* * * *
[1] This verse and part of the following are set down among the "oil cruet"
verses by Aristophanes, Ran. 1232. Aristotle, Poet. § xvii. gives a sketch
of the plot of the whole play, by way of illustrating the general form of
tragedy. Hyginus, who constantly has Euripides in view, also gives a brief
analysis of the plot, fab. cxx. For a description of the quadrigæ of
Pelops, see Philostratus Imagg. i. 19. It must be observed, that Antoninus
Liberalis, § 27, makes Iphigenia only the supposititious daughter of
Agamemnon, but really the daughter of Theseus and Helen. See Meurs. on
Lycophron, p. 145.
[2] I must confess that I can not find what should have so much displeased
the critics in this word. Iphigenia, in using such an epithet, evidently
refers to her own intended sacrifice, which had rendered the recesses of
Aulis a place of no small fame.
[3] But Lenting prefers Αχαιους, with the approbation of the Cambridge
editor.
[4] See Reiske apud Dindorf. Compare my note on Æsch. Ag. 188, p. 101, ed.
Bohn. So also Callimachus, Hymn. iii. μειλιον απλοϊης, ‛οτε ‛οι κατεδησας
αητας.
[5] Sinon made the same complaint. Cf. Virg. Æn. ii. 90.
[6] Cf. Æsch. Ag. 235.
[7] This whole passage has been imitated by Ovid, de Ponto, iii. 2, 60.
"Sceptra tenente illo, liquidas fecisse per auras, Nescio quam dicunt
Iphigenian iter. Quam levibus ventis sub nube per aera vectam Creditur his
Phœbe deposuisse locis." Cf. Lycophron, p. 16, vs. 3 sqq. Nonnus xiii. p.
332, 14 sqq.
[8] Observe the double construction of ανασσει. Orest. 1690. ναυταις
μεδεουσα θαλασσης.
[9] The Cambridge editor would expunge this line, which certainly seems
languid and awkward. Boissonade on Aristænet. Ep. xiii. p. 421, would
simply read τα δ' αλλα ς. τ. θ. φοβουμενη: θυω γαρ. He also retains
‛ιερειαν, referring to Gaisford on Hephæst. p. 216.
[10] The Cambridge editor would throw out vs. 41.
[11] The Cambridge editor refers to Med. 56, Androm. 91, Soph. El. 425. Add
Plaut. Merc. i. 1, 3. "Non ego idem facio, ut alios in comœdiis vidi facere
amatores, qui aut nocti, aut die, Aut Soli, aut Lunæ miserias narrant
suas." Theognetus apud Athen. xv. p. 671. Casaub. πεφιλοσοφηκας γηι και
ουρανωι λαλων. Cf. Davis, on Cicero, Tusc. Q. iii. 26, and Lomeier de
Lustrat. § xxxvii.
[12] Θριγκον is properly the uppermost part of the walls of any building
(Pollux, vii. 27) surrounding the roof, στεγος is the roof itself.
[13] Cf. Meurs. ad Lycophron, p. 148.
[14] I read ειμ' εισω with Hermann and the Cambridge editor.
[15] This line is condemned by the Cambridge editor. Burges has transposed
it.
[16] But διαδρομαις, the correction of the Cambridge editor, seems
preferable.
[17] An interpolation universally condemned.
[18] See Barnes, and Wetstein on Acts xix. 35.
[19] On the wanderings of Orestes see my note on Æsch. Eum. 238 sqq. p.
187, ed. Bohn.
[20] See the note of the Cambridge editor, with whom we must read
εισβησομεσθα.
[21] ‛ων ουδεν ισμεν ad interiora templi spectat. HERM.
[22] We must read γεισα τριγλυφων ‛οποι, with Blomfield and the Cambridge
editor. See Philander on Vitruv. ii. p. 35, and Pollux, vii. 27.
[23] The sense is ουτοι, μακραν ελθοντες, εκ τερματων (sc. a meta)
νοστησομεν. ED. CAMB.
[24] The Cambridge editor appositely compares a fragment of our author's
Cresphontes, iii. 2, αισχρον τε μοχθειν μη θελειν νεανιαν.
[25] On the whole of this chorus, which is corrupt in several places, the
notes of the Cambridge editor should be consulted.
[26] This last lumbering line must be corrupt.
[27] Compare the similar scene in Soph. El. 86 sqq.
[28] Cf. Elect. 90. νυκτος δε τησδε προς ταφον μολων πατρος. Hecub. 76.
Æsch. Pers. 179. Aristoph. Ran. 1331.
[29] Compare my note on Æsch. Pers. 610 sqq.
[30] See on Æsch. Choeph. 6.
[31] Markland's emendation has been unanimously adopted by the later
editors.
[32] Schema Colophonium. The Cambridge editor compares vs. 244. Αργει
σκηπτουχον. Phœn. 17. Θηβαισιν αναξ. Heracl. 361. Αργει τυραννος.
[33] I have marked lacunæ, as some mythological particulars have evidently
been lost.
[34] An imperfect allusion to the Thyestean banquet. Cf. Seneca Thyest.
774. "O Phœbe patiens, fugeris retro licet, medioque ruptum merseris cœlo
diem, sero occidisti--" vs. 787 sqq.
[35] Cf. Æsch. Ag. 1501 sqq. Seneca, Ag. 57 sqq.
[36] i.e. the demon allotted to me at my birth (cf. notes on Æsch. 1341, p.
135, ed. Bohn). Statius, Theb. i. 60, makes Œdipus invoke Tisiphone under
the same character.--"Si me de matre cadentem Fovisti gremio."
[37] See the note of the Cambridge editor.
[38] εβησαν is active.
[39] The Cambridge editor aptly refers to Hecub. 464.
[40] These participles refer to the preceding αιμορραντων ξεινων.
[41] See on Heracl. 721.
[42] The Cambridge editor would omit these two lines.
[43] Cf. vs. 107. κατ' αντρ', ‛α ποντιος νοτιδι διακλυζει μελας. On αγμος
(Brodæus' happy correction for ‛αρμος) the Cambridge editor quotes Nicander
Ther. 146. κοιλη τε φαραγξ, και τρηχεες αγμοι, and other passages. The
manner of hunting the purple fish is thus described by Pollux, i. 4, p. 24.
They plat a long rope, to which they fasten, like bells, a number of hempen
baskets, with an open entrance to admit the animal, but which does not
allow of its egress. This they let down into the sea, the baskets being
filled with such food as the murex delights in, and, having fastened the
end of the rope to the rock, they leave it, and returning to the place,
draw up the baskets full of the fish. Having broken the shells, they pound
the flesh to form the dye.
[44] εφθαρμενους. Cf. Cycl. 300. Hel. 783. Ed. Camb.
[45] Compare Orest. 255 sqq.
[46] χιτωνων is probably corrupt.
[47] Cf. Lobeck on Aj. 17. Hesych. κοχλος τοις θαλαττιοις (i.e. κοχλοις)
εχρωντο, προ της των σαλπιγγων ευρεσεως. Virg. Æn. vi. 171. "Sed tum forte
cava dum personat æquora concha."
[48] "Moriamur, et in media arma ruamus." Virg. Æn. ii.
[49] Such seems to be the sense, but εξεκλεψαμεν is ridiculous, and
Hermann's emendation more so. Bothe reads εξεκοψαμεν, which is better. The
Cambridge editor thinks that the difficulty lies in πετροισι.
[50] I would omit this line as an evident gloss.
[51] See the Cambridge editor.
[52] Reiske's emendation, ‛οσια for ‛οια, seems deserving of admission.
[53] The Cambridge editor would omit these lines.
[54] This line also the Cambridge editor trusts "will never hereafter be
reckoned among the verses of Euripides."
[55] Such is the proper sense of αντιθεισα.
[56] νιν is νυμφευματα.
[57] Read κασιγνητηι.
[58] I read τοις μεν and τοις δ' with the Cambridge editor. Hermann's
emendation is unheard of.
[59] This clause interrupts the construction. δραμοντες must be understood
with all the following sentence, as no finite verb is expressed except
επερασαν.
[60] I have partly followed Hermann, reading επεβαιην ... απολαυων, but, as
to reading ‛υπνων for ‛υμνων, the Cambridge editor well calls it "one of
the wonders of his edition." I should prefer reading ολβου with the same
elegant scholar.
[61] I follow the Cambridge editor in reading διδυμας, from Ovid, Ep. Pont.
iii. 2, 71. "Protinus immitem Triviæ ducuntur ad aram, Evincti geminas ad
sua terga manus."
[62] "_displays while she offers_" i.e. "_presents as a public offering_"
ED. CAMB.
[63] I am but half satisfied with this passage.
[64] Read εσεσθε δη κατω with the Cambridge editor.
[65] We must read νω with Porson.
[66] Probably a spurious line.
[67] Read Μυκηνων γ', _ay, from Mycenæ_, with the Cambridge editor.
[68] Hermann seems rightly to read ‛ος γ' εν.
[69] Dindorf rightly adopts Reiske's emendation συ τουδ' ερα.
[70] The Cambridge editor rightly reads τινά with an accent, as Orestes
obviously means himself. Compare Soph. Ant. 751. ‛ηδ' ουν θανειται, και
θανουσ' ολει τινά.
[71] Such is the force of δη.
[72] I would read εξεπραξατο with Emsley, but I do not agree with him in
substituting κακην. The oxymoron seems intentional, and by no means unlike
Euripides.
[73] The Cambridge editor would read εστ' ουτις λογος.
[74] But χαριν, as Matthiæ remarks, is taken in two senses; as a
preposition with γυναικος, _ob improbam mulierem_, and as a substantive,
with αχαριν added. Cf. Æsch. Choeph. 44. Lucretius uses a similar oxymoron
respecting the same subject, i. 99. "Sed _casta inceste_ nubendi tempore in
ipso Hostia concideret mactatu mæsta parentis."
[75] This passage is very corrupt. The Cambridge editor supposes something
lost respecting the fortunes of Orestes. Hermann reads ‛εν δε λυπεισθαι
μονον, ‛ο τ' ουκ αφρων ων. But I am very doubtful.
[76] These three lines are justly condemned as an absurd interpolation by
Dindorf and the Cambridge editor.
[77] This seems the easiest way of expressing και συ after συ δ'.
[78] I am partly indebted to Potter's happy version. The Cambridge editor
is as ingenious as usual, but he candidly allows that conjecture is
scarcely requisite.
[79] i.e. thou seemest reckless of life.
[80] προστροπη, this mode of offering supplication, i.e. this duty of
sacrifice.
[81] Diodorus, xx. 14. quotes this and the preceding line reading χθονος
for πετρας. He supposes that Euripides derived the present account from the
sacrifices offered to Saturn by the Carthaginians, who caused their
children to fall from the hands of the statue εις τι χασμα πληρες πυρος.
Compare Porphyr. de Abst. ii. 27. Justin, xviii. 6. For similar human
sacrifices among the Gauls, Cæsar de B.G. vi. 16, with the note of Vossius.
Compare also Saxo Grammaticus, Hist. Dan. iii. p. 42, and the passages of
early historians quoted in Stephens' entertaining notes, p. 92.
[82] Cf. Tibull. i. 3, 5. "Abstineas, mors atra, precor, non hic mihi
mater, Quæ legat in mæstos ossa perusta sinus; non soror, Assyrios cineri
quæ dedat odores, et fleat effusis ante sepulchra comis."
[83] This must be what the poet _intends_ by κατασβεσω, however awkwardly
expressed. See Hermann's note.
[84] Compare vs. 468 sq.
[85] This line is hopelessly corrupt.
[86] I read μεν ουν with the Cambridge editor.
[87] αζηλα is in opposition to the whole preceding clause.
[88] See the note of the Cambridge editor on Iph. Aul. 1372.
[89] I should prefer εστι δη,"_she surely is._"
[90] We must evidently read either διηλθον with Porson, or διελθε with
Jan., Le Fevre, and Markland.
[91] I almost agree with Dindorf in considering this line spurious.
[92] For this construction compare Ritterhus. ad Oppian, Cyn. i. 11.
[93] I can not help thinking this line is spurious, and the preceding θηται
corrupt. One would expect θησηι.
[94] Cf. Kuinoel on Cydon. de Mort. Contem. § 1, p. 6, n. 18.
[95] Literally, "no longer a hinderance," i.e. "that I be no longer
responsible for its fulfillment."
[96] The Cambridge editor, however, seems to have settled the question in
favor of οισθ' ‛ουν ‛ο δρασον.
[97] I must candidly confess that none of the explanations of these words
satisfy me. Perhaps it is best to regard them, with Seidler, as merely
signifying the mutability of fortune.
[98] i.e. as far as the fulfilling of my oath is concerned.
[99] The letter evidently commences with the words ‛η 'ν Αυλιδι σφαγεισα. I
can not imagine how Markland and others should have made it commence with
the previous line.
[100] i.e. in what company.
[101] This line is either spurious or out of place. See the Cambridge
editor.
[102] The Cambridge editor in a note exhibiting his usual chastened and
elegant judgment, regards these three lines as an absurd and trifling
interpolation. For the credit of Euripides, I would fain do the same.
[103] The same elegant scholar justly assigns these lines to Iphigenia.
[104] So Erfurdt.
[105] See the Cambridge editor.
[106] This line seems justly condemned by the Cambridge editor.
[107] With καμπτεις understand δρομον = thou art fast arriving at the goal
of the truth.
[108] Read απεδεξω with ed. Camb.
[109] "I remember it: for the wedding did not, by its happy result, take
away the recollection of that commencement of nuptial ceremonies." CAMB.
ED.
[110] i.e. Iphigenia sent it with a view to a cenotaph at Mycenæ, as she
was about to die at Aulis. See Seidler.
[111] "This Homeric epithet of an only son is used, I believe, nowhere else
in Attic poetry. Its adoption here seems owing to Hom. Il. Ι. 142 and 284.
τισω δε μιν ‛ισον Ορεστηι ‛Ος μοι τηλυγετος τρεφεται θαλιηι ενι πολληι."
ED. CAMB.
[112] This is Musgrave's elegant emendation, which Hermann, unwilling to
let well alone, has attempted to spoil. See, however, the Cambridge editor,
who possesses taste and clear perception, unbiased by self-love.
[113] Read εμοις with the Cambridge editor.
[114] But φυγηις, and ω φιλος, the emendation of Burges, seems far better,
and is followed by the Cambridge editor.
[115] i.e. I can imagine your sufferings at Aulis.
[116] The Cambridge editor compares Hec. 684. ‛ετερα δ' αφ' ‛ετερων κακα
κακων κυρει.
[117] This is Reiske's interpretation, taking the construction πριν ξιφος
παλ. επι ‛αιματι. But Seidler would recall the old reading πελασαι,
comparing Hel. 361. αυτοσιδαρον εσω πελασω δια σαρκος ‛αμιλλαν. This is
better, but we must also read ετι for επι with the Cambridge editor.
[118] ‛ριπαι ποδων is a bold way of expressing rapid traveling.
[119] Read ανα with Markland, for αρα.
[120] I read η δια κυαν. with the Cambridge editor. The following words are
rendered thus by Musgrave, "Per ... _est_ longum iter."
[121] Unintelligible, and probably spurious.
[122] The Cambridge editor finds fault with the obvious clumsiness of the
expression, and proposes εχειν for λαβειν. I have still greater doubts
about εκβαντας τυχης. The sense ought to be, "'tis the part of wise men,
_when fortune favors_, not to lose the opportunity, but to gain other
advantages."
[123] See Dindorf's notes. But the Cambridge editor has shown so decided a
superiority to the German critics, that I should unhesitatingly adopt his
reading, as follows: ου μη μ' επισχηις, ουδ' αποστησεις λογου, το μη ου
πυθεσθαι ... φιλα γαρ ταυτα, (with Markland,) although πρωτον may perhaps
be defended.
[124] See the Cambridge editor. The same elegant scholar has also improved
the arrangement of the lines.
[125] "Quanquam animus meminisse horret, luctuque refugit, Incipiam." Virg.
Æn. i.
[126] I read ενθ' εμον ποδα with Herm. and Dind.
[127] Cf. Elect. 1258 sqq., and Meurs. Areop. § i. ψηφος seems here used to
denote the place where the council was held. The pollution of Mars was the
murder of Hallirothius. Cf. Pausan. i. 21.
[128] An instance of the nominativus pendens.
[129] So Valckenaer, Diatr. p. 246, who quotes some passages relative to
the treatment of Orestes at Athens.
[130] See the Cambridge editor.
[131] See Barnes, who quotes the Schol. on Arist. Eq. 95. Χους was the name
of the festival.
[132] εμοι is the dativus commodi.
[133] I am indebted to Maltby for this translation.
[134] Cf. Piers, on Mœr. p. 351, and the Cambridge editor.
[135] But see ed. Camb.
[136] Such is the force, of ου γαρ αλλ'.
[137] These lines are very corrupt, and perhaps, as Dindorf thinks,
spurious.
[138] Markland rightly reads ‛ιεροφυλακες.
[139] "dicam me daturam." MARKLAND.
[140] ‛οδ' is the correction of Brodæus.
[141] νεως πιτυλος seems not merely a periphrase, but implies that the oars
are in the row-locks, as if ready for starting.
[142] But the Cambridge editor very elegantly reads ει τοι.
[143] Put φθεγξασθε in an inclosure, and join ταυτα with θελει. See ed.
Camb.
[144] Schol. Theocr. Id. vii. 57. θρηνητικον το ζωιον, και παρα τοις
αιγιαλοις νεοττευον. Cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1309, who perhaps had the passage
in view.
[145] αγορος is a somewhat rare word for αγυρις.
[146] Cf. Hecub. 457 sqq.
[147] So Matthiæ, "locum ubi Latona partum edidit."
[148] Read κυκλιον with Seidler. On the λιμνη τροχοειδης at Delos, see
Barnes.
[149] "I was conveyed by sailors and soldiers." ED. CAMB.
[150] The same scholar quotes Soph. Ph. 43. αλλ' η' πι φορβης νοστον
εξεληλυθεν, vhere νοστος is used in the same manner as here, simply meaning
"a journey."
[151] But see Camb. ed.
[152] I read ζηλουσα ταν with the same.
[153] The Cambridge critic again proposes μεταβολαι δ' ευδαιμονια, which he
felicitously supports. Musgrave has however partly anticipated this
emendation.
[154] Dindorf has shown so little care in editing this passage, that I have
merely recalled the old reading, αερι δ' ‛ιστια προτονοι κ. πρ. ‛υπερ
στολον εκπ., following the construction proposed by Heath, and approved, as
it appears, by the Cambridge editor. Seidler's note is learned and
instructive, but I have some doubts about his criticism.
[155] i.e. I wish I might become a bird and fly homeward.
[156] See ed. Camb.
[157] But see ibid. Dindorf's text is a hopeless display of bad readings
and worse punctuation.
[158] Reading γεννας, I have done my best with this passage, but I can only
refer to the Cambridge editor for a text and notes worthy of the play.
[159] I have recalled the old reading, ‛οσια.
[160] On these sort of prodigies, see Musgrave, and Dansq. on Quintus
Calaber, xii. 497 sqq.
[161] "in eo, ut" is the force of εν εργωι.
[162] Perhaps a sly allusion to their escape.
[163] See ed. Camb.
[164] But we must read τοις τε with the Cambridge editor = "who know more
than men."
[165] I can not too early impress upon the reader the necessity of a
careful attention to the criticisms of the Cambridge editor throughout this
difficult chorus, especially to his masterly sketch of the whole, p. 146,
147.
[166] φερεν ινιν is Burges' elegant emendation, the credit of which has
been unduly claimed by Seidler.
[167] i.e. the place afterward called Inopus. See Herm., whose construction
I have followed.
[168] On the ομφαλος see my note on Æsch. Eum. p. 180, ed. Bohn. On the
Delphic priesthood, compare ibid. p. 179.
[169] See, however, the Cambridge editor.
[170] Read ες θρονον with Barnes and Dind., or rather επι Ζηνος θρονον with
Herm.
[171] But see Dindorf.
[172] See Dindorf's note, but still better the Cambridge editor.
[173] I follow Seidler.
[174] So ed. Camb.
[175] i.e. what evil inspiration of the Gods impelled her to this act?
Thoas, who is represented as superstitious to the most barbarian extent,
naturally regards the infidelity of Iphigenia as proceeding from the
intervention of heaven.
[176] Cf. Monk. on Hippol. 828.
[177] Cf. vs. 1197. ερημιας δει.
[178] Dindorf and the Cambridge editor follow Hermann, who would place this
line after vs. 1394.
[179] So Musgrave.
[180] Seidler has deserved well of this passage, both by his correction
τοιν ξενοιν for την ξενην, and by his learned and clear explanation of the
nautical terms.
[181] Dindorf has adopted Markland's emendation, but I prefer ‛ωστ'
εξαναπνειν with the Cambridge editor.
[182] i.e. capsize.
[183] But see ed. Camb.
[184] I have introduced the line above mentioned, and have likewise adopted
Hermann's introduction of παλιμπρυμνηδον from Hesychius, in lieu of παλιν
πρυμνησι'.
[185] See ed. Camb.
[186] "The obvious intent of these measures was to fasten the vessel to
some point of the rocks, and thus prevent her being wrecked." ED. CAMB.
[187] "Our passage is thus to be understood, ‛η ‛αλισκεται προδουσα το
μνημονευειν θεαι φονον." ED. CAMB.
[188] So Hermann rightly explains the sense. I agree with the Cambridge
editor, that if Euripides had intended to use ‛οσιας substantively, he
would hardly have joined it with θεας, thereby causing an ambiguity.
[189] There is another construction, taking κλιμ. θεας together. On the
whole introduction of Minerva, see the clever note of the Cambridge editor,
p. 158, 159.
[190] There is evidently a lacuna, as the transition to Orestes is worse
than abrupt. The mythological allusions in the following lines are well
explained in the notes of Barnes and Seidler.
[191] On these last verses see the end of the Orestes, with Dindorf's note.