βαλόντα μετ' εὐθύνης. Billerbeck renders the participle by castigantem, and the whole phrase, captivos manibus laqueo ligatis verberantem. Passow translates xigas deoμoîs år. “die Hände starr in Fesseln schlagen," and Wunder, regere (i. e. adstringere) manus vinculis, an operation which we learn from v. 62 to have been already over. Neue seems nearer the truth in interpreting retorquentem, comparing Ed. R. 1154. The language of Athene, together with the employment of the participle present, appears to point to some occupation in which Aias was engaged at the moment of her address, and the action ascribed to him in v. 108, ógéòv ävw níovı dńoas, may perhaps suggest that the participle should here be rendered by exporrigentem, guiding the hands of the captives upwards, i. e. tying them to the pillar to which he is subsequently represented as having bound them. 73. Αἴαντα φωνῶ. "So frequently in Attic poetry, = καλῶ σε, ὦ Αίαν. So below, v. 789, καλῶ θ ̓ ἅμα πομπαῖον Ερμήν, κ. τ. λ., te invoco, Mercuri; v. 793 sq., xaλã d'.......... σεμνὰς Ερινῦς ; whilst at 801, ἔτ ̓, ὦ ταχεῖαι ...'Egvúss. Hence it is not surprising to find the vocative and nominative frequently associated in the same address, as at v. 819, nλsivai ̓Αθῆναι καὶ τὸ σύντροφον γένος, which is χαίρετε, ὦ κλειναὶ ̓Αθῆναι καὶ χαι géra Tò cúvτgopov yivos. Cf. Philokt. 530, 867, 986." WUNDER. 75. undè derxíav ågsis. The MSS. г. La. Lb. gns. See Dawes, Misc. Cr. p. 221 ; Trach. 1183, οὐ θᾶσσον οἴσεις μηδ ̓ ἀπιστήσεις ἐμοί; Eur. Hipp. 498, οὐχὶ συγκλείσεις καὶ μὴ μεθήσεις ; Plat. Symp. p. 175. Α, οὔκουν καλεῖς αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ ἀφήσεις; The future indicative seems always preferred in such formulæ, to express an energetic command interrogatively; and Elmsley (Addend. ad Eur. Bacch. v. 344) is therefore incorrect in stating, that, if the penult of the aorist tenses of aïguy were not always long, the subjunctive aorist would deserve the preference in our passage. "When the command is negative, où μn is used; and when a positive and negative command stand together, où is used with the former, and μn added to the latter." KÜHNER. Since, however, où μn is especially used in forbidding, it is better to consider, with Neue, that où runs through the sentence, and is common to both clauses; on which principle, undé, in the latter, becomes = nai où μn. See Matth. Gr. Gr. § 498. c, § 517, Obs. 2. Lastly, duλíav aïgu is concipere timiditatem. So v. 129, below, öynov aïgsıv, where see note; Ed. R. 914, buμòv aïgu. In this signification algola is elsewhere found. See Ed. R. 635, 1225; Antig. 907. In the expression devòv ižaíguv μívos, v. 1010 below, the verb seems to be employed in its own stricter meaning.

76. Μὴ πρὸς θεῶν. SCHOL. : παραιτεῖται Οδυσσεύς, οὐχ ὡς κωμῳδοῦντος

τοῦ ποιητοῦ δειλίαν τοῦ ἥρωος, οὕτω γὰρ ἀφαιρεθείη τῆς τραγῳδίας τὸ ἀξί ωμα· ἀλλὰ τὸ εὐλαβὲς ἐνδείκνυται· ἔμφρονος γὰρ ἦν τὸ τῷ μεμηνότι παραχωρεῖν· ὅρα γὰρ, οἷον ἦν προσελθόντα ἐκεῖνον θεάσασθαι τὸν νεκρόν (Brunck, ἐχθρόν). Οι ἔξω κάλει αὐτόν may be supplied to μή, which must on no account be referred to the words immediately preceding, as Hermann teaches. On the construction of the participle μívar, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 297. The full expression would be: dgnsírw Toúrov ev xλioiŋ péveiv, satis esto, ut in tentorio maneat.

77. Τί μὴ γένηται ; SCHOL. : μὴ τί γένηται φοβῇ; οὐχ ὁ αὐτὸς ἦν καὶ πρότερον ἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐδὲν ὑμᾶς εἰργάσατο κακὸν, ἡμῶν ἐπιμελουμένων ; “So tí μù yśvntai, Eur. Suppl. 544; rí μù raińow, Soph. Elektr. 1276; which last, although of different signification, agrees in form with the Latin quidni faciam? Latin writers at one time place the final conjunction before the interrogative pronoun: ut quo nos reciperemus? Liv. 44. 39. 5; ut qualiter sentiremus, Plin. H. N. 13. 13; at another time after it : quid uti facerent? Cic. p. Sext. 39. In Greek authors the latter is always postpositum: Ed. Kol. 1725, ὡς τί ῥέξομεν; Elektr. 398, ὅπως τί δράσης ; Eur. Ion. 527, as dù rí Qeúyes; In all these passages the conjunction ws is indisputably final; but since the verb dependent upon it is omitted, its real power is so obscured that it would seem altogether redundant. It serves, however, to connect the interrogation which follows with what goes before. Compare ¿s rí dá, quid ita, Eur. I. A. 1342, ŵs ægòs rí, (Ed. R. 1174. d. Kol. 1182, ὡς πρὸς τί χρείας ; ὡς τί χρήζων; ὡς τί dia; and see Matth. ad Phan. 621, from whose reasoning I dissent. Similarly, Trí; Demosth., örı rí dú; Lucian. Enc. Dem. § 22, are referred to what has been said previously; just as when a person having denied that he is about to do this or that, another asks or ri (sc. yeye. INTUI); ÉS TÍ (SC. yśvntæı); Andocides, in Or. III. p. 26. 26, appends this verb to the final particle, writing ἵνα ἡμῖν τί γένηται; although it is generally omitted: iva dù ri gooienus, Ar. Nubb. 1192. See Herm. to Vig. p. 849; Matth. Gr. Gr. § 620; and this is also imitated by later Latin writers, ut quid autem coletur? Aug. Civ. IV. 18, whilst more ancient authors seem to have said ut quid? only. Indeed, the collocation var by frequent usage coalesced so entirely into one word that the Etym. M. 471. 16 calls it an iwippinu« igwrnośws, and hence, whether the dependent verb is expressed or omitted, it is often written with but one accent, as in Ar. Eccl. 719, Plat. Apol. p. 26. c, Evang. Matth. ix. 4, in which passages the more recent editors have erased the hyphen. That this was, nevertheless, an exceedingly ancient mode of writing is testified

by Arcadius, p. 184, and by the Grammaticus Hermanni, p. 460, rò ivatí καὶ διατί ἐν τῇ συνηθείᾳ (συνεπεία) ὀξύνεται.” LOBECK.

πρόσθεν οὐκ ἀνὴρ ὁδ ̓ ἦν; "Nonne hic vir antea fuit tecumque versatus est sine ullo tuo periculo? cur ejus hominis præsentiam extimescis, quem toties antea vidisti imperterritus? The goddess marvels that Odysseus should now fear the appearance of Aias, whom he had so frequently seen before without any such emotion." LOBECK. 66 “άvnę hic non virum, sed hominem, i. e. mortalem, neque ultra mortale robur validum significat." HERMANN. The last critic objects to the explanation of Lobeck, num antea non fuit vir fortissimus? which is adopted by Wunder and Dindorf, that it can be admitted only upon the supposition that Aias had been previously the foe of Odysseus. Since this was not the case, and Odysseus could therefore have no reason to fear Aias, he holds that the explanation of the Scholiast must not be rejected. Both explanations are, however, frigid, and inappropriate to the rejoinder of Odysseus, Εχθρός γε τῷδε τἀνδρὶ καὶ τανῦν ἔτι, in which the words nai tavuv éri, referring clearly to góry, distinctly show that the whole verse is to be connected closely with the language just uttered by Athene. As, then, the thought nonne antea hic vir fuit is not absolute, it would seem that Odysseus in his reply interrupts the language of Athene, who was intending to pay a tribute to the prowess of Aias, and to remove the fears of Odysseus. If this view be correct, we ought to follow the example of those who place the sign of interrogation after T, and the sign of interruption after v.

78. τῷδε τανδρί. SCHOL. : δεικτικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐμοὶ, τῷ Οδυσσεῖ. Cf. Schäf. Meletem. Cr. p. 114; Seidl. Eur. I. T. 1402; Matth. Gr. Gr. 470. 9. See below, vv. 397, 421.

Eur. Med. 389.

Similarly, rds xugl. Cf. Porson to

80. sv dóμois μévsv. Such is the reading of Aldus and the majority of the manuscripts. In the Codd. Ien. Dresd. a. sis dóuous, for which the MSS. La. Lb. exhibit is dóμous, the former, however, with iv os suprascriptum. SCHOL. Rom. : ἐς δόμους· ποιητικῶς ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐν δόμοις. Hermann has received this latter reading, believing that it could not have sprung from the copyists or interpreters, and defending it by Eur. I. T. 620, ἀλλ ̓ εἰς ἀνάγκην κείμεθ', ἣν φυλακτέον, where, however, the preposition is referred to πεπτώκαμεν, in place of which κείμεθα, or the result of falling, has been substituted.

81. Join usμnvóra tegißavãs, and comp. v. 66 above, æsgıqavñ vócov. The inquiry of Athene must not be understood as made with the intention of depreciating Odysseus in the estimation of the audience. It serves merely to

convey a more exalted idea of the violence of the malady which could inspire so redoubtable a warrior, in the presence even of his guardian goddess, with emotions of terror and alarm.

82. Φρονοῦντα, κ. τ. λ. The MSS. La. Ien. Aug. b. Dresd. b. iiorn iday, for which the MS. Dresd. a. substitutes idav, evidently from interpolation. The true reading is exhibited by Suidas s. 'Oxvw, the Schol. Rom., Aldus, and the majority of the ancient copies. On the construction inOtvaι Tiva, declinare, vitare aliquem, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 393, and compare Demosth. p. 460. 1, ὑπὲρ δὲ δόξης οὐδένα πώποτε κίνδυνον ἐξέστησαν ; Id. p. 891, ἐξέστηκα τὰ τοιαῦτα. Many additional examples are cited from later writers by Lobeck in his note to this passage, and by Schäfer to Demosth. p. 331. 8. It is, however, to be observed, that, although many intransitive verbs, which acquire an active signification by composition with prepositions, retain more or less of their own strict meaning, it seldom happens that such verbs when compounded with ix or sis, are used in any other than a figurative application. Cf. Plat. Phædr. 58, sions μs λsos (for which we find εἰσέρχεταί μοι δέος, Id. Pol. 1. 330); ἐκβαίνω τὴν ἡλικίαν τοῦ γεννᾶν, Id. Rep. 5. p. 461. Β ; ἐκβαίνω τὰ τριάκοντα ἔτη, Ibid. 7, p. 537. Ε ; ἐκβαίνω τὸν ὅρκον, Id. Symp. p. 183. Β; εἰσπίπτειν δου λsov μag, Eur. Ion. 700; Evμpogáv, Id. Andr. 99, 984.

....

83. The Cod. Flor. reads naí in place of μn. On où μn with the conjunctive aor. 2, in negative sentences, with the force of the future, see Matth. Gr. Gr. 517. The full expression would perhaps be: daλà võv oùx ïors Cóßos μù idņ os #agóvra, there is no fear lest, or that.... Compare Esch. Theb. 38, καὶ τῶνδ ̓ ἀκούσας οὔ τι μὴ ληφθῶ δόλῳ, where we have a similar ellipse; and on the other hand, Xen. Mem. 2. 1. 25, où póßos un σε ἀγάγω, etc. Sometimes, instead of the conjunctive aorist, we find the indicative future, without any perceptible difference of signification. Plat. Krit. 44, τοιουτου ἐστέρημαι ἐπιτηδείου, οἷον οὐδένα μήποτε εὑρήσω ; Xen. Hell. 1. 6. 32, Καλλικρατίδας εἶπεν, ὅτι ἡ Σπάρτη οὐδὲν μὴ κάκιον οἰκιεῖται αὐτοῦ ἀποθανόντος, φεύγειν δ ̓ αἰσχρὸν εἶναι. In Soph. Elektr. 43, οὐ γάρ σε μὴ γήρᾳ τε καὶ χρόνῳ μακρῷ γνῶ σ ̓ οὐδ ̓ ὑποπτεύσουσιν, we have a blending of both constructions.

85. Ἐγὼ σκοτώσω....δεδορκότα. Wunder compares (Ed. R. 408, σὺ καὶ δέδορκας, κοὐ βλέπεις. Add Æsch. Prom. 447, οἳ πρῶτα μὲν βλέποντες ἔβλεπον μάτην, | κλύοντες οὐκ ἤκουον ; Psalm. cxxxv. 16, 17, “ Eyes have they, but they see not; they have ears, but they hear not"; Isaiah vi. 9, 10, xlii. 20; Shakspeare, Henry V., Act 5, Sc. 2, "For maids, well summered and warm kept, are like flies at Bartholomew-tide, blind, though they have their eyes."

86. Γένοιτο, κ. τ. λ.

Odysseus does not express acquiescence in the proposal of Athene, or a wish that she should carry it into execution. He simply states, as a general truth, that when a deity contrives, every project it may form will be realized.

87. Σίγα νυν. Johnson, in violation of the metre, has edited vv. See, however, Eustathius, p. 1312. 19; Moschopulus, Sched. p. 45; Liddell and Scott, s. Νῦν ; THOMAS MAGISTER : χρῶνται δὲ οἱ τραγικοί τε καὶ κωμικοὶ καὶ ἑτέρῳ νυν, λαμβανομένῳ μὲν ἀντὶ τοῦ δή, ἔχοντι δὲ ἔμφασίν τινα χρόνου, ὡς παρὰ Σοφοκλεῖ ἐν Αἴαντι· Σίγα νῦν. It is, in fact, the same word as voy, the "now" of time, but used quite unemphatically, so as not to refer the whole sentence to present time, but only the word which it follows as an enclitic. Hence it corresponds precisely with the unemphatic "now" which we so frequently connect with imperatives, both in conversation and in writing. It is found chiefly in dramatic poesy (the quantity is long in Aristophanes, and common in the Tragedians), and never occurs in prose, except in the compound roívvv. See, by all means, Liddell and Scott, s. v.

88. Mévi äv· Žé‹λov d'äv........ I am willing to remain, but I could have wished.... (Ed. R. 95, λέγοιμ' ἂν οἷ ̓ ἤκουσα ; (Ed. Kol. χρόνῳ μάθοις ἄν ; Antig. 1108, ὧδ ̓ ὡς ἔχω στείχοιμ' ἄν. The indicative future represents the future action as certain to happen; the optative with v expresses this less positively, and generally with an appeal to the approba⚫ tion of the person addressed, or a reference to some condition either previously expressed or existing in the mind of the speaker. The commenta. tors generally render: manebo, vellem autem. In place of τυχεῖν, the Cod. Γ. κυρεῖν.

89. N ouros, Aias. Hermann, with Aldus and most manuscripts, Aiav. So Suidas : ὦ οὗτος, ἀντὶ τοῦ σύ. ὦ οὗτος Αἴαν. The MSS. Laur. a. Par. 2712, 2884, Mosq. B. exhibit the writing in the text. The identity in form between the nominative and the vocative is supported also by the testimony of Eustathius, p. 1469. 59; Greg. Corinth. de Dial. Att. p. 53; Chæroboscus in Bekk. Anecd. p. 1183, οἱ 'Αττικοὶ τὰς αὐτὰς εἰώθασι ποιεῖν ὀρθὰς καὶ κλητικὰς, οἷον ὁ Θόας ὦ Θόας, ὦ Αἴας, ὦ Αἴας. οὗτος ὦ Αἴας δεύτερόν σε προσκαλῶ. Cf. below, vv. 276, 351, 460, 504, 561, 874, 921, 940, 959, 1270. The Homeric form Alay is unquestionably due to the copyists.

90. Τί βαιόν, κ. τ. λ.

Eustathius, p. 610. 9 : ἐντεῦθεν λαβὼν Σοφοκλῆς

βαιὸν ἐντρέπεσθαι λέγει τὸ οὐδ ̓ ὅλως ἐπιστρέφεσθαι. Cf. Elektr. 519, οὐδὲν ἐντρέπει ἐμοῦ γε. On the genitive, see Kühn. Gr. 496, ed. Jelf.