« السابقةمتابعة »
Alexander succeeded in effecting the passage, and advancing into the country of the Assaeani (Afghans), to the city of Dyrta, (Jellalabad.) and to the banks of the Indus, (Cabul river,) and here he found and captured the much-sought-for elephants. We are told that Alexander attacked Aornos after reaching Peucaleotis," in which country was the passage of the Indus at Attok; so that, to have made such an attack on a pass described as the main access to India, he must have turned back and attacked it on the reverse or Indian side. Nor is it any objection that the Indus is said, by both Arrian and Strabo, to flow at the base of Aornos, or that Alexander came upon that river after passing the defile—for both these authors evidently consider the Cabul river, which washes the north side of the Khyber, as the Indus, and indeed the breadth and volume of its waters are but little inferior to what we now hold to be the real stream of the Indus. Alexander here cut wood, and built boats, which he floated down the river to his bridge. Burnes (Cabul, p. 276,) gives a detailed account of his descent of the Cabul river. By the same channel, our troops cooped up in Jellalabad, attempted to communicate with our forces on the Indus. After General Pollock's army had reached Jellalabad, and were masters of the banks of the Cabul river, they sent their sick and baggage down the stream to Peshawar; the Afghans also sent by water to Jellalabad the remains of the unfortunate Elphinstone, which were there interred with due honours. Frequent mention is made by both Arrian and Strabo, of the fabulous expeditions of Dionysus (Bacchus) and Hercules into the East; fables which doubtless had some foundation in fact, for such extraordinary expeditions do from time to time occur in the East. Dionysus succeeded in making his way through Aornos, (Khyber Pass,) but Hercules thrice attempted it in vain; he was repulsed at Aornos by earthquakes, and we cannot fail to call to mind how our own troops, under the gallant Sale at Jellalabad, were distressed by similar catastrophes. It appears to me that this is the only manner of accounting for
Indus before he attacked Aornos.
respond so exactly with the expressions afterwards applied to Alexander, airs;
3. ra. air rewrz &; ior, row "I,.33, rerauer
Alexander's attack on Aornos (a pass into India) after his arrival on the Indus; and that he had arrived on the Indus is sufficiently evident. Arrian gives the description of Aornos, when he states that the Assacani took refuge in it; his account of the fountain in the middle of the pass, agrees well with the beautiful stream at Ali-Musjid, in the middle of the Khyber.
Arrian speaks vaguely and contemptuously of the fabulous caves of Prometheus, mentioned by some authors in connection with the proceedings of Alexander. It seems, however, by no means improbable that these caves were what are now called the Caverns of Bameean. Alexander must have twice marched through or near the Bameean defile in his passage across the Parapamisan Caucasus, first, when (B.C. 329) he turned back from his newly founded Alexandria, (Ghuznee,) in order to pursue Bessus in Bactria; and, secondly, when in his return (B.C. 327) he resumed his operations upon India. Arrian also tells us, that while Alexander was in these parts, during his operations between the Cophenes and the Indus, he visited Nysa, the birthplace of Dionysus, or Bacchus, and renowned for its grapes and fruits. Such is now Cabul. The Macedonians, to their infinite joy, discovered ivy at Nysa, the only spot in the East where it was said to be found. It would be curious to ascertain if ivy exists at Cabul.
It ought to be remarked, that on the return from India, while Alexander led an army, and Nearchus a fleet, along the coast of Persia, Craterus conducted a division of the army from Sogdi, (Sukkur Z) through the Bolan Pass into Caramania. He had been previously selected, as we have seen, to settle the Bolan country, and perhaps he was, on that account, chosen as the leader of the division which retired through it.
- HENRY L. LONG.
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF A PASSAGE IN THE ANTIGONE OF SOPHOCLES; TO WHICH ARE ADDED REMARKS ON ARTICLE XIX. IN VOL. V. OF THE CLASSICAL MUSEUM.
While reading the Antigono some months ago, after an interval of many years, we found ourselves at variance with Wunder, whose edition we were using, in the interpretation of a particular passage. This led us to compare other editions: when we ascertained, to our surprise, that the meaning which had suggested itself to our mind naturally and at once, was not only unsanctioned, but even unmentioned, by any of the commentators, from the Scholiast downwards. Such a discovery inclined us to question the soundness of our own interpretation. We therefore considered and reconsidered it in every point of view, but always with a strengthened conviction of its correctness. We are hence induced to submit our version of the passage in question to the readers of the Classical Museum, in order that, if false, it may receive a sufficient refutation; if true, that its truth may be generally known and admitted. The lines to which we allude are the 11th and 12th in the following passage, which occurs in the opening scene of the play, vv. 21–36, where Antigone acquaints her sister Ismene with Creon's proclamation, forbidding the sepulture of Polynices.
~spisops to zouat #: 739 zai éparty év to: Côa, zatapopo. And afterwards, airso dei zão aoszztagopitzúa, Šv to: Côat.
This solution of the words Aéro 739 zápé, is manifestly bad. Accordingly Erfurdt explains thus: “parum me morat Creon, qui me quoque facere juberet, quae cum pietate in fratrem pugnant.” In this view Hermann, Wunder, Mitchell, Linwood (by silence), and all other subsequent commentators, generally acquiesce; Hermann and Wunder merely cite Erfurdt with approbation; Mitchell's note is as follows:—
“The deep feeling latent in these few words, is not at first apparent. The speaker, it must be remembered, is the affianced bride of Creon's son; and, through him, the heiress to his throne. A look or gesture on the part of Isment would probably insinuate, “And will you, so circumstanced, contravene this royal order o’ ‘Yes,’ the words of Antigoné imply: “that order puts my duty as a subject in collision with behests of a higher and holier nature; and Creon knows nothing of me, if he supposes me capable of neglecting the latter to comply with the former.””
This is more imaginative than true. There is nothing in Antigoné's position to make it specially remarkable that Creon should address the prohibition to her; and as to Ismene's asking by gesture whether her sister means to disobey it, Ismene's subsequent language shews that no such idea is supposed to be in her mind:—
And we further contend, that it is inconsistent with the simple dignity of Antigone's character to suppose that she intends by these words to exalt her own moral worth in comparison with her sister's. Least of all would she do so at a time when she is on the point of urging that sister to share the honour and the peril of her pious enterprise. So much for the inadequacy of this interpretation to explain the words ).éso 739 zăué. And now, what satisfactory meaning can we attach to the version: “this proclamation, they say, the good Creon has issued to you and to me.” Why “to you and to me?” Why to the sisters specially 7 On account of their kinship to the dead, will be the reply. But the decree is said above άσταῖσιν ἐxxsxygùχδαι, and when Creon himself repeats the proclamation, he says, (v. 192) xp%523 Éyω άστοῖσι, and (v. 203.) τέλει tjò* èxx£xpôz8at. He says nothing specially of the sisters ; nor yet, when the illicit sepulture of the corpse is announced, do his suspicions point towards them. Neither, if the proclamation were addressed at first, and in particular, to Antigone and Ismene, would Sophocles have represented it as coming to their knowledge by rumour only, (φασί) and not from the mouth of Creon himself, who was now on the point of reproclaiming it in person τοῖσι μή εὐδαι. One editor only, Wex, appears to have seen the inadmissibility of any interpretation which supposes the proclamation to be particularly addressed to the sisters. His note is as follows:— V. 31. τῶν άγαθόν. Schol. èv εἰρωνεΊα. v. 32. λάγω γάρ κάμ£.— “ Erfurdtius explicat: parum me morat Creon, qui me quoque facere juberet, quae cum pietate in fratrem pugnant. Bene quidem ; at modo non ita sunt explicanda hæc verba, quasi Creon dicatur sigillatim et nominatim sororibus, illud edixisse. Male enim illa explicans Heinrichsius, p. 65, autumat: “ In der Gewissheit, dass das Verbot allein nur die Familienglieder und insbesondere sie allein betreffe;” nec probaverim, quod Süvernius, p. 18, ait: “ In der Voraussetzung, Kreons Befehl sei hauptsächlich gegen sie und ihre Schwester, die ihres Bruders Leichnam nicht unbeerdigt lassen würden, gemeint.” Videmus enim Creontem postea, ubi suas suspiciones expromit, nihil suspicari de sororibus. 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. Indignatur igitur, quod Creon universe illud edicens a se quoque talem obedientiam exspectari posse in animum induxerit. Perverse explicat Scholiastes. Ceterum exspectaveris xàpoi, at sæpe illud λέγω, ubi aliquid materialiter repetendum erat, aut ubi explicationi illud inservit, accusativum assumit. Recte igitur Wellauer, Æ. Sept. Theb. v. 640, cum Aldo reposuit ἐπωνόμω δέ καρτα, IIo\oyeixij λόγω."— Cf. Lobeck, ad Ajac. v. 570. Matth. ? 432, 4. Wex, therefore, interprets thus:—the good Creon has issued this proclamation, which affect8 yow and ine, yes, me also. This