Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

431. Qúya räv. We have received, without hesitation, the emendation of Elmsley. The particle y, which the MSS. generally exhibit, is altogether inappropriate, and roi is common in apodosis. See Wellauer to Æsch. Theb. 534; Wunder to Ed. Kol. 1366; Hartung, Griech. Partik. 2. 355; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 736. 3. Compare Esch. Suppl. 78; Agam. 879; Eum. 891; Soph. Elektr. 582; Philokt. 854; Eur. Hippol. 480. The frequent use of roí in the secondary sentence is by no means, however, our chief reason for adopting Elmsley's emendation. For, as that illustrious scholar knew full well, there are almost innumerable passages in which it does not so occur. The reason for his correction he has left the reader to discover for himself, and it is this; that if any word should be emphasized in our passage, it must certainly be i xaxós, or, at all events, not puyo. With the sentiment here expressed, Lobeck properly compares Elektr. 687, ὅταν δέ τις θεῶν βλάπτῃ, δύναιτ' ἂν οὐδ ̓ ἂν ἰσχύων φυγεῖν.

[ocr errors]

432. ὅστις Tgoia. "The force of the relative is apparently extended through all three clauses, ὅντινα θεοὶ ἐχθαίρουσι, μισεῖ δὲ στρατός, ἔχθει δὲ Τροία.” LOBECK. Or we may explain the change of construction in the latter clauses as standing for μισοῦμαι δὲ ὑφ ̓ Ἑλλήνων στρατοῦ, ἔχθομαι δὲ, κ. τ. λ. Similarly, infra, v. 1239, ἣ φύσει μὲν ἦν Βασίλεια, Λαομέδοντος, ἔκκριτον δέ νιν Δώρημ ̓ ἐκείνῳ δοκεν ̓Αλκμήνης γόνος. Hom. Odyss. 9. 20, ὃς πᾶσι δόλοισιν ἀνθρώποισι μέλω καί μευ κλέος οὐρανὸν ἵκει. Demosth. p. 53. 3, οἷς οὐκ ἐχαρίζοντο, οὐδὲ ἐφίλουν αὐτούς. Cic. Orat. 3, ipsius in mente insidebat species pulchritudinis eximia quædam, quam intuens in eaque defixus, ad illius similitudinem artem et manum dirigebat. Id. Fin. 2. 2. 5, hunc ipsum sive finem, sive extremum, sive ultimum definiebas id esse, quo omnia, quæ recte fierent, referrentur, neque id ipsum usquam referretur. On ris, in the sense of quippe qui, see Neue to Elektr. 437; Matthiä, Gr. Gr. 483; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. 385. 6.

434. widía ráde. Hermann, Præf. ad Eur. Hek. p. xxxix., corrects naì xídov róds, in order to avoid the introduction of a tribrach into the fifth foot of a senarius. Compare, however, Philokt. 1303; Eur. Hel. 995; Ion. 1541.

de Legg. I. p. particles, as in

435. Πότερα. In double disjunctive questions introduced by πότερον (orga) in the first clause, is sometimes omitted in the second, as at Ed. Kol. 333; Philokt. 1235; Plat. Protag. p. 359. C; 626. C; or the alternative inquiry is presented by other the present instance by daλà dñr', x. c. λ., at v. 441. "With the expression λιπὼν μόνους ̓Ατρείδας, compare Eur. Hel. 1199, κενὰς λιποῦσ ̓ ἕδρας ; Iph. Αul. 806, οἴκους ἐρήμους ἐκλιπόντες ; Τryphiod. 141, λιπόντες

ἐρημαίην χθονὸς ἀκτήν; Plat. Pol. 298. Β, καταλιπόντες ἐρήμους ; and Plutarch. V. Lucull. c. 30, οἰχήσονται τὸν Πόντον ἔρημον ἀπολιπόντες, i. e. destituentes, and therefore stronger than relinquentes, as the Scholiast teaches in his note upon this passage." LOBECK. On this proleptic employment of the adjective μóvous for wore póvous sivas, see note to v. 69, supra. Perhaps it would be preferable to remove the comma after oxovs and 'Argsides, and connect gòs dinous with the participle, as at Eur. Phon. 87, ἐπεί σε μήτηρ παρθενῶνας ἐκλιπεῖν μεθῆκε μελάθρων ἐς διῆρες ἔσχατον ; Plat. Phœd. 149. C, χώρει· τί μοχθεῖς ταῦτ ̓; ἀνίστασθαί σe xen eis "Agros, oû, x. 7. λ., and other instances quoted by Heindorf to that passage.

437. ποῖον ὄμμα . Τελαμώνι ; "The commentators quote, in illustration of the sentiment and diction, (Ed. Tyr. 1371; Philokt. 110; Eur. Iph. Α. 445, ποῖον ὄμμα συμβάλω; Hdt. 1. 37, νῦν τε τέοισί με χρὴ ὄμμασι φαίνεσθαι; Æschin. c. Ktesiph. p. 512, ποίοις όμμασι τὰς ἱκεσίας Tonsole; Ovid. Her. 6. 145, quo vultu natos, quo me, scelerate, videres?" WUNDER.

441. 'Aλλà d' iv. Lobeck observes that these words may have been written from a recollection of the tradition alluded to in Cic. Tusc. IV. c. 24, semper Ajax fortis, fortissimus tamen cum Danais inclinantibus prælium instituit insaniens; and Philostrat. Her. 11. 721, μavívta autòv ἔδεισαν πλέον μὴ προσβαλὼν τῷ τείχει ῥήξει αὐτό.

443. εἶτα. On the employment of ira or rura after a participle, see Koen. to Greg. Cor. p. 145; Hermann to Vig., note 219, and to Ar. Nub. 857; Schäfer's Mel. Critt. p. 124; Dawes, Misc. Cr. p. 525; and Blomfield to Esch. Prom. 777. Compare Esch. Theb. 267; Agam. 481; Choëph. 573; Eum. 438, 654; Eur. Elektr. 1058; Ar. Ach. 24, 1197. So also in prose-writers. Plat. Charmid. p. 163. A, ixolépɛvos ow@goσύνην εἶναι τὸ τὰ εαυτοῦ πράττειν, ἔπειτα οὐδέν φησι κωλύειν καὶ τοὺς τὰ τῶν ἄλλων πράττοντας σωφρονεῖν. Xen. Mem. 1. 1. 5, προαγορεύων ὡς ὑπὸ θεοῦ φαινόμενα κ τα ψευδόμενος ἐφαίνετω. It may be Englished by straightway, thereupon, or the participle may be resolved into a finite verb, and ira rendered and then, and thereupon. Compare the similar use of inde in Liv. 21. 50 Ob hæc consuli nihil cunctandum visum, quin Lilyboum classe peteret ; et rex regiaque classis una profecti: navigantes inde pugnatum ad Lilyboum fusasque et captas hostium naves accepere.

444. ̓Αλλ ̓ ὧδέ γ' Ατρείδας ἄν. (Mosq. B. Dorvill. B.) furnish

Instead of this reading, two MSS. d'äv 'Argsidas. The MS. Dresd. A.

reads ὧδ' Ατρείδας ἄν. The common reading is unobjectionable. Com

pare v. 111, Μὴ δῆτα τὸν δύστηνον δέ γ' αἰκίσῃ. Else it would be easy to conjecture, Αλλ ̓ ὧδ ̓ ἂν ̓Ατρείδας ἂν εὐφράναιμί που. A similar correction may with more probability be made in the following passage, Eur. Alhest. 646 : Γυναῖκ ̓ ὀθνείαν, ἣν ἐγὼ καὶ μητέρα Πατέρα σε γ ̓ ἐνδίκως ἂν ἡγοίμην μόνην. If Mr. Wakefield had found ὧδ ̓ ἂν ̓Ατρείδας ἄν in his copy of the Aias, perhaps he would have commented upon it in the following terms: 'This repetition of the particle in Greek authors is equally singular and awkward; and yet there are many instances of indubitable legitimacy in this respect, though, as it appears to us, much to their discredit. In the present, we would gladly relieve the clumsiness of this expedient by reading, with several MSS., 'Aaa' aðé y' 'Argsíðus äv εὐφράναιμί που. See the Critical Review, Jan., 1801, p. 9. If a single instance of this repetition of av is discreditable to a writer, what excuse can we make for our poet, who exhibits eight or ten such instances in this single tragedy? See vv. 155, 500, 512, 1003, 1017, 1022, 1088, 1184, 1276. Brunck does not seem to have made up his mind on the subject. He says, in his note on v. 512, invenuste geminatur äv. But he has inserted the following words in his Index to Aristophanes: v eleganter geminatur; Thesm. 196; Ran. 572, 581; Nub. 1396; Ach. 218. To confess the truth, these words eleganter, venuste, &c., are a kind of expletives, which we verbal critics are accustomed to use without attaching much meaning to them. The same construction may be elegant in one place, and inelegant in another, according as we wish to attack or defend the reading in which it is exhibited. It must be observed, that, where the verb is in the subjunctive mood, the repetition of the particle is not only inelegant, but improper. "Av geminatum cum indicativo et optativo sæpissime, cum subjunctivo nunquam conjungunt Attici. Edinburgh Reviewer, Vol. XVII. p. 238. following passage is correct, the Reviewer's very rarely. Ar. Egg. 1108, Ὁπότερος ἂν σφῶν εὖ με μᾶλλον ἂν ποιῇ Τούτῳ παραδώσω τῆς Πνυκὸς τὰς ἡνίας. Perhaps we ought to read, Οπότερος ἂν σφῶν νῦν με μᾶλλον εὖ ποιη.”

....

These are the words of the If the common reading of the nunquam must be interpreted

ELMSLEY.

446. δηλώσω γεγώς. On the attraction of the supplemental participle with verbs, whose complement of predication is incomplete, see Monk to Eur. Alkest. 779; Hermann to Vig. p. 771; Jelf's Gr. Gr. 684. It is imitated by the Latins. Plaut. Asin. 3. 3, Argenti viginti minæ modo ad mortem appulerunt, Quas hodie adulescens Diabolus ipsi daturus dixit. Virg. Æn. 3. 327, sensit medios delapsus in hostes.

449. Κακοῖσιν.... ἐξαλλάσσεται. SCHOL. : ὅστις διαλλαγὴν οὐ δέχεται,

ἀεὶ ἐν κακοῖς ἐξετάζεται. "Stephanus, Thes. L. Gr. T. I. p. 353, translates correctly, qui nullam mutationem accipit in suis malis, i. e. whose misfortunes remain ever in the same condition. A different view of the passage has induced Schneider, Lex. Gr. s. v. ižaλλάoow, to render, qui nihil ab ignavis differt." ERFURDT. Hermann objects to this local acceptation of the dative, and observes that xaxos is not in malis, but malis, i. e. quod attinet ad mala, with respect to his misfortunes. The dative has this signification frequently in the poets. Cf. Ed. Tyr. 25. 557; Ed. Kol. 313; Matthia's Gr. Gr. 400. 6.

....

[ocr errors]

450. Ti gàg κατθανεῖν; SCHOL. : τί γὰρ ἔχει ἡμέρα τέρπειν προστ θεῖσα ἑαυτὴν δηλονότι ἐπὶ ἤματι καὶ ἀνεθεῖσα τοῦ κατθανεῖν ἤγουν ἀπολυθεῖσα καὶ ἐλευθερωθεῖσα τοῦ θανάτου, from which it is apparent that he found avsesioa in his copy, and this is read also in the MSS. Bodl. Par. 1, Aug. C., and is adopted by Brunck. The remainder of the manuscripts exhibit ávaltioa, as also Stobæus, Serm. CXXI. 22. Moschopulus, Lex. s. ̓Ανατίθημι : τὸ ἀναθεῖσα τοῦ κατθανεῖν παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ κατὰ διάφρασιν συντακτέον εἰς γενικὴν, οἷον ὑπέρθεσιν ποιουμένη τοῦ θανάτου. Παρ' ήμαρ is alternis diebus: see H. Stephanus, Thes. L. Gr. s. v. IIagá. The employment of the two verbs προστιθέναι and ἀνατιθέναι accounts for the use of the expression ἡμέρα παρ' ἦμαρ. Nor can we doubt that the common reading καναθεῖσα, which is interpreted by the gloss αναβολὴν ποιήσασα καὶ ἀνάθεσιν, and is supported by the authority of Stobæus, Serm. VII. 3, and CXXI. 22, is the genuine writing of the poet. The word zavedeira, found as a various reading in the Membranæ and some other manuscripts, although approved by Brunck, is spurious. The language of Sophokles is simply this quid potest dies cum die alternans oblectationis afferre, quum nihil nisi de moriendi necessitate et addat aliquid et differat." HERMANN. "Hermann has received the genitive Tou naтbaviiv as partitive, which, however well it may suit the verb προσθεῖναι, is far less appropriate to ἀναθεῖναι. Nevertheless, I believe that his opinion comes exceedingly near the truth, with the single exception of the meaning he assigns to ἡμέρα παρ ̓ ἦμαρ, These words, in my judgment, signify, not alterni dies, but nμśga rag' ἦμαρ θεορουμένη or ἡμέραι παράλληλα ἐξεταζόμεναι. For it is not day alternating with day which brings us nearer, or removes us from, the hour of death, so that it can be said of us, as concerning the Dioskouroi, örı Tag' iμigar Sãμer nai áwolvńczoμev, but every day, dies singuli. This thought may be thus expressed in German: Jeder Tag bringt uns um einen Schritt dem Tode näher und entdrückt uns ihm wieder für den Augenblick, the first, because we every day grow older; the latter, because at the comple

tion of the day we have apparently escaped some risk of death. The following, then, may be regarded as the meaning of the poet ri TegπVòv Tò ζῆν, τουτέστιν ἡ ἀπαράλλακτος τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐπαλληλία, τοῦ γε κατθανεῖν πάντως προκείμενον, οὗπες ἑκάστη ἡμέρα προστίθησι τι καὶ αὖ ἀνατίθησιν αὐτό, the genitive του κατθανεῖν being referred to the more remote participle. Qui melius consulat, consul fiat!" LOBECK. "In ascertaining the true meaning of these verses, it will be necessary to take with us the following considerations. First, that Hermann's translation of wag' ñμag, alternis diebus, is undoubtedly correct; second, that the genitive rou xarlavery depends upon avaleira, as pointed out by Moschopulus, who is, however, manifestly at fault in the meaning he assigns to the participle. Upon this latter point, it will be acknowledged that the verbs #gorilive, and avarileva must have partly an analogous, partly an opposite signification : an analogous, because the principal element (Grundform) of both verbs is the same; an opposite, in so far as the prepositions gó; and ȧvá are opposed in meaning. Now, the notions which Lobeck and Hermann ascribe to these verbs, to add something to a thing and to remove something, do not occupy that relation in which προστιθέναι and ἀνατιθέναι must stand to each other when, as is here the case, the difference of signification is produced merely by the prepositions. Full satisfaction will be rendered both to the sense of this passage and the usage of the Greek language if we concede that in goriva the preposition gés means to, up to, in ἀνατιθέναι the preposition ἀνά back, away from, so that προστιθέναι denotes to place to, give up to, and avaτibivas to place back, take away from. Hence, then, it will at once be evident that to goodsłon we must supply the idea rò narlavery in the dative. On this expression I here quote Musgrave's note to Eur. Androm. 1016: 'good'ivres, addicentes. HESYCHIUS. 200θεῖναι· τὸ παραδοῦναι τῷ ἐωνημένῳ ὑπὸ κήρυκι. Inde πρόσθετος addictus, qui creditori in servitutem addicitur. Plutarchus in Lucullo: avrois di τέλος μὲν ἦν προσθέτοις γενομένοις δουλεύειν. Idem Vit. p. 1818, wσTEę VTÒ κήρυκι προστιθεμένων. Athenæus, p. 607, καὶ τῷ πωλοῦντι ἄλλῳ τινὶ θάτε τον προσθέντι. Cf. also Eur. Heh. 368, "Αιδη προστιθεῖσ ̓ ἐμὸν δέμας. Hence the expression προστιθέναι τῷ θανάτῳ (τῷ κατθανεῖν) means addicere morti, to give up to death. I would next remark, that the poets construct even simple verbs of motion with a genitive of the object, in a direction from which the motion takes place. Thus, yr virov, Philokt. 613; algev xlovos, Antig. 417; oraolas Búlgwv, Ed. Tyr. 142; and frequently elsewhere. It is, therefore, quite in harmony with grammatical usage that the compound verb avariivai, to take away from, has been here constructed

« ÎnapoiContinuă »