Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

Eur. Iph. Α. 292; Quint. Cal. 5. 215, quoted by Musgrave; Eustathius ad Il. κ. p. 792. 47, Αἱ νῆες τοῦ μεγάλον Αἴαντος καὶ τοῦ Ἰδομενέως ἐν ἄκρῳ ἦσαν· καὶ ὡς ὁ ποιητὴς λέγει, ἐκαστάτω τοῦ μέσου.

5. μετρούμενον. " SCHOL. : στοχαζόμενον, contemplantem et tanquam oculis metientem. Eur. Phan. 189, ἄνω τε καὶ κάτω τείχη μετρῶν.” MUSGR. In a similar metaphorical use, Hom. Od. 3. 179, πέλαγος μετρήσαι, mare cursu emetiri, and Mosch. 2. 153, ἅλα μετρήσασθαι. The employment of both participles in this verse is drawn from the language of the huntingfield. κυνηγετεῖν ἔχνη, of which phrase a full explanation occurs below, v. 19, is to pursue the foot-tracks of prey, κυνηγέτου τέχνη, whilst μετρεῖ σθαι may be rendered to trace out, or explore.

Εὖ δέ σ ̓ ἐκφέρει.

ὁρᾷς τὰ τοῦδ ̓ οὖν

7. οὐκ ἔνδον, sc. ἐστίν, num in tentorio sit, nec ne? Hermann has accurately explained the force of ἐκφέρειν : ex loco clauso et finibus quibusdam circumscripto in apertum ac propatulum proferre. Hence, then, ἐκφέρειν τινά may in a more general sense denote aliquem eo usque perducere, quo tendit, according to the well-known idea of completion, which is imparted by the preposition in in composition. Cf. d. Kol. 98, ἐξήγαγ ̓ εἰς τόδ ̓ ἄλσος, with v. 1424 of the same play, ὡς ἐς ὀρθὸν ἐκφέρει | Μαντεύμαθ'. Plat. Phad. p. 66. Β, ὅτι κινδυνεύει τις ὥσπερ ἀτραπὸς ἐκφέρειν ἡμᾶς μετὰ τοῦ λόγου ἐν τῇ σκέψει. In our passage, then, εὖ δέ σ' ἐκφέρει εὖ δέ σε φέρει πρὸς Αἴαντα, and the meaning of Athene, stated generally, is this : εὖ δὲ ἐξιχνεύεις, sc. εὖ δὲ Αἴαντα ἰχνεύεις ὥσπερ κύων Λάκαινα, with which we may aptly compare Plat. Parmen. 128. C, καίτοι ὥσπερ γε αἱ Λάκαιναι σκύλακες εὖ μεταθεῖς τε καὶ ἰχνεύεις τὰ λεχθέντα. Upon βάσις, placed once only in the sentence, whilst the sense requires its repetition, see Philokt. 520, with Wunder's note, and compare Trach. 767, προσπτύσσεται πλευραῖσιν ἀρτίκολλος ὥστε τέκτονος χιτὼν ἅπαν κατ ̓ ἄρθρον.

=

8. Κυνὸς Λακαίνης ὥς τις εὔρινος βάσις. Upon the phraseology of this verse see Lobeck's note, and the observations of Wunder to Philokt. 1101. It has been quoted by several writers, the Schol. to Apoll. II. 125, the Etym. Μ., s. Τρίβακος, and Suidas in three places, s. Εάσις, Εὔρινος, and Λάκαινα ; and is imitated by Libanius, Ecphr. T. IV. p. 1065, εὐρίνῳ βάσει τὸ λανθάνον ἀνιχνεύοντες ; more undisguisedly by Manuel Palæologus, Or. VI. 331, μὴ πολυπραγμονῶμεν.... ὥσπερ οἱ τὰ θηρία ῥινηλατοῦσαι λάκαιναι κύνες · εὔρινας ταύτας εἶπε Σοφοκλῆς ; less openly by Alian, Hist. Ann. II. c. 15, δίκην εὐρίνου κυνός. The last two authors evidently believed εὔρινος to be the genitive of an adjective εὐρίν (cf. κύνας εὔρινας, Xen. de Venat. 4. 6, Pollux 2. 80, and Asch. Agam. 1093), whilst Libanius and the Etym.

Μ., εὔρινος βάσις ἢ εὐίσφρητος πορεία, regarded it as a nominative, and correctly indeed, both on account of the addition of the pronoun 75, which is more aptly joined with gives than with Báois, and because it is the constant practice of the Greek poets thus to traverse epithets. See Abresch. Dilucc. Thukyd. p. 244; Valckn. ad Lennep. Etym. II. p. 700; Matthiæ's Gr. Gr. p. 799; Bernhardy's Synt. p. 53. Upon the peculiar force of 75 when joined with adjectives, see Liddell and Scott's Gr. Lex. s. TIS, IV.; Kühner's Gr. Gr. 659. 4, ed. Jelf; and upon the great celebrity which the dogs of Laconia possessed among the hunters of antiquity, Aristot. Hist. Animal. 8. 28 (where they are described as a cross between a fox and a dog), Id. de Generatione Animal. 5. 2; the learned notes of Musgrave and Erfurdt to our own line, Voss to Virg. Georg. III. 405, and Rittershus. to Oppian. Cyneg. 1.371. Compare, too, Shakspeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Act IV. Sc. 1, and Othello, Act V. Sc. 5. The word xuw is here used in the feminine gender, in accordance with the customary preference shown by Greek writers, when not compelled to define accurately the precise gender of animals, for the employment of the feminine. Lastly, that the comparison which is here instituted between a hero, like Odysseus, and a hound, is in no respect derogatory to the dignity of the former, or inconsistent either with the practice of the Tragedians, or with Greek notions of good taste, has been pointed out by Wunder, who compares Esch. Agam. 1093, where we find it said of Kassandra, oxy εὗρις ἡ ξένη κυνὸς δίκην | Εἶναι, ματεύει δ ̓ ὧν ἀνευρήσει φόνον. See also vv. 1184 seq. of that play; Plat. de Legg. p. 654. D, raur' äga μετὰ τοῦθ ̓ ἡμῖν αὖ καθάπερ κυσὶν ἰχνευούσαις διερευνητέον.

9. τυγχάνει. Supply ὤν. “The use of τυγχάνει for τυγχάνει ὢν is defended by Erfurdt against Fischer (ad Well. Gr. Gr. IV. p. 8) and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 712), who join rvyxávs with σráv. See a note on this subject in Mus. Crit. p. 65. We confess that we are more inclined to take part with Erfurdt than with Porson. The two passages in the Electra (vv. 46, 315) seem to us to be quite decisive. The following consideration has some weight with us. As τυγχάνω and κυρῶ appear to be exactly synonymous in all their various significations, we are very unwilling to admit that a construction, which is lawful when the poet employs κυρῶ, is unlawful when he employs τυγχάνω. We find κυρῶ without a participle twice in the present tragedy: v. 301, Κἀνήρετ' ἐν τῷ πράγμα τος κυροῖ ποτέ, and v. 928, που μοι γῆς κυρεῖ τῆς Τρῳάδος. Several other examples are collected by Erfurdt in his note on Antig. 487." ELMSLEY. See also Erfurdt's Epist. ad Schäf. p. 570; Schäf. ad Bos. Ellips.

p. 785; Blomfield to Matth. Gr. Gr. p. liii.; and compare Elektr. 46, Eur. Androm. 1116, Iph. Aul. 730. In the common copies avg is written in opposition to both sense and metre, for which Brunck substituted 'ng. The writing vig is, however, strongly recommended by the authority of Apollonius, in Bekk. Gr. Anecd. 2. p. 495. 24, ὡς ὁ ἀνὴρ, ἀνὴρ, ὁ ἄνθρωπος άνθρωπος, οὕτως τὸ ἕτερον θάτερόν ἐστι. See Porson to Eur. Orest. 851; Dawes's Misc. Crit. pp. 123, 238, 263; Monk to Eur. Hippol. 1005; Kühner's Gr. Gr. 13, Obs. 5, ed. Jelf. The first syllable is rendered long by crasis with the article.

9, 10. κάρα στάζων ἱδρῶτι. Billerbeck explains these words, σταζόμενος ὑπὸ τοῦ ἱδρῶτος. Lobeck identifies them more accurately with the expressions ἱδρῶτι ῥεόμενος, Philostr. V. Soph. I. 25. 541, and ἱδρῶτι ῥαινόμενος, Synes. Dion. p. 53. The construction is the same with Æsch. Εum. 42, αἵματι στάζοντα χεῖρας ; Eur. Andr. 523, δακρύοισιν κόρας στάζω ; Iph. Τ. 108, στάζων ἀφρῷ γένειον. It is scarcely necessary to observe, that the participle only must be referred to the following words χέρας ξιφοκτόνους, which adjective must, according to its accentuation, be taken in an active signification, as = ξίφει κτεινούσας. Dindorf, in opposition to Hermann, directs us to supply αἵματι. Upon the dative ἱδρῶτι, see Kühner's Gr. Gr. 548, Obs. 6, and 610, ed. Jelf.

11. οὐδὲν ἔργον, i. e. οὐκ ἔτ ̓ ἀναγκαῖον ἐστί. SCHOL. : οὐκ ἀναγκαῖον τὸ πολυπραγμονεῖν ἔτι, εἰ ἔνδον ἐστιν Αἴας. Ενδον γάρ· ἀλλὰ λέγειν διὰ τί τὴν σπουδὴν ταύτην ἔθου, ἵνα παρ ̓ ἐμοῦ μάθης τὰ ἀγνοούμενά σοι. See below, v. 810, and, as additional illustrations of this Attic phrase, Elektr. 1373, οὐ μακρῶν λόγων ἡμῖν τόδε τοὖργον, there is no necessity for them here; Aristoph. Lys. 424, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲν ἔργον ἑστάναι; Αυ. 1308, with Felton's note; Lys. 615; Plut. 1155. Cf. Valckn. to Eur. Hipp. 911.

13. Σπουδὴν ἔθου τήνδε. Periphrastic for ἐσπούδαζες ὧδε οι ἐπὶ τίνι ἐσπούδαζες περί τούτου. See Wunder to Ed. Kol. 462. In the same way we find σπουδὴν τιθέναι for σπουδάζειν in Pind. Pyth. IV. 492 ; αἶνον τιθ. for αἰνεῖν, Id. Nem. 1. 5; πόνον τιθ. for πονεῖν, Æsch. Εum. 276. The sense of the whole passage is as follows: There is no longer any necessity that you should peer through or within this door (since Aias whom you seek is within), but that you should state openly for what object you have taken upon yourself this eager chase, in order that you may learn from one who knows (all things you wish to ascertain).

14. Ω φθέγμ ̓ ̓Αθάνας. SCHOL.: καὶ τοῦτο ἄριστα πεποίηται· φθέγμα γὰρ εἶπεν, ὡς μὴ θεασάμενος αὐτὴν· δῆλον γὰρ, ὡς οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὴν, ἐκ τοῦ κἂν ἄποπτος ἷς ὁμῶς, τουτέστιν ἀόρατος. Τῆς δὲ φωνῆς μόνης αἰσθάνε

ται, ὡς ἐθάδος αὐτῷ οὔσης· ἔστι μέντοι ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς ἡ ̓Αθηνᾶ· δεῖ γὰρ τοῦτο χαρίζεσθαι τῷ θεατῇ· προθεραπεύει δὲ τὸν θεὸν ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ οὕτω λέγει τὰ Αἴαντος. Brunck assents, observing, "Minerva e machinæ loquentis et spectatoribus conspicuæ vocem audiebat Ulysses, at ipse eam censebatur non videre, juxta veterum opinionem, deos quidem sæpe cum hominibus colloqui sed raro se iis in conspectum dare." The same view is supported by Wunder in a long note to this line in his Cens. p. 7, where he justifies the meaning which the Scholiast assigns to ToTTos, in opposition to the explanation of Suidas, óppwter igwuívn, defended by Lobeck. The eminent scholar last named inquires:- "Upon what principle and in conformity with what examples are we to receive the explanation of Brunck? Are we to believe that Philoktetes, Thoas, Theoklymenos, Ion, Peleus, Hippolytos, and Orestes did not behold upon the stage the divinities with whom they are represented to have conversed? Assuming, however, that this could be proved, how could the spectators in our own play have been persuaded to believe that the goddess, whom they distinctly perceived, and whom Aias recognized at the first glance, really avoided the gaze of Odysseus alone? The interpreters have been led into this mistake by considering ἄποπτον as equivalent in meaning to ἀθέατον, as stated by Suidas and the Grammarian associated with Ammonius, p. xlvi. But to express this sense the more ancient writers were accustomed to employ the words ἄοπτον or ἄνοπτον, whilst to ἄποπτον they gave this signification quod e longinquo conspicitur vel clare, si in excelso est, vel obscure si longo intervallo distat." An immense number of passages are then cited in order to justify this rendering, from which we select but two: Aristot. Rep. II. 12. 253. D, ὅπως ἄποπτος ἔσται ἡ Κορινθία ἐκ τοῦ xáμaros, ut prospici possit. Plutarch. V. Lucull. 9, narapavùs nai ἄποπτος. Add Galen. vol. 3. p. 222, καί τις ἐξ ἀπόπτου θεασάμε. νος ταῦρον εὐθὺς γνωρίζει τὸ ἄῤῥεν ἄνευ τοῦ κατασκέψασθαι τὰ γεννητικὰ ógia. The same explanation is also given by Hermann, and is supported by the passages from the Elektra (v. 1489) and Edipus Rex (v. 762) to which Wunder refers in opposition, where there is no objection to our taking oTToy in the sense of remotum. comma precedes μws, instead of following it. error, comparing such passages as Eur. Alk. εὐτυχέστερον | Τοὐμοῦ νομίζω, καίπερ οὐ δοκοῦνθ ̓ ὅμως, Æsch. Choeph. 113, μέμνησ' Ορέστου, κεἰ θυραῖός ἐσθ ̓ ὅμως, and is followed by Hermann and all the more recent editors. See his note to Eur. Bacch. 787. Blom. field therefore is in error when he directs us (ad Esch. Pers. 300) to restore

In the common copies the Elmsley first corrected this 938, φίλοι, γυναικὸς δαίμον

the comma after s. Did no other authority than Ed. Kol. 957, ignμía με, κεὶ δίκαι ὅμως λέγω, σμικρὸν τίθησι, exist, it would be amply sufficient to justify the punctuation of Elmsley. Cf. Reisig, Enarr. ad Ed. Kol. 659.

For

17. κώδωνος ὡς Τυρσηνικῆς. "This verse is quoted by Suidas, s. zwdwv, the Scholiast to Soph. Ed. Kol. 124, and to Thuk. IV. 134, the last affirming that Thukydides said zádav. Nor is the remark of our own Scholiast, ἡ κώδων θηλυκῶς ἀττικῶς, at variance with his statement. Thukydides speaks of the κώδων used by sentinels and patrol (ὁ κώδων ὁ quλazrigos, Synes. Catast. p. 303. D, whence the appellation i qúλağ rOD κώδωνος, Parthen. c. VII. ; similarly, ὁ κώδων ὁ κατὰ τὴν ὀψοπωλίαν, Strabo XIV. 626; ¡ iv rậ ixtvorwλiq, Plutarch. Symp. IV.; Id. Quæst. IV. 2. p. 183), and that accustomed to be hung upon the beasts of burden (Diod. XVIII. 2), or attached to nets (Plutarch. V. Brut. XXX.), and that by which the arrival of various matutinal duties was announced (Lucian. Merc. cond. s. 31. p. 254, T. III. Bip.). But rus xadavos is found in Aristot. de Sens. c. VI. 446. 22, ed. Bekk., interpreted by tintinnabulum. The Scholiast to our verse asserts that the κώδων was τὸ πλατὺ τῆς σάλπιγγος, whilst Josephus, Antt. III. 12, 18, σύριγξ παρέχουσα εὖρος ἀρκοῦν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι πρὸς ὑποδοχὴν πνεύματος εἰς κώδωνα ταῖς σάλπιγξι παραπλησίως τελοῦν, appears to denote by this word the upper orifice of the trumpet which the player applies to his mouth; unless we suppose, with Sambucus, that he wrote τελοῦσα, i. e. τελευτῶσα, meaning the lower or τὸ πλατὺ τῆς σάλπιγ yos, concerning which Athenæus speaks (IV. 185. A), affirming that in the tibia Phrygia the cornu corresponds with that part of the tuba which is called κώδων. See also Eustathius, p. 1139. 60, who, according to the Schol. Ven. Z. 219, enumerates the various kinds of trumpets with greater accuracy than the Greek interpreters of Sophokles, and makes mention in the sixth place of the Tyrrhenian trumpet, ὁμοίαν Φρυγίῳ αὐλῷ τὸν κώδωνα xenλaoμśvov xourav. Hence, on account of its deeper tone, the Tyrrhenian trumpet is frequently referred to by the Tragedians, -see sch. Eum. 556 (where it is spoken of as deep-toned, piercing, diárogos Tugonvien oáλry), Eur. Phon. 1393, Heraclid. 830, - whose example is followed by later writers. Cf. Anth. Pal. c. VI. n. 151 and n. 350; Nonnus, XVII. 92; Gregor. Naz. Ep. ad Card. CXCIV.; and Eumath. de Ism. IV. p. 178." LOBECK. Consult in further illustration of this subject the admirable notes of Musgrave, Wesseling, and Billerbeck. The anachronism here committed by our poet in representing Odysseus as declaring that the accents of his beloved goddess fell upon his ears like the tones of

[ocr errors]
« ÎnapoiContinuă »