast, observing, “ Potius τὸ ἔργον ἔχει ἀφροντίστως, i. e. àμnxávws.” The correctness of this criticism may be doubted, and it seems better to regard ἀφροντίστως ἔχει as simply meaning ἀφροντιστεῖ, 5. ἀφροντιστός ἐστι, mente captus est. In the same way Lobeck has shown that, by the expression ¿pgóvtiσtos gws, Theokr. 10. 20, a frantic, insane love is denoted, and not, as the Scholiast there interprets, i äyav Qgovtí(Wv. Musgrave observes correctly, that the employment of this word must be regarded as in some degree euphemistic. 341. Ἰὼ γένος . . . . πλάτων. All the manuscripts read ἁλίαν. The true reading was first restored by Hermann, who interprets the whole passage in the following way: O qui motu nauticæ expeditionis adjutor navem conscendisti, remisque promovisti. Compare, however, the observation of Porson to Eur. Hek. 293, that "when the Greeks express a person by a circumlocution, they return as soon as possible to the person itself." Lobeck observes correctly, that Hermann's rendering leaves us in doubt whether we are to understand that he intends to convey the same sense as that yielded by Brunck's translation qui conscensa nave (xλárn) marinum agitastis remum (λárn), or has connected rλárn with both verb and participle in the same signification, ὃς ἐπέβης τὴν ναῦν ἑλίσσων αὐτήν. Erfurdt follows the suggestion of the last-named scholar, that dugo or "I must be supplied, O! qui nave vectus in Troadem venisti, and this is probably the simplest explanation that can be given. It is, however, by no means free from objection. Whether any other writer than Sophokles has made use of the expression ἑλίσσειν πλάτην οι κώπην is doubtful. The Homeric word iλixwwes has been referred by some to this etymon, and would therefore signify οἱ τὰς κώπας ἑλίσσοντες. The verb ἑλίσσειν, which is used in its own strict signification in Elektr. 736, oùv d' inícostai TunToïs ¡μãos, is here applied to the rapid turning of the oars in rowing, and seems to differ from grow in this respect, that it denotes that rotatory movement imparted to the oar which we express by a somewhat different figure, in the common phrase feathering the oar. On ἀρωγός with the genitive, cf. supra, 200; Elektr. 1381. 343. σέ τοι μόνον δέδορκα ποιμένων ἐπαρκέσοντ ̓. Such, without any diversity, is the reading of all the manuscripts. The commentators have proposed many methods of explanation and emendation. The difficulty consists in the introduction of the word μsvwv, which the Scholiast explains by τῶν κηδομένων, τῶν βοηθῶν· ὡς καὶ ποιμαίνειν τὸ φροντί ζειν. [Εἰς τὸ αὐτό.] ποιμένων· τῶν ἐμὲ ποιμαινόντων καὶ θαλπόντων. So, too, Hermann, who remarks that the genitive Touévwv depends upon μóvov, as in v. 335 supra, and that the friends of Aias, and not the hero himself, are denoted by this word. On the other hand, Lobeck accurately observes, that, if "the Chorus had called Aias its μ, no difficulty would have arisen, since this substantive is used for undeμwv, in the same way as ropaive for fovere; but that subjects should be denominated the waves of their king, whatever amount of sympathy and assistance they may give him when in sorrow, seems highly inconsistent." To this consideration may be added the difficulty of understanding who are the remaining protectors or omives of Aias, to whom this unwillingness to render him support is imputed. In addition to the personal relatives of Aias, whose continued attachment the poet can have no intention to impugn, the Chorus, representing, as it notoriously does, the whole body of Salaminians who accompanied him to Troy, must be supposed to comprise the entire number of his dependants and friends. That the self-reliant and haughty Aias, who regarded with contempt the proffered aid of the gods themselves, and who is recognized in express terms by the Chorus, vv. 1150 sqq. as its diμaros Teoßoλà nui ßsλśwv, should invoke by the title of his protectors the men of whom he was himself the bulwark and defender, is entirely inconsistent with the Sophoklean concep tion of this hero, and in opposition to the whole spirit of the heroic age. Whilst the sense yielded by this explanation — Thou, thou alone of my protectors wilt assist me; therefore kill me — -is jejune and inappropriate. Lobeck's explanation, that the genitive μvwv refers to Aias, and is dependent upon ἐπαρκέσοντα, is set aside by the fact that έπαρκεῖν in the sense of to help or assist must be constructed with a dative of the person receiving the assistance. If the article had been joined with the participle, it might, occupying the place of a substantive, have been constructed with a genitive. But in our own passage the participle stands alone, and is purely verbal : δέδορκά σε ἐπαρκέσοντα being equivalent to δέδορκά σε ἐπαρxéσev, or imagnioris, às ig. Hence, then, the dative, in conformity with universal usage, is imperatively necessary. Bernhardy, Synt. p. 181, follows Musgrave in supposing that Sophokles has employed the genitive in imitation of the Homeric phrases ἁμυμόμενοι Καλυδῶνος, νηῶν ἡμύνοντο, and other instances cited by Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 354. Such a view is not merely opposed by the general considerations above mentioned, but by the fact that μúvsoba, signifies in these passages to keep off or ward from, which is a sense that the participle in our own verse can by no means bear. Thus, then, nothing is left us but to regard Toμivwv as corrupt, Wunder has received Reiske's emendation nuovάv, from which he elicits the following sense: Du, du allein, ich weiss es gewiss, wirst die Schande von mir abwenden, darum tödte mich; "You, O true friends, will not suffer men to behold your leader in such degradation, but will remove him by death from their contemptuous gaze." In this way, it is true, the grammatical accuracy of the passage is restored, and a suitable sentiment obtained, but the unanimity of the MSS., and the certainty that the word μn, was read by the Scholiast and Suidas, must be regarded as sufficient proofs that this word, in one or other of its cases, must be here retained. By simply substituting ποιμενοῖν for ποιμένων, and constructing it as the dative dual with iragéσoura, all difficulty both as to sense and syntax will, in our judgment, disappear. The dual may be understood either of Aias and Tekmessa, at whose special invocation the Chorus had repaired to the presence of the hero, or of Aias and Eurysakes, whom the speaker subsequently recommends, in the absence of Teukros, to the protection and friendly offices of the Chorus. .... .... 345. Mỳ xanov .... rider. "Musgrave writes as 'multo elegantius' μὴ . . . . δίδου . . . . τιθείς, without perceiving that this is inadmissible on account of the metre. The arrangement of the words, which Stobæus, Serm. CVIII. 55, and Suidas, s. Пñμa, have preserved, is abundantly justified by vv. 193, 194, supra, where στηρίζει φλέγων is read for φλέγεις στηριζόμενος. The explanation of the construction given by the Scholiast, μὴ τὸ πῆμα ποίει πλέον τῆς ἄτης, i. e. noli committere, ut insania (ἄτης) pudore ad gravius malum, mortem, adigaris, is manifestly erroneous. Much more accurate is the statement subsequently given: πῆμα ἄτης κατὰ περίφρασιν τὴν ἄτην. So also Eustathius, p. 1461. 68: 'Oμńgov rixóvtoS πῆμα ἄτης ὁ ζηλωτὴς αὐτοῦ ὁ Σοφοκλῆς πῆμα ἄτης φησὶν, ὅ ἐστιν ἄτη περιφραστικῶς. In the same way πῆμα κακοῦ, Odyss. 3. 152; πῆμα νόσου, Philokt. 765; employed by Plato, Protag. p. 340. D, in the proverbial expression: εἰμί τις γελοῖος ἰατρός· ἰώμενος μεῖζον τὸ νόσημα ποιῶ.” LOBECK. Add rà Toûde Txevbiły zńpara, Ed. Kol. 743. Render, therefore, Do not, by applying ill as a remedy to ill, make thy calamity the greater. 348. ἐν δαΐοις ἄτρεστον μάχαις. "Some MSS., Aldus, and Triclinius read datas. Suidas, in citing these verses, s. 'Apoßóorλayxvos, preserves the masculine case-ending. Daïaïs iv inQogais, Æsch. Choëph. 426 ; dutas róλpas, Eur. Androm. 837; but daïw re λóyxg, Troad. 1301, where some manuscripts exhibit datą; datos.... xeges, Herc. 915." LOBECK. Below, v. 472, & data Fixμnova. Matthiä to Eur. Herc. 1002, observes : "Monet Elmslejus & dáïs non usurpari a Tragicis: non meminerat igitur Soph. Aj. 742." The learned scholar is mistaken. In the verse referred to, & data is written in all the ancient copies, by Suidas, s. * daïa, and Moschopulus, Schol. ad Il. 2. 23; the only exception being, that in the MS. Leid. Suidæ dnia is read, a form which Hermann affirms to be never used in tragic senarii, except in relation to an enemy, and, it may be added, is not to be found at all in the Tragedies, except in those of Eschylus. 349. iv apóßors Ongoi. Who the critics may be, to whom Musgrave alludes as entertaining the opinion that a prefixed in the word "poßos is intensive, we are ignorant. It is at once evident that such an interpretation is in entire antagonism to the sense of the passage, since the destruction of such animals would have been a praise and distinction to Aias, as that of the Kalydonian boar to Meleagros, instead of an ignominy and disgrace. His peculiar degradation consists, as Wunder observes, in having made an attack upon tame domestic animals, who fear nothing at the hands of any rational man, but rather give him freely their confidence and trust. The Scholiast interprets τοῖς μὴ φόβον ἐμποιοῦσι, which is approved by Hermann, and would be Englished by not formidable. Cf. Ed. Kol. 39, μpoßor traí, where the adjective means terribiles, not trepida. Others, however, according to Lobeck, understand the expression under consideration in the following sense: "pecudes securas nihilque sibi ab hominibus timentes," tame |