Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

NOTES.

NOTES.

1. THE scene of this play is laid in the midst of the tents occupied by the Salaminians in the Grecian camp before Troy, and more particularly in that of Aias, which we may suppose to have been situated somewhat in the background, and within sight of the sea. (Cf. Hom. Il. 8. 226.) Odysseus is beheld in the act of tracing some freshly-graven footmarks upon the beach, when he is suddenly arrested by the voice of Athene, to whose counsels and aid other poets besides Sophokles have described him as largely indebted. (Cf. Hom. Il. 10. 503 seq.) The various characters introduced into our drama were represented by three actors, (see Schöll's Sophokles Leben und Wirken," § 58 ff.,) the first of whom personated Aias and Teukros, the second Athene, Tekmessa, and Agamemnon, the third Odysseus, the Messenger, and Menelaos. The corpse of Aias which Teukros, Tekmessa, and Eurysakes (xãov górwov) bearing in his hands the ixrgov Onσavgóv (v. 1119), consisting of his own, his mother's, and Teukros's hair, are grouped · was represented by a κῶρον εἴδωλον, 50 made and draped as to exhibit a resemblance to the body of the deceased

66

hero.

[ocr errors]

around

2. δέδορκά σε . . . .. θηρώμενον. The Scholiasts differ greatly in opinion as to the correct mode of interpreting this verse; the point in dispute being, whether the poet means us to understand, wiīga xar' ixtgwv, in an active, as ἐπίθεσις τῶν πολεμίων, Diod. XIV. c. 80, oι πεῖρα παρ' ἐχθρῶν, in a passive signification; that is, whether Odysseus is represented as eagerly employed in preparing snares for the purpose of attacking his enemies, or in discomfiting some project which they have devised against himself. Both expressions may be applied with great propriety to a skilful general : τὸ ὀξυλαβῆσαι τὴν πρᾶξιν καὶ τὸ τῶν ἐναντίων τὴν γνώμην προαισθάνεσθαι, Galen de Parv. Pil. Exercc. III. 905. T. V. Lobeck pronounces in favor

[ocr errors]

of the latter, considering this view to be more in harmony with the character of Odysseus, and the enterprise in which he is engaged; first, because he is celebrated as rāv åònλwv bngarús, Philostr. Imagg. 1. 862, more distinguished for his astuteness in escaping than his skill in devising snares, as is testified by Homer in Odyss. 4. 422, and by the entire Doloneia; and, secondly, because he is described in our passage as playing the part of a spy rather than that of an "insidiator." That this explanation is not

....

in itself improbable may be learnt from Xen. Mem. 4. 2. 15, iàv dì nλitry τε καὶ ἁρπάζῃ τὰ τούτων (τῶν πολεμίων), οὐ δίκαια ποιήσει. Cf. Cic. de Off. 1. 30. 108, and Davis's note to Id. de Fin. III. 2. There is, however, great weight in the objection of Hermann, that to such an interp. tion the insertion of the pronoun vά is in direct opposition. Nor has Lobeck been able to explain away this difficulty, but acknowledges that the addition of the pronoun would be far more intelligible, if by the noun Tiga we understand some hostile attempt on the part of Odysseus. The connection of the verses and the sense of the whole passage present, moreover, additional obstacles to the reception of this exposition. For the poet proceeds, καὶ νῦν ἐπὶ σκηναῖς .... ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις, the particle ἀεὶ μέν in the first verse being opposed to naì vov in this sense: ut semper. ita nunc quoque, in order to connect closely the proceeding of Odysseus, described in the first two verses, with the subsequent details. Odysseus has followed the footsteps of Aias from the very spot where he was first observed by a scout with dripping sword, and has now arrived before his tent. As a welltrained hound pursues the track of some wild animal and ascertains its locality, in order that it may fall into the hands of the hunter, so has Odysseus followed the footprints of Aias in order to learn his whereabouts, to convict him as the perpetrator of the slaughter committed amongst the cattle of the Greeks, during the night which followed the adjudication of the arms of Achilles, and to take whatever preliminary steps may be necessary to secure his punishment. It cannot, therefore, be supposed that Odysseus was interested to inquire if Aias still contemplated any traitorous or hostile design, which must nevertheless be assumed if we decide in favor of the explanation above mentioned. Hermann asserts that the accus. πεῖραν does not depend upon ἁρπάσαι, but upon θηρώμενον, and that agrára is inserted here as an infinitivus explicativus, to which airńv, i. e. rigav, must be supplied. Such a construction is undoubtedly very harsh, whilst a satisfactory answer is given to the objection against the construction of the infinitive with engã and engãrta. by Eur. Hel. 63, nga yaμsiv με, and 553, ὅς με θηρᾶται λαβεῖν ; Theophyl. Hist. IV. 16. 115. Β, συμ

μάχους ελέσθαι θηρώμενος. Even admitting that the mode in which he connects these words is admissible, the Greek words here used can hardly be supposed to convey the meaning expressed in his translation: semper te video opportunitatem, qua tentare hostem possis, captare. Reisig, in Comm. Crit. ad Ed. Kol. 1746, observes that ἁρπάσαι may depend upon πεῖραν, and this view finds an apologist in Apitz, who seeks unsuccessfully to defend it by citing such passages as Hom. Il. 7. 409, Eur. Androm. 94. The true explanation appears to be that given by Wunder, who commences his observations by reminding us that the Greeks frequently employed the formula πεῖράν τινος λαμβάνειν (cf. Xen. An. 5. 8. 15 ; Kyr. 3. 3. 38) in the same sense as πειρᾶν τινος. (So θέαν λαμβάνειν, Philokt. 536, 656, μεταμέλειαν λαμβάνειν, Eur. Fr., for θεᾶσθαι, μεταμέ λεσθαι.) But πειρᾶν τινος often signifies capere aliquem conari, to make an attempt against any person or thing, to seek to seize or obtain its possession. Her. VI. 82, πρὸς ὦν ταῦτα οὐ δικαιεῦν πειρῶν τῆς πόλιος, πρίν γε δὴ ἱροῖσι χρήσηται καὶ μάθῃ, εἴτε οἱ ὁ θεὸς παραδιδοῖ, εἴτε οἱ ἐμποδὼν ἕστηκε. Thuk. 1. 61, καὶ ἀφικόμενοι ἐς Βέροιαν κἀκεῖθεν ἐπιστρέψαντες καὶ πειρά. σαντες πρῶτον τοῦ χωρίου καὶ οὐκ ἑλόντες ἐπορεύοντο κατὰ γῆν πρὸς τὴν Ποτίδαιαν. Why Sophokles should have substituted ἁρπάζειν for the more usual λαμβάνειν will be evident to any one who refects that the whole phraseology of these introductory verses is borrowed from the hunting-field (comp. Pollux 5. 60, οἱ κύνες ἁρπάζουσι τὰ πνεύματα; Plutarch. Quæst. Νat. 23. 20, ἐπιλαμβάνονται τῆς τῶν θηρίων ὀσμῆς ; Senec. Hippol. 39, nare sagaci captant auras, or apprensant; Grat. Cyn. 239), and that Odysseus is compared not so much with a hunter as with a hound. See v. 5 below, and especially v. 7, seq. It is, then, by way of fuller and more emphatic illustration of his metaphor that the poet has preferred to place a verb which is peculiarly applicable to a hound, instead of λαμβάνειν, which is more especially appropriate to men.

3. Καὶ νῦν. These particles, as we have already said, answer to ἀεὶ μέν in this sense : as ever...so now also. Zeune to Vig. p. 537 has cited similar collocations. WUNDER. Cf. Plat. Protag. 335. Ε; Rep. II. 367. E. — ἐπί, by, near. Scholiast : παρὰ ταῖς σκηναῖς. The preposition ἐπί has this sense frequently with the dative. Hdt. 3. 16, ἀποθανόντα ἔθαψεν ἐπὶ τῇσι θύρησι. Id. 7. 175, οικέοντες ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι. Id. 7. 89, οὗτοι δὲ οἱ Φοίνικες τὸ παλαιὸν οἴκεον ἐπὶ τῇ Ἐρυθρῇ θαλάσση.

....

4. τάξιν ἐσχάτην. Hom. Π. 11. 7, ἐμὲν ἐπ ̓ Αἴαντος κλισίας Τελα μωνιάδαο ἠδ ̓ ἐπ' ̓Αχιλλῆος· τοί ῥ ̓ ἔσχατα νῆας ἐΐσας εἵρυσαν. See also

« ÎnapoiContinuă »