صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

good; than, “whom you and I THOUGHT good” There is nothing in the sentence to denote an opinion past.

As regards the perhaps unsatisfactory explanation, received from the Scholiast, of toy &saboy, as spoken #y sipovsø, we may avoid it by understanding:—Creon whom THEY think good; they say THEIR worthy Creon, i. e. whose conduct in this matter they approve as patriotic. And this, I think, is the sense which best suits the context: Antigone meaning, that this was a bitter part of the consummation, for her and Ismene, röy &ro Oióirou xxxây, (vv. 2, 3,)—that their fellow-citizens were uniting with Creon in his refusal of burial to their fallen brother. See vv. 44, 79, 894.

The datives ad; and #10, in connection with xmosavī āyer, denote, not, certainly, that Creon had made mention of Antigone and Ismene in his edict; nor, perhaps, that he had issued it with a special view to them above all others: but, that the general order issued by him tavóñup tos, v. 7, naturally and necessarily (so at least Antigone felt) concerned them, the two sisters, in particular.

Further, as regards Aéso sop xàué, I conceive that Y.'s sense, no less than the interpretations of other commentators, would demand xàof here, instead of zăué. Wex has, I think, given rightly the general meaning of the passage in the following part of the note which Y. quotes:—“Immo hoc dicit Antigona: Illud cum edixit Creon, ad te quoque pertinet hoc edictum et ad me, ad me inquam, quod cum repetit, significat, quam novum sibi quidem et inauditum videatur tale edictum, in quam talis obedientia cadere non possit.” But that Wex did not discern the precise meaning and construction of this parenthetic clause, Xéso sap zapá, I infer from his remarking: “Ceterum exspectaveris zapoi, at sape illud Aéro), ubi aliquid materialiter repetendum erat, aut ubi explicationi illud inservit, accusativum assumit.” For I believe that xàgé, and not xào., was essential to the sense intended by Sophocles: nor is Méso used here in either of the ways which Wex speaks of That verb is here not inquam, nor dico; not I say (parathentic), or I repeat, or I mean, nor I tell (thee); but mentionem facio de —, I name, I specify, as in CEd. C. 128, 3; topousy Xésery, a sense which of course requires the accusative. Any other sense of Xéso is excluded by Yap, an important and expressive word in the clause.

But perhaps the surest indication of the meaning of the parenthesis, is the zaï 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 Æschylus, in the note (Appendix C.) on the 51st line,—isvoxa toiods zoë6èy &vtsitsiy #700,—where I cannot think that zai 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 xàuos, Aéso sap 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 Aéro &p x&pá she hinted what she presently declared explicitly:

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

They say that Creon—and call him good—for thee
And me (for I with reason name myself.)
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.

W. 3, vow to Códay ts).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 vov, 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 texei. Mr. Donaldson considers them as datives; but he translates, “for w8 while yet we live.” I think, for us who yet survive, or for us who live as yet, would express the sense much better.

W. 323. devöv, to 3oxsi re zai Jeodi, doxely.—I do not see how this line (östvöv 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 x6posue vöv toy 365ay (talk Now as finely as you please about appearance and opinion : but wnless Ayou soon shew me the REALITY, &c.) I think the construction which devöy requires after it is, (; Öoxei Ye, [too] zai Jeodj ôoxsiv, Sad, that to one to whom IT SEEMS, i. e. who judges only by appearances, things altogether (zai) false should seem 1 This philosophic dictum about to doxoly, seeming, and not a punning use of doxely 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, , devöy ej Aéropoav Šapaptively.

V. 357. &ropos ét: 0.83W £pystal to pé)\oy.—Hermann joins ët: 0.6&w to péAXoy, and interprets “ad nihil quod est futurum.” Mr. Donaldson, rejecting such a construction, and “taking to péooy as a sort of adverb, analogous to tú topsy, to vöy, &c.,” explains the construction thus: “to ué)\ov, &ropos épxsta éto ośćy, 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 Śropod taking after it (by reason of the transitive notion in täpoo,) ëri with the accusative, we have an instance in CEd. R. 665, &ropov šti ppävlya. If, similarly, &topog ātā oddév is the construction here, this negative periphrasis is a repetition of the preceding taytotôpos in a stronger shape; and we may compare it with such phrases as oë0svö; psiCow abévet, Prom. v. 1015, is stronger than no one, i. e. as weak as any one; and Suppl. 590, Ze'); . . . of two; . . . to pelow . . . xpatówet. Ot, two; . . . défle, xoto), i. e. is superior to every one. The version which Mr. Donaldson gives in the teart of his translation agrees (but I suppose from his note undesignedly,) with the construction I suggest:—

“Planless in nothing, meets he the future!"

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

“Thou still livest; but my soul
Is dead the while, e'en since I served the dead."

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »