صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

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 pave intransitively: Wunder takes it transitively as governing κωκύματα: Hermann makes κωκύματα the nominative, taking οὐ μακροῦ χρόνου τριβή parenthetically, and apparently, pave intransitively. To me it seems that there should be no full stop between λéyw and pavel; that gave has its proper transitive signification, having κωκύματα for a nomi native in opposition with p3, 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 :

[blocks in formation]

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, τοῦπος 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 propliets, 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. Αίμων ὄλωλεν · αὐτόχειρ δ' αἱμάσσεται

ΧΟ.

πότερα πατρας ἢ πρὸς οἰκείας χερός; ΑΓ. αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτοῦ.

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. Autóxep aiμáoce must have meant, "he with his Αὐτόχειρ αἱμάσσει own hand slays:" but avτóxep 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, whovтo naíoavtés te xai πληγέντες αὐτόχειρι 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, autòc àñodvýoxel, αὐτοχειρίᾳ μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς γυναικὸς ἀδελφῶν, βουλῇ δὲ ὑπ ̓ αὐτῆς Εκείνης. See Constantine Matthiæ on αὐτόχειρ, Lexicon Euripideum.

Vv. 1217, 18.—καὶ φυσιῶν ὀξεῖαν ἐκβάλλει πνοὴν λευκῇ παρειᾷ φοινίου σταλάγματος.

The Scholiast interprets, εκβάλλει 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 (džiav) 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 voy With regard to πνοὴν ... φοινίου στα λárpatos, 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 Æsch. Prom. 902, "Hpas àλateiang Tóvov. 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 ἐξεῖαν alμatos opaɣýy, the stab-drawn blood.

V. 1225-8.

ἐλπίσιν δὲ βόσκομαι

ἄχη τέκνου κλύουσαν ἐς πόλιν γόους
οὐκ ἀξιώσειν, ἀλλ' ὑπὸ στέγης ἔσω

δμωαῖς προθήσειν πένθος οἰκεῖον στένειν.

To make out a complete construction for ἐς πόλιν γόους οὐκ ἀξιώcay, 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 agów 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 yóoʊç oux àúce is by itself a lawful and complete construction, equivalent to yóOUS roãoda o3× à§ɩóce, 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, μnd átiμáoys λóyous, I think the implied construction is, μηδ' ἀτ. λόγους (λέγειν), “ ne asperneris verba facere:" Nor is Eumen, 293. very different, od åvtipwveïç àìì' àñontúeis dóɣous, loathe (to utter) words.

Vv. 12579.

δέσποθ', ὡς ἔχων τε καὶ κεκτημένος,
τὰ μὲν πρὸ χειρῶν τάδε φέρων, τὰ δ ̓ ἐν δόμοις
ἔοικας ἥκειν καὶ τάχ ̓ ὄψεσθαι κακά.

The commentators oppose tà μèv in the first clause to rà dè in the second, and join φέρων with πρὸ χειρῶν, leaving τάδε, I think, in an awkward situation, or explaining it amiss ("táde autem wde valet," Linwood.) I conceive that the words τà μèv пρò xepwv táde form one expression, the whole of which is in opposition to tà è in the next clause. I think it may be questioned whether πρὸ χειρῶν here is quite the same in meaning as διὰ xapóc in v. 1237, and ev xeipsoov 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, τὰν ποσὶν κακά, and v. 1317, λέχρια τἂν χεροίν, τὰ δὲ — . But in either case, I would observe the disjunction which ráde makes between xapov and pέpwv. The difficulty in stating clearly the precise construction, seems to arise chiefly from xav, which belongs most to the first clause, being interposed, in the second, between coxas and ecda. 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.

174

XIV.

MISCELLANIES.

1. ON TWO GREEK VASES IN THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

VASE OF EPIDROMOS.-Fine Nolan cylix, with red figures, lately purchased of Mrs. Baddam, by the British Museum. Sh. Durand Catalogue, No. 109. Interior, a naked youth, crowned with laurel, kneeling upon the right knee, his chlamys doubled, and held up as a defence on the left arm. In his right hand, he holds a short and knotted stick. On it are two names, EПIAPOMOΣ, 'Emièрouos, that of the figure represented; and another, IXIAE KAAOZ, "Ichias is handsome." No mythological personage is known of the name of Epidromos; but a similar name occurs on two other vases, Archaologia, 1831, vol. xx. p. 220, accompanied by kaλós, and in an Athenian inscription, Boeckh, Corpus Inscr. Græc. vol. 1. p. 298. col. 1. 41. The absence of ἔγραψε οι ἐποίησεν prevents our supposing that the name is intended for that of an artist; and it is still more difficult to connect it with any heroical or other personage. The attitude of the figure resembles that of Theseus attacking the Crommyan sow.

VASE WITH THE Potter Keramos.-Cylix, purchased of S. Zitelli, with black figures on a red ground. On the exterior is Pallas-Athene, armed in the usual manner with helmet and ægis, and draped in a talaric tunic, piercing with her lance the giant Enkelados, who, armed as a Greek hoplite, has fallen mortally wounded on the ground; in the area are vine branches, and at each side is a large eye. In the interior is a potter, Kepáμevs, draped in a short tunic, seated on a low stool, having before him his lathe or wheel, resembling a circular table placed horizontally,-this the potter works with his knee while he shapes the vase with his hands. In the present instance, the vase is a paτp to which the workman is adding handles. The vase is placed vertically in the centre of the wheel; above, on two rows of shelves, are vases already finished and awaiting their turn for the This is undoubtedly the invention of the Ceramic art, which was claimed for the Athenians-by Kritias,

oven.

τὸν δὲ τροχοῦ γαίης τε καμίνου τ' ἔκγονον εὗρε
κλεινότατον κέραμον χρήσιμον οἰκόνομον

ἡ τὸ καλὸν Μαραθῶνι καταστήσασα τρόπαιον.

Athenæus, I. p. 28, B. this refers to the wheel; but according to Pliny, H. N. vII. 57, figlinas Corcibum Atheniensem invenisse, which applies rather to figures, in the same manner as Prometheus presided over the corporation of potters, in remembrance of the mythic making of man out of clay. In the same sense the invention of the

« السابقةمتابعة »