« السابقةمتابعة »
But perhaps the surest indication of the meaning of the parenthesis, is the xai in x&pé; which particle, as seems clear to me, has here no conjunctive use, in the sense of etiam, also, or even, but is used in an intensive adverbial way,+frequent enough in the tragedians; but which has been so little recognized or understood, that, by learned editors and commentators, many passages in which it occurs have been misinterpreted, and several very needlessly and mischievously altered. This usage I have endeavoured to call attention to, and to illustrate by examples, in my edition of the Prometheus Bound of Æschylus, in the note (Appendix C.) on the 51st line,—iovoxa toiade zoöðāv &vtsitsiw Śyo,-where I cannot think that xa, ought to be disturbed by transposition, or need be explained by hyperbaton. What I conceive to be the construction and sense of the present clause, I may shew by quoting a few words from what I have written there:—“The intensive adverbial use of zai, as distinguished from its common use as a copula, is very observable in Antig. 33,-dot xàuoi, ).ésto (30 x&pé—to thee and to me, for I say emphatically ME; I have special cause for mentioning myself.” The especial reason which Antigone had for particularizing herself as affected by Creon's edict, was, that she, whatever her sister might do, was solemnly resolved to brave and break that edict. In Méso sap x&pé she hinted what she presently declared explicitly:
They say that Creon—and call him good—for thee
I take the opportunity of adding some remarks on several other passages of the Antigone, which appear to me to have been imperfectly understood.
V. 3. vojv Št. Códay ta).si.—Here I understand, not in our lifetime, or before we die; but on or for us the two survivors, the only living remains of the family of CEdipus after the death of both our brothers. I think the emphasis is on voy, more than on Códay: and that the sense requires that those two words should not be genitives, as some of the chief commentators suppose them to be, but datives depending on ts).si. Mr. Donaldson considers them as datives; but he translates, “for us while vet we live.” I think, for us who yet survive, or for us who live as yet, would express the sense much better.
V. 323. devöy, G, doxei Yezzi sodi, Coxsiy—I do not see how this line (östvöy being in the neuter) can admit of the sense given to it by Boeckh (as quoted by Wunder) and by Ellendt (I. p. 441, “si quis apud Sese constituit,”) and by Donaldson, who translates, “’Tis sad when one thinks good to think a lie.” The cunning sentinel would scarcely have spoken such dangerous impertinence to the angry king; for which he might have anticipated a fiercer retort than zápoeve vow toy 3652 (talk Now as finely as you please about appearance and opinion : but unless wou soon shew me the REALITY, &c.) I think the construction which delyöy requires after it is, (; Öoxei Ye, [too] zai sodi ôoxsiv, Sad, that to one to whom IT SEEMS, i. e. who judges only by appearances, things altogether (zai) false should seem I This philosophic dictum about to 30x039, seeming, and not a punning use of Coxsiy in different senses, was, as I conceive, the zoosía which Creon in his reply alluded to. Compare, partly for construction and partly for sentiment, Electr. 1022, # delvoy so Mérouazy śauaptively.
V. 357. &topog āt o'ow Śpystal to péooy.—Hermann joins êro ojoy to pé)}oy, and interprets “ad nihil quod est futurum.” Mr. Donaldson, rejecting such a construction, and “taking to péA).ow as a sort of adverb, analogous to to opty, to Vöy, &c.,” explains the construction thus: “to uéAXoy, &topog Éoxsta, śto oãov, in regard to the future, he comes to nothing without resources.” This seems better: but is it not best to take the words simply in the order in which they stand, which seems to me to give both lawful construction and good sense: without eapedient for nothing, i. e. with an expedient for every thing; he goes to the future, i.e. he meets whatever comes : Of &ropo. taking after it (by reason of the transitive notion in topog.) ëri with the accusative, we have an instance in OEd. R. 665, ãropov šti opóvoa. If, similarly, &topog #1 o')0áy is the construction here, this negative periphrasis is a repetition of the preceding toytotôpos in a stronger shape; and we may compare it with such phrases as oë0svö: pāī‘oy c0évet, Prom. v. 1015, is stronger than no one, i. e. as weak as any one; and Suppl. 590, Ze’): . . . of two; . . . to psiow . . . xpatówet. 03 two; . . . céget zato, i. e. is superior to every one. The version which Mr. Donaldson gives in the teact of his translation agrees (but I suppose from his note undesignedly,) with the construction I suggest:
“Planless in nothing, meets he the future!"
— “Thou still livest; but my soul
To me Wunder's interpretation of the latter clause seems to express the true and natural sense, “ita wt vivis nihil jam willis sim.” I think that clause has a much more general meaning than a reference to the burying of Polynices, and may be explained by comparing vv. 74–6,
Although Mr. Linwood gets rid of the peculiarity of construction in this line by adopting confidently the conjectural substitution of ps in the place of Ye, and Mr. Donaldson, without sanctioning such a change of construction and of sense, remarks, that “most scholars will agree with Wunder in rejecting the ss of the vulgate,” and himself substitutes or ; I venture to repeat a suggestion which I have elsewhere supported by a comparison of passages, (Appendix A. to note on v. 3. AEsch. Prom.) that those few places in which Xps appears to govern a dative, may be “explained by a usage which seems to have been greatly overlooked, though of no uncommon occurrence, and which has been noticed by Professor Scholefield on Eurip. Orest. 606, and AEsch. Agam. 1296, Appendix, p. 20, viz. the construction of the dative, in place of the accusative, before the infinitive of an active, or middle, verb:” and that, in the present instance, “the dative appears to stand almost independently of Yps, which is perhaps made the more distinct by the intensive affix fe: The sentence thus constructed expressing the indignation of Creon with greater energy than the ordinary construction with the accusative would do. What I For any one but me to rule this land, is that a proper thing, I ask (se)?”