But perhaps the surest indication of the meaning of the parenthesis, is the xai in xàué; 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 Eschylus, in the note (Appendix C.) on the 51st line,—ějvwxa • toïode κοὐ δὲν ἀντειπεῖν ἔχω,—where I cannot think that και 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 xai, as distinguished from its common use as a copula, is very observable in Antig. 33,—coì xàμoí, λéyw yàp xàμé—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 λέγω γὰρ καμέ she hinted what she presently declared explicitly :— Other instances of xai so used are found in the Antigone. One is in the 280th line,παῦσαι, πρὶν ὀργῆς καμὲ μεστῶσαι λέγων, (where xal, I would maintain, is in its proper place, to give emphasis to the pronoun as well as to potoa). Another is in v. 493, μισῶ γε μέντοι χὤταν κ. τ. λ. (not, also when, or as much when; but, especially, chiefly when; zai giving to ötav an emphasis which reaches to the end of the sentence). Another instance occurs in that passage (vv. 681-3,) of which, in the same No. XIX. of the Classical Museum, the meaning is well explained by Dr. R. Maclure, as it is similarly by Mr. Donaldson in his recent edition of the Antigone :-'Eyà d'.... oőť ἂν δυναίμην, μήτ' ἐπισταίμην λέγειν · Γένοιτο μεντἂν χατέρῳ καλῶς ἔχον: where καὶ gives a strong exclusive force to ἑτέρῳ,-ΙΝ ΑΝOTHER, not in ME, that might and would be proper; (as in v. 567, ἀρώσιμοι γὰρ χατέρων εἰσὶν γύαι, we should perhaps understand of others' instead of her's, rather than, of others' as well as her's.) Compare also vv. 764-6.-X O. μçw yàp aùtà xai (really, actually, κατακτείναι νοεῖς ; ΚΡ. οὐ τήν γε μὴ θιγοῦσαν· εὖ γὰρ οὖν λέγεις. ΧΟ. μόρω δὲ ποίῳ καί σφε βουλεύει κτανεῖν ; By what death wilt thou her for certain (xa!) kill?—her, at any rate; HER, though not the other. As other instances of ai united, only for emphasis, with, the first personal pronoun, as in the present clause, I may add, Eumen. 790, Kåɣò tétoða Zyví. Med. 1129, ἔχω τι κἀγὼ τοῖσδε . . . . εἰπεῖν. Iphig. Τ. 596, καὶ τὰς Μυκήνας οἶσθα, χοὺς κἀγὼ θέλω. Looking now into Ellendt, I am pleased to find-vol. II. p. 17-the following good interpretation (which Y. has not noticed) of λέγω γὰρ κἀμέ ; " nam de industria meum non excludo nomen." I think, then, that the meaning wrapt up in the two lines may be unfolded by a paraphrase of this kind: Such is the edict which they say Creon in his good zeal has proclaimed,—an edict which must needs affect you and ME above all the citizens; in saying which, I make special mention of myself, because, whether you join with me or not, I mean to incur the penalty for burying our brother. And I would translate thus: They say that Creon-and call him good-for thee Has heralded an edict such as this. 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. vậy ěti Cúcan teλet.-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 Edipus after the death of both our brothers. I think the emphasis is on vov, more than on Cosa 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 tehet. Mr. Donaldson considers them as datives; but he translates, “for us while yet we live." I think, for us who yet survive, or for us who live as yet, would express the sense much better. V. 323. ἡ δεινὸν, ᾧ δοκεῖ γε καὶ ψευδή δοκεῖν.—I do not see how this line (devov being in the neuter) can admit of the sense given to it by Boeckh (as quoted by Wunder) and by Ellendt (1. 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 fercer retort than κόμψευε νῦν τὴν δόξαν (talk Now as finely as you please about appearance and opinion: but unless you soon shew me the REALITY, &c.) I think the construction which δεινὸν requires after it is, ᾧ δοκεῖ γε, [τούτῳ] καὶ ψευδῆ doxe, Sad, that to one to whom IT SEEMS, i. e. who judges only by appearances, things altogether (zai) false should seem! This philosophic dictum about tò doxoỡv, seeming, and not a punning use of doxav in different senses, was, as I conceive, the xousía which Creon in his reply alluded to. Compare, partly for construction and partly for sentiment, Electr. 1022, † davòv eð λέγουσαν ἐξαμαρτάνειν. 66 V. 357. ἄπορος ἐπ ̓ οὐδὲν ἔρχεται τὸ μέλλον.—Hermann joins ἐπ ̓ οὐδὲν μέλλον, èπ Qudèv tò μékhov, and interprets "ad nihil quod est futurum." Mr. Donaldson, rejecting such a construction, and "taking tò μέλλον as a sort of adverb, analogous to τὸ πρίν, τὸ νῦν, &c.,” explains the construction thus: “ τὸ μέλλον, ἄπορος ἔρχεται ἐπ' audev, 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 expedient for nothing, i. e. with an expedient for every thing; he goes to the future, i. e. he meets whatever comes? Of ǎñoрos ἄπορος taking after it (by reason of the transitive notion in ópos,) en with the accusative, we have an instance in Ed. R. 665, ἄπορον ἐπὶ φρόνιμα. If, similarly, ἄπορος ἐπ ̓ οὐδέν is the construetion here, this negative periphrasis is a repetition of the preceding navτoróрoç in a stronger shape; and we may compare it with such phrases as oùdevòs peilov odével, Prom. v. 1015, is stronger than no one, i. e. as weak as any one; and Suppl. 590, Ζεὺς . . . οὔ τινος . τὸ μεῖον κρατύνει. Οὔ τινος σέβει záτw, i. e. is superior to every one. The version which Mr. Do naldson gives in the text of his translation agrees (but I suppose from his note undesignedly,) with the construction I suggest :"Planless in nothing, meets he the future!" V. 518. ἀλλ ̓ οὐχ ὁ χρηστὸς τῷ κακῷ λαχεῖν ἴσος.—The commentators-Hermann, Wunder, &c.,-connecting tộ xaxộ with ἴσος (“ par malo,” leave the infinitive λαχεῖν in an awkward, disconnected position, to which I see no resemblance in the passages referred to by Wunder; for in v. 437, ταῦθ ̓ ἧσσω λαβεῖν ἐμοὶ πέφυκεν. 632, γάμος μείζων φέρεσθαι, -Elec. 1016, οὐδὲν ἀνθρώποις ἔφυ κέρδος λαβεῖν ἄμεινον, the infinitives are dependent in no unusual way on πέφυκε, μείζων, ἄμεινον; and in Αj. 1332, τοιούσδ ̓ ἐπαινεῖς δῆτα σὺ κτᾶσθαι φίλους; the construction and the sense are not such as Wunder gives, but κτᾶσθαι is dependent on ἐπαινεῖς, and governs φίλους; do you recommend the acquiring such friends? Is not the present passage an instance of the personal construction for the impersonal, οὐκ ἴσον ἐστὶ τὸν χρησ τὸν λαχεῖν τῷ κακῷ, It is not equal that the good man should have lot with the bad, i. e. not equitable towards the good, that he should obtain no more than the bad (compare v. 514, ἐκείνῳ δυσσεβῆ τιμᾶς χάριν . εἴ τοί σφε τιμᾶς ἐξ ἴσου (no more than,) τῷ δυσσεβεῖ.) Is not that construction as suitable to ἴσος as to δίκαιος in v. 398, δίκαιός εἶμι τῶνδ ̓ ἀπηλλάχθαι κακῶν ? Since in Philoct. we have ἴσος ανήρ in the sense of ἀνὴρ δίκαιος, is it not as lawful to say ἴσος ἐστὶ λαχείν, as it would be to say δίκαιός ἐστι λαχεῖν ? For λαχεῖν τῷ κακῷ For λαχεῖν τῷ κακῷ (= λαχεῖν ἐξ ἴσου — μετέχειν ἴσων—κοινωνεῖν τῷ κακῷ,) compare v. 829, τοῖς ἴσοθέοις ἔγκληρα λαχεῖν. V. 557, 8.—θάρσει. σὺ μὲν ζῆς· ἡ δ ̓ ἐμὴ ψυχὴ πάλαι τέθνηκεν, ὥστε τοῖς θανοῦσιν ὠφελεῖν. I do not see how this passage can bear Mr. Donaldson's translation : "Thou still livest; but my soul Is dead the while, e'en since I served the dead." To me Wunder's interpretation of the latter clause seems to express the true and natural sense, “ita ut vivis nihil jam utilis 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,— — ἐπεὶ πλείων χρόνος ὃν δεῖ μὲ ἀρέσκειν τοῖς κάτω τῶν ἐνθάδε. ἐκεῖ γὰρ ἀεὶ κείσομαι. and also vv. 884-8,—ἐλθοῦσα μέντοι κάρτ ̓ ἐν ἐλπίσιν τρέφω φίλη μὲν ἥξειν πατρί, προσφιλής δε σοί μῆτερ, φίλη δὲ σοί, κασίγνητον κάρα. κ. τ. λ. I should paraphrase thus: "Thou livest; live on: But I have done with life and all who live; my soul is already with the dead, and to them alone can I henceforth do service." Withμnuxǹ téûvŋxev, (literally, my life is dead,) compare ν. 1050, τῶν ἄνω ψυχήν τ' ἀτίμως ἐν τάφῳ κατώκισας: and 1144–6, τὰς γὰρ ἡδονὰς ὅταν προδῶσιν ἄνδρες, οὐ τίθημ ̓ ἐγὼ ζῆν τοῦτον, ἀλλ ̓ ἔμψυχον ἡγοῦμαι νεκρόν. V. 730.—ἄλλῳ γὰρ ἢ 'μοὶ χρή γε τῆσδ ̓ ἄρχειν χθονός; γε Although Mr. Linwood gets rid of the peculiarity of construction in this line by adopting confidently the conjectural substitution of us in the place of ys, and Mr. Donaldson, without sanctioning such a change of construction and of sense, remarks, that "most scholars will agree with Wunder in rejecting the ye of the vulgate," and himself substitutes '; I venture to repeat a suggestion which I have elsewhere supported by a comparison of passages, (Appendix A. to note on v. 3. Æsch. Prom.) that those few places in which xp 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 Æsch. 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 xp, which is perhaps made the more distinct by the intensive affix ye: The sentence thus constructed expressing the indignation of Creon with greater energy than the ordinary construction with the accusative would do. What! For any one but me to rule this land, is that a proper thing, I ask (yɛ) ?” Vv. 1051-4.—ἔχεις δὲ τῶν κάτωθεν ἐνθάδ ̓ αὖ θεῶν ἄμοιρον, ἀκτέριστον, ἀνόσιον νέκυν · ὧν οὔτε σοὶ μέτεστιν οὔτε τοῖς ἄνω θεοῖσιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ σοῦ βιάζονται τάδε. By Erfurdt and Hermann the words fiálovta ráde are made to refer to Polynices and Antigone. By the Scholiast, by Wunder, and other commentators, they are explained thus: Biálovra καὶ οἱ ἄνω θεοὶ ἔχειν αὐτὸν ἄνω ἄταφον, " Coguntur (di superi) xai |