« السابقةمتابعة »
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 Ye of the vulgate,” and himself substitutes ori; Iventure 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 Ye: 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)?”
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, of x&tobey teot 3:4 ovtat, they (the gods below) have violence done to their rights by these proceedings of yours.
me to require, in sense and construction, with the preceding clause.
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 praesentibus de futuris conjecturam fecerit;” and by Wunder and other commentators, who cite as parallel the concluding words of the Ajax :—
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 do uovo, tooto: Ö3 &g pàow ovocas. 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:
Wv. 1217, 18.—xal puzov disiay #x33)0s. Twossy
The Scholiast interprets, #x33,0s, ti Asozi ağtij; rapes, 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 Haemon, and not Antigone’s: To suit better the received interpretation, Mitchel proposed to substitute ép£3,0s, for £x33}}s. 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. 3 603,) he emits a rushing (Öisiay) 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 two y . . . polytoo ataXàuatoo, 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 AEsch. Prom. 902, “Hoa; 3) atsial: távoy. 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:—xâxfoody číay a?pato; a pay v, the stab-drawn blood.
To make out a complete construction for £3 1:6).ow (600; oëz 350cery, the commentators would go to the end of the next clause, and bring otévely, or take topot:95 was from root)#3sly: both of which I think are out of reach, and can be dispensed with. It seems to me that 35.60) is here used transitively in the same