* * * *
[1] From the answer of the old man, Porson's conjecture, σπευδε, seems very
probable.
[2] See Hermann's note. The passage has been thus rendered by Ennius:
AG. "Quid nocti" videtur in altisono
Cœli clupeo?
SEN. Temo superat stellas, cogens
Sublime etiam atque etiam noctis
Itiner.
See Scaliger on Varr. de L.L. vi. p.143, and on Festus s.v. Septemtriones.
All the editors have overlooked the following passage of Apuleius de Deo
Socr. p. 42, ed. Elm. "Suspicientes in hoc perfectissimo mundi, ut ait
Ennius, clypeo," whence, as I have already observed in my notes on the
passage, there is little doubt that Ennius wrote "in altisono mundi
clypeo," of which _cœli_ was a gloss, naturally introduced by those who
were ignorant of the use of _mundus_ in the same sense. The same error has
taken place in some of the MSS. of Virg. Georg. i. 5, 6. Compare the
commentators on Pompon. Mela. i. 1, ed. Gronov.
[3] Such seems the force of επι πασιν αγαθοις. The Cambridge editor aptly
compares Hipp. 461. χρην σ' επι ‛ρητοις αρα Πατερα φυτευειν.
[4] The συννυμφοκομος was probably a kind of gentleman usher, but we have
no correlative either to the custom or the word.
[5] Hermann rightly regards this as a hendiadys.
[6] δρομωι for μορωι is Markland's, and, doubtless, the correct, reading.
μονος is merely a correction of the Aldine edition.
[7] But read τας--δελτους with the Cambridge editor, = "in relation to my
former dispatches."
[8] ταν should probably be erased before κολπωδη, with the Cambridge
editor. He remarks, "the sea-port, although separated from the island by
the narrow strait of Euripus, is styled its _wing_." On the metrical
difficulties and corruptions throughout this chorus, I must refer the
reader to the same critic.
[9] But λεκτρον, _uxorem_, is better, with ed. Camb.
[10] It is impossible to get a satisfactory sense as these lines now stand.
I have translated εξορμα. There seems to be a lacuna. The following are the
readings of the Camb. ed. εν γαρ π. αντησηις, παλιν εξ. ς. χαλινους, επι
κυκλωπων νιν ‛ιεις θυμ.
[11] But αγχιαλον is better, with ed. Camb. from the Homeric χαλκιδα τ'
αγχιαλον. He remarks that this word, in tragedy, is always the epithet of a
place.
[12] i.e. to exact satisfaction for her abduction.
[13] i.e. the tents containing the armed soldiers.
[14] ‛ηδομενους refers both to Πρωτεσιλαον and Παλαμηδεα, divided by the
schema Alcmanicum. See Markland.
[15] Cf. Homer, Il. Β. 763 sqq.
[16] Cf. Monk on Hippol. 1229. I have translated συριγγας according to the
figure of a part for the whole. The whole of the remainder of this chorus
has been condemned as spurious by the Cambridge editor. See his remarks, p.
219 sqq.
[17] Can θετον refer to αγαλμα understood?
[18] This part of the chorus is hopeless, as it is evidently imperfect. See
Herm.
[19] The Cambridge editor would assign this line to Menelaus.
[20] I read ευ κεκομψευσαι, with Ruhnken. The Cambridge editor also reads
πονηρα, which is better suited to the style of Euripides.
[21] The same scholar has anticipated my conjecture, σαφης for σαφες.
[22] Compare the similar conduct of Pausanias in Thucyd. i. 130, Dejoces in
Herodot. i., with Livy, iii. 36, and Apul. de Deo Socr. p. 44, ed. Elm.
[23] I read το Πριαμου with Elmsley. See the Camb. ed.
[24] With the Cambridge editor I have restored the old reading εχοντες.
[25] But see ed. Camb.
[26] αυ is a better reading. See Markland and ed. Camb.
[27] There is little hope of this passage, unless we adopt the readings of
the Cambridge editor, ‛ους λαβων στρατευμ'. ‛ετοιμοι δ' εισι. The next line
was lost, but has been restored from Theophilus ad Autol. p. 258, and Stob.
xxviii. p. 128, Grot.
[28] Cf. Soph. Antig. 523. ουτοι συνεχθειν, αλλα συμφιλειν εφυν.
[29] Dindorf condemns the whole of this speech of the messenger, as well as
the two following lines. Few will perhaps be disposed to follow him,
although the awkwardness of the passage may be admitted. Hermann considers
that the hasty entrance of the messenger is signified by his commencing
with half a line.
[30] There seems an intended allusion to the double sense of προτελεια,
both as a marriage and sacrificial rite. See the Cambridge editor, and my
note on Æsch. Agam. p. 102, n. 2, ed. Bohn.
[31] "Auspicare canistra, id quod proximum est." MUSGR.
[32] I think this is the meaning implied by νυμφευσουσα, as in vs. 885.
‛ιν' αγαγοις χαιρουσ' Αχιλλει παιδα νυμφευσουσα σην. Alcest. 317. ου γαρ σε
μητηρ ουτε νυμφευσει ποτε. The word seems to refer to the whole business of
a mamma on this important occasion.
[33] The Cambridge editor on vs. 439, p. 109, well observes, "the actual
arrival of Iphigenia having convinced Menelaus that her sacrifice could not
any longer be avoided, he bethinks him of removing from his brother's mind
the impression produced by their recent altercation; and knowing his open
and unsuspicious temper, he feels that he may safely adopt a false
position, and deprecate that of which he was at the same time most
earnestly desirous."
[34] So Markland, but Hermann and the Cambridge editor prefer the old
reading μετεστι σοι.
[35] This and the two following lines are condemned by Dindorf.
[36] Bœckh, Dindorf, and the Cambridge editor rightly explode these three
lines, which are not even correct Greek.
[37] λησομεν, _latebo faciens_.
[38] παρα for παρον, ed. Camb.
[39] i.e. by the gift of Venus. For the sense, compare Hippol. 443.
[40] Read διαφοροι δε τροποι with Monk, and ορθως with Musgrave.
[41] But παιδευομενων is better, with ed. Camb.
[42] I have partly followed Markland, partly Matthiæ, in rendering this
awkward passage. But there is much awkwardness of expression, and the notes
of the Cambridge editor well deserve the attention of the student.
εξαλλασσουσαν χαριν seems to refer to μετρια χαρις in vs. 555, and probably
signifies that the grace of a reasonable affection leads to the equal grace
of a clear perception, the mind being unblinded by vehement impulses of
passion.
[43] i.e. quiet, domestic.
[44] ενων is only Markland's conjecture. The whole passage is desperate.
[45] I read μυριοπληθη with ed. Camb. The pronoun ‛ο I can not make out,
but by supplying an impossible ellipse.
[46] The Cambridge editor rightly reads ιου, ιου, as an exclamation of
pleasure, not of pain, is required.
[47] Dindorf condemns this whole paragraph.
[48] The Cambridge editor thinks these two lines a childish interpolation.
They certainly are childish enough, but the same objection applies to the
whole passage.
[49] But read ‛οι δ' with Dobree. The grooms are meant.
[50] Porson condemns these four lines, which are utterly destitute of sense
or connection.
[51] These "precious" lines are even worse than the preceding, and rightly
condemned by all.
[52] See Elmsl. on Soph. Œd. C. 273. The student must carefully observe the
hidden train of thought pervading Agamemnon's replies.
[53] τα Μενελεω κακα must mean the ills resulting from Menelaus, the
mischiefs and toils to which his wife led, as in Soph. Antig. 2. των απ
Οιδιπου κακων, "the ills brought about by the misfortunes or the curse of
Œdipus." But I should almost prefer reading λεχη for κακα, which would
naturally refer to Helen.
[54] This line is metrically corrupt, but its emendation is very uncertain.
[55] I have endeavored to convey the play upon the words as closely as I
could. Elmsley well suggests that the proper reading is ‛εστηξεις in vs.
675.
[56] οφθηναι κοραις, "non, ut hic, a viris et exercitu." BRODÆUS.
[57] Porson on Orest. 1090, remarks on that ‛ο κυριος was the term applied
to the father or guardian of the bride. We might therefore render, "Jove
gave her away," etc.
[58] If this be the correct reading, we must take καλως ironically. But I
think with Dindorf, that κακως, αναγκαιως δε.
[59] This verse is condemned by the Cambridge editor.
[60] Barnes rightly remarked that ηιξα is the aorist of αισσω, _conor_,
_aggredior_.
[61] These three lines are expunged by the Cambridge editor.
[62] I have expressed the sense of η μη τρεφειν (= μη εχειν γυναικα),
rather than the literal meaning of the words.
[63] I must inform the reader that the latter portion of this chorus is
extremely unsatisfactory in its present state. The Cambridge editor, who
has well discussed its difficulties, thinks that Περγαμον is wrong, and
that ερυμα should be introduced from vs. 792, where it appears to be quite
useless.
[64] I have ventured to read δακρυοεν τανυσας with MSS. Pariss., omitting
ερυμα with the Cambridge editor, by which the difficulty is removed. The
same scholar remarks that δακρυοεν is used adverbially.
[65] There is obviously a defect in the structure, but I am scarcely
pleased with the attempts made to supply it.
[66] Read και παιδας with Musgrave.
[67] But see ed. Camb.
[68] But see ed. Camb.
[69] But the Cambridge editor admirably amends, εις μελλοντα σωσει χρονον,
i.e. "it will be a long time before it preserves them," a hit at the
self-importance of the old gentleman.
[70] I have little hesitation in reading πελας μοι with Markland, in place
of γελαι μοι.
[71] There is much difficulty in this passage, and Markland appears to give
it up in despair. Matthiæ simply takes the first part as equivalent to
‛υψηλοφρον εστι, referring μετριως to both verbs. The Cambridge editor
takes διαζην as an infinitive disjoined from the construction. Vss. 922 sq.
are indebted to Mr. G. Burges for their present situation, having before
been assigned to the chorus.
[72] I have closely followed the Cambridge editor.
[73] See the notes of the same scholar.
[74] Dindorf has rightly received Porson's successful emendation. See
Tracts, p. 224, and the Cambridge editor.
[75] Read σοις τε μελλουσιν with Markland.
[76] The Cambridge editor would omit vs. 1022. There is certainly a strange
redundancy of meaning.
[77] Read εστασεν with Mark. Dind.
[78] So called, either because he was carried off by Jove while hunting in
the promontory of Dardanus, or from his Trojan descent.
[79] I have adopted Tyrwhitt's view, considering the words inclosed in
inverted commas as the actual words of the epithalamium. See Musgr. and ed.
Camb. Hermann is strangely out of his reckoning.
[80] Read, however, Νηρηιδων with Heath, "first of the Nereids."
[81] The Cambridge editor would read νυμφοκομοι, Reiske νυμφοκομον. There
is much difficulty in the whole of this last part of the chorus.
[82] Such is Hermann's explanation, but βεβηκοτος can not bear the sense.
The Cambridge editor suspects that these five lines are a forgery.
[83] The Cambridge editor rightly, I think, condemns this line as the
addition of some one "who thought that something more was wanting to
comprise all the complaints of the speaker." I do not think the sense or
construction is benefited by their existence.
[84] "Verum astus hic astu vacat." ERASMUS.
[85] Dindorf has apparently done wrong in admitting προσουδισας, but I have
some doubt about every other reading yet proposed.
[86] See Camb. ed., who suspects interpolation.
[87] Cf. Lucret. i. 94. "Nec miseræ prodesse in tali tempore quibat, Quod
patrio princeps donarat nomine regum." Æsch. Ag. 242 sqq.
[88] The Cambridge editor clearly shows that μοι is the true reading, as in
vs. 54, το πραγμα δ' απορως ειχε Τυνδαρεωι πατρι, and 370.
[89] There is much doubt about the reading of this part of the chorus. See
Dind. and ed. Camb.
[90] I have partly followed Abresch in translating these lines, but I do
not advise the reader to rest satisfied with my translation. A reference to
the notes of the elegant scholar, to whom we owe the Cambridge edition of
this play, will, I trust, show that I have done as much as can well be done
with such corrupted lines.
[91] Achilles is supposed to lay his hand on his sword. See however ed.
Camb.
[92] Obviously a spurious line.
[93] I have punctuated with ed. Camb.
[94] See ed. Camb.
[95] ευφημησατε here governs two distinct accusatives.
[96] The Cambridge editor here takes notice of Aristotle's charge of
inconsistency, ‛οτι ουδεν εοικεν ‛η ‛ικετευουσα [Iphigenia] τηι ‛υστεραι.
He well remarks, that Iphigenia at first naturally gives way before the
suddenness of the announcement of her fate, but that when she collects her
feelings, her natural nobleness prevails.
[97] Cf. Lucret. i. 88. "Cui simul _infula_ virgineos _circumdata_ comtus,
Ex utraque pari malarum parte profusa est."
[98] Read παγας with Reiske, Dind. ed. Camb. There is much corruption and
awkwardness in the following verses of this ode.
[99] On the sense of μεμονε see ed. Camb., who would exclude δι' εμον
ονομα.
[100] Cf. Soph. Ant. 806 sqq. The whole of this passage has been admirably
illustrated by the Cambridge editor.
[101] There is much awkwardness about this epithet πατρωιαι. One would
expect a clearer reference to Agamemnon. I scarcely can suppose it correct,
although I do not quite see my way in the Cambridge editor's readings.
[102] Porson, Præf. ad Hec. p. xxi., and the Cambridge editor (p. 228 sqq.)
have concurred in fully condemning the whole of this last scene. It is
certain that in the time of Ælian something different must have been in
existence, and equally certain that the whole abounds in repetitions and
inconsistencies, that seem to point either to spuriousness, or, at least,
to the existence of interpolations of a serious character. In this latter
opinion Matthiæ and Dindorf agree.
[103] An allusion to the celebrated picture of Timanthes. See Barnes.
[104] I have done my best with this passage, following Matthiæ's
explanation, which, however, I do not perfectly understand. If vs. 1567
were away, we should be less at a loss, but the same may be said of the
whole scene.
* * * * * *