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." With un yuxǹ tédvηxev, (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 'μοι χρή γε τῆσδ ̓ ἄρχειν χθονός; με 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 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 ye of the vulgate," and himself substitutes 'ì; 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 xpý 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 (ye)?” V. 10514.—ἔχεις δὲ τῶν κάτωθεν ἐνθάδ ̓ αὖ θεῶν ὧν οὔτε σοὶ μέτεστιν οὔτε τοῖς ἄνω θεοῖσιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ σοῦ βιάζονται τάδε. By Erfurdt and Hermann the words Biálovrai táde 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) ut in ditione sua retineant corpus Polynicis." Each of these explanations appears to me to be far fetched and unnatural. I understand, from the context, οἱ κάτωθεν θεοὶ βιάζονται, they (the gods below) have violence done to their rights by these proceedings of yours. V. 1058, 60.—καὶ ταῦτ ̓ ἄθρησον εἰ κατηργυρωμένος λέγω· φανεῖ γὰρ οὐ μακροῦ χρόνου τριβὴ ἀνδρῶν, γυναικῶν τοῖς δόμοις κωκύματα. Here Ellendt takes pavei intransitively: Wunder takes it transitively as governing κωκύματα : Hermann makes κωκύματα the nominative, taking οὐ μακροῦ χρόνου τριβή parenthetically, and apparently, pavei intransitively. To me it seems that there should be no full stop between Aéyo and pave; that gave has its proper transitive signification, having κωκύματα for a nomi native in opposition with pß, and being connected with the preceding sentence, thus : κωκύματα φανεῖ sc. εἰ κατηργυρωμένος λέγω : And see whether I say this through bribes ; for the space of a little time will shew (whether such be the case, whether I have spoken truth or fiction,) even the wailings of men, &c. Such a case of apposition we have in Eurip. Orest. 802–5, ὁπότε χρυσείας ἔρις ἀρνὸς ἤλυθε Τανταλίδαις, οἰκτρότατα θοινάματα καὶ σφάγια γενναίων τεκέων. See Matth. Gr. Gr. 433, obs. 2. But if it be thought better to make οὐ μακροῦ χρόνου parenthetic, pavei may equally well have the connection which it seems to me to require, in sense and construction, with the preceding clause. Vv. 1137-9.—τύχη γὰρ ὀρθοῖ καὶ τύχη καταῤῥέπει τὸν εὐτυχοῦντα τόν τε δυστυχοῦντ ̓ ἀεί· καὶ μάντις οὐδεὶς τῶν καθεστώτων βροτοῖς. The meaning of the last line, misexplained by the Scholiast, has been overlooked by Brunck, whose version is, "nec ullus certus augur est fatorum mortalium ;” by Ellendt, who interprets, "nemo ex præsentibus de futuris conjecturam fecerit ;" and by Wunder and other commentators, who cite as parallel the concluding words of the Ajax : ἡ πολλὰ βροτοῖς ἔστιν ἰδοῦσιν γνώναι, πρὶν ἰδεῖν δ ̓, οὐδεὶς μάντις τῶν μελλόντων, ὅ τι πράξει. The line, if such were its meaning, would be very much out of place just after Teiresias had been predicting the overthrow of all Creon's prosperity, and just before the chorus had reason to exclaim ὦ μάντι, τοπος ὡς ἄρ ̓ ὀρθον ἤνυσας. The passage from the Ajax is quite different from this: for that has reference to mankind in general, as such,-" till he sees the end, no one (i. e. no ordinary person, no one who is not officially a prophet) can tell what is to be:" but here prophets, as such, are spoken of; and the meaning, in accordance with the context, is,-Nor is there any prophet who does or can predict established things (i. e. unchanging good or unchanging evil) for mortals. Mr. Donaldson, I see, translates rightly: "And prophets ne'er predict stability." V. 1154-6.-ΑΓ. Αἵμων ἔλωλεν· αὐτόχειρ δ' αἱμάσσεται In the first line the ambiguity of autóyap was owing, not to that word's having several meanings, as commentators have supposed it to have, but simply to its being joined with a passive verb. Autóɣep aiμácou must have meant, "he with his own hand slays:" but autóxep aiμácosta expressed only, “he by own hand, by private hand, is slain," and might have meant either Creon's own, or Hæmon's own, or the own hand of any other person who could have been supposed likely to have done the deed. Hence the enquiry of the chorus in the next line, "Do you mean his father's, or his own?" (since no third person was likely ;) and the necessity for the more exact definition of the meaning of αυτόχειρ by αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτοῦ in the next words of the messenger. In v. 1293, παίσασ ̓ ὑφ ̓ ἧπαρ αὐτόχειρ αυτήν, this adjective admits of no ambiguity, and could only be understood to mean, "with her own hand," by reason of its connection with the active participle. In v. 172, whovto naíoavtés te nai πληγέντες αὐτό χειρι σὺν μιάσματι, (literally, with own-hand bloodshed,") the meaning is, "each brother with his own hand striking the other dead, and each stricken dead by his brother's own hand." Compare Xen. Hellen. vI. 4, 35, aůtòç áñodvýoxel, αὐτοχειρίᾳ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφῶν, βουλῇ δὲ ὑπ ̓ αὐτῆς ἐκείνης.—See Constantine Matthiæ on αυτόχειρ, Lexicon Euripideum. 66 Vv. 1217, 18.—καὶ φυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν ἐκβάλλει πνοὴν λευκῇ παρειᾷ φοινίου σταλαγματος. The Scholiast interprets, ἐκβάλλει τῇ λευκῇ αὐτῆς παρειᾷ, and is followed by, I believe, all the commentators and translators. But this seems to me very needless and offensive. Could the poet have intended to present to our minds such a disgusting picture such a loathsome particular as this interpretation gives? I think the construction, as well as the meaning, signifies the cheek of Hæmon, and not Antigone's: To suit better the received interpretation, Mitchel proposed to substitute uβάλλει for ἐκβάλλει. The cheek of the dying man, dying from a sword-wound and loss of blood, would be pale and bleached, almost as much as that of the dead maiden. I translate, therefore, with pallid cheek, (Circumstantial or Modal Dative, Jelf Gr. Gr. 603,) he emits a rushing (dziav) breath of (i. e. fraught with) blood-drops: or, not quite so literally, he breathes out with pallid cheek a rushing shower of blood: or, if the construction of the Scholiast is to be preferred, over, crimsoning on, his (not her) whited cheek. With regard to πνοὴν ... φοινίου στα λáyμatos, I have noticed the use of the genitive, in this and other passages, to connect one noun with another so as to form one notion from the two, (and, in consequence of which, other words forming part of the same sentence, are made to govern, or to agree with either of them, and sometimes with that one to which, taken by itself, they are not appropriate,) in a note on Esch. Prom. 902, "Hpas àλateías πóvшv. The line in the Agamemnon (1362) which has been compared with the present passage, for its likeness in other points, has a remarkable resemblance in such a use of the genitive:—κακφυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν alpatos aparýv, the stab-drawn blood. V. 1225-8. ἐλπίσιν δὲ βόσκομαι ἄχη τέκνου κλύουσαν ἐς πόλιν γόους δμωαῖς προθήσειν πένθος οἰκεῖον στένειν. To make out a complete construction for ἐς πόλιν γόους οὐκ ἀξιώcav, the commentators would go to the end of the next clause, and bring στένειν, or take προτιθέναι from προθήσειν : both of which I think are out of reach, and can be dispensed with. It seems to me that aów is here used transitively in the same way, though in not quite the same sense that we use deign and vouchsafe as active verbs; and that yóous oux auúce is by itself a lawful and complete construction, equivalent to you roãođai o3x à§iúce, will not deign lamentations to the city, i. e. deems that public lamentations would be unfitting. So, with a like verb, in Æsch. Prom. v. 785, μyd åtiμáoys λóyous, I think the implied construction is, μηδ' ἀτι λόγους (λέγειν), “ ne asperneris verba facere:" Nor is Eumen. 293. very different, oud' åvtipwveïç àìì3 àπomtúeis λóyous, loathe (to utter) words. Vv. 1257-9. Ω δέσποθ', ὡς ἔχων τε καὶ κεκτημένος, τὰ μὲν πρὸ χειρῶν τάδε φέρων, τὰ δ ̓ ἐν δόμοις The commentators oppose tà μèv in the first clause to tà dè in the second, and join φέρων with πρὸ χειρῶν, leaving τάδε, I think, in an awkward situation, or explaining it amiss ("rade autem wde valet," Linwood.) I conceive that the words τà μèν πρò Xepov táde form one expression, the whole of which is in opposition to và dà in the next clause. I think it may be questioned whether лрò xεрõv here is quite the same in meaning as dià xapóc in v. 1237, and ev xeípeoow in v. 1277; or is not rather used as in Eurip. Troad. 1196, (Matth.) in the more general sense of "close at hand," "present before you :" comparing v. 1302, των ποσὶν κακά, and v. 1317, λέχρια των χεροῖν, τὰ δὲ —, But in either case, I would observe the disjunction which tάde makes between χειρῶν and φέρων. The difficulty in stating clearly the precise construction, seems to arise chiefly from av, which belongs most to the first clause, being interposed, in the second, between coxas and oecda. But taking the construction thus, τὰ μὲν κακὰ πρὸ χειρῶν τάδε ἔοικας ἥκειν φέρων, τὰ δ ̓ ἐν δόμοις κακὰ [ἥκων] ἔοικας καὶ τάχ ̓ ὄψεσθαι: I understand, as the true holder and possessor, (the owner and claimant, as father and husband, of the two corpses,-as chief proprietor and mourner,) you seem to have come bringing the sorrow which in your embrace is here (tàde,) and only to witness full (xai) soon the sorrow which is within the house. HENRY S. RICHMOND. |