Google 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world’s books discoverable online. 


It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that’s often difficult to discover. 


Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book’s long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 


Usage guidelines 


Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 


We also ask that you: 


+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 


+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google’s system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 


+ Maintain attribution The Google “watermark” you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 


+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can’t offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book’s appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 


About Google Book Search 


Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world’s books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 


atthtto: //books.gqoogle.com/ 











ase (| 


1 
Fe 
Z 


ee Gb 





EURIPIDIS | 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIDE. 


ETPITIAOT 


I@ITENEIA H EN ATAIAI. | 


EURIPIDIS 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIDE. 


Effutire leves indigna Tragedia versus. 


CANTABRIGIA 
E TYPOGRAPHEO PITTIANO 


APUD J. G. PARKER ET DEIGHTON FRATRES 


MDCCCXL. — 


he. 





ALMA MATRI SUZ 


ACADEMIA 


INGENIORUM ALTRICI FELICISSIMA 
LITERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIZ 
PRUDENTISSIMZ MAGISTRZ 

ATTICE TRAGG@DIA 


SPECTATRICI KPITIKQTATHI 


HUNCCE QUALEMCUNQUE LIBELLUM 


IN PIETATIS 
ET GRATI ANIMI TESTIMONIUM 


Dar. mcf brea 


EDITOR CANTABRIGIENSIS. 


ad 





LECTORI. 


Plurimos versiculos Iphigenie in Aulide vulgo habitos e 
contextu, quem vocant, eximendos esse judicavi; hos tamen omnes 
pagints curavi subjiciendos. Quare autem insititios esse dume- 
rum, de singulis in Annotationibus declaratum est. Sunt duo 
praterea loca satis longa in hac Tragedia vulgo lecta, que nos 
post absolutum contextum typis minoribus excusa dedimus: de tis 
dictum est in fine Notarum, ubt quedam etiam invenies monita de 
causis et instituto hujus Edttionie. 


TA TOY APAMATO®S IIPOZQITA. 


ATAMEMNON. 
IIPEZBYTH=. 
XOPOS. 
MENEAAO2. 
AITEAOS. 
KAYTAIMNHSTPA. 
IOITENEIA. 
AXIAAEY®%. 


ETPITIIAOT 


IS@ITENEIA H EN ATAIATLI. 


ATAMEMNQN. 


Ss van 
Q rpéc Bu, Scpwv ravde mapoibev 
TTELYE. 


ITPEZBYTH:. 


orTEiyw, 

Ti d€ Kawoupyeis, “Aydueuvov avat; 
AT. mevoet. ITIP. oevdw. 

pada ToL yhpas ToUpoy aurvoy, 

kat ém’ opOadpois d&v maperriv. 
AI. tis mor’ dp’ dornp ode wropOpever ; 
TIP. Leipsos, éeyyvs THs érramopou 

TWAeados aicowv, Ett peoonpns. 

ovxouv POdyyos x ob’ dpviOwy, 


wv 4 
ovre GaXracons* 


s. Aldus pada ro ynpas g. aiocewy 10. AT. ovxowy 
Post v. II. ovyal 8 avenue 


c 9 wv wf 
rove cat Evprrov eyovow. 
TIP. ri 8€ ov oxnuys exros aicces, 
9 A U LA * 
yapepnvoy ava€ ; 


10 


Ar. 


TIP. 
AT. 


TIP. 


EYPITNIAOY 


of 3S 
ert 0 novyia thvde kar’ AvAw, 
A » 7f ’ J 
Kat aktynto. duAakal TELKEwy. 
TTElywpEv Eow. 
-~ A 4 ~ ~ 
Cnrto oé, yépov, Cnrw@ 8 dvdpav 
ds axtvduvoy Biov é£erépac’ 
2 \ 9 / 
ayvws, akAens’ 
A > 9 ~ € ~ 
tous 6° év Tysais nooov (nde. 
‘ b / A 
kal pnv TO KaNdv y évraida Biov. 
aA / 
Touro 6€ x éoriv TO Kadov opadepov’ 
4 
kal diAoTmov 
A A _ A / Pe 
yAuku peév, Aurel bé TpoTieTapeEvov 
4 A \ ~ 3 3 4 > 
Tore pev Ta Oewv ovx dpOwlevT 
dverpewe Biov, 
Tote 8 dvOpwrwy yvwopat troAXal 
/ 
kat duvoaperrot Siexvaicay. 
) of a > » \ 5) / 
ouK ayapat Tair’ avdpos dpioréws: 
9 > \ oe A > 3 4 2 3 a 
ouK émt Taal o° édutevo’ ayabois, 
"Ayapepvov, *Arpeus’ 
~ ld 0 A ~~ 
Set 5€ we xatpev Kat AvTEtcOar 
\ fo . \ oN ge 
Ovnros yap épus* Kav un ov Gdns, 
“ / / wo 
Ta Qewv ovrw BovrAcue”’ Eorat. 
~ , , 
ov oé, AauwTHpos aos duretacas, 
4 U 
deATov TE ypages 


TnHVvd, nv mpo xEpav ete BacraCets, 


12. Tyde kar’ AvAw 21. kal ro diioripov 
14. orelyouev clon 27. apirréos 
20. éor! 28. wacica 


(14) 


15 


20 


29 


(37) IdIFENEIA H EN AYAIAIT, 3 


) / a 
Kal TavTa maAW ypaypata ouyyxels, 
Kat oppayives, Aves 7” dricw, 
es s / \ 
pimres Te mwéedw meukny, Oadepov 
A / 
kata dakpuy yew, 
kal TWVY aTOpwy ovdEVOS EVvoEIs 40 
A > / 
sn ov paiver Oat, 
4 ~ / 4 v ~ 
Tl Wovels; TL veov Tapa col, BacireD ; 
pepe, Kolvwoov puOov és mas: 
mpos 8 avop’ ayalov morov Te dpaceis: 
~ / 
on yap pw ddoxw ToTE Tuvdapews 45 
4 \ 
WEuTrEL PEpvny, 


, / 
Evvvupqoxopov te dixatov. 


AI. éyévovro Anda Scoriadi: rpeis wapbévor, 
> > A / 
DoiBn, KAuvratwnorpa ct’ éun Evvaopos, 
‘EAévy Te? TavTns of Ta mpwT WAG pEVOL 50 
punornpes nAGov ‘EAAados veaviat. 
dewal 0 a@meAat kal Kat’ addAnrwv dovos 
Evvioral’, do7is un AaBor THv TwapGévor. 

A - > / > f , 
TO Tpayua © admopws cixe Tuvdapew rarpi, 
5 ~ , ry 5 ~ , a / e/ 

Ouval TE MN OOUVaL TE, THS TUXNS OTTWS 58. 
avait’ apiora’ Kai vv etonr\Oev rade 
Opkous Evvayra, de~ias Te cuuBadreiv 
pynotnpas adAAnAotot, Kal 6 éumupwv 
oa ~ 9 / 0 
omovoas Kaleivat, kdvapacacOa Tade, 


42. Ti wovels; Ti movels ; 46. weprev 
ti veov; Ti veov wepl col, Bacirev ; 


4 EYPITNAOY (61) 


Orov yuvy yévorro Tuvdapis Kopn, 60 
rouTw Fvsapuveiv, et Tis ex Sdumv AaBuwv 

oixorro, Tov T éxovT’ amwOoin AéExouS, 
KdmicTparevoe Kal KaTacKkawew TONY, 

“EAAnv’ cpoiws BapBapov 0, drAwv péra. 

érel 0 émartwOnoav, ev O€ Tws yEepwv 65 
umnAGev avrous Tuvdapews muxvy pert, 

Sidwo’ érAéobar Ouvyatpt pynornpwy eva, 

Srw mvoat péporev "Adpodirns didrat. 

4 © €ireO, ds ode unrot’ wpedrev AaBelv, 
MevéAaov. éAObwv 3S éx Dovyav 6 tas Oeas 10 
kpivas 60° (ds 6 piOos avOpwrwv éyeL) 

Aakedaipov’, dv@npos ev eiuatwv orodi, 

xpvod Te Naumpos, BapBapw yAvnuaTt, 

épwv épwoav wyer é€avapracas 

‘EXévnv ampos “Idns Bovorabp’, éxdnuov AaBov "5 
MeveéAaov. 6 6€, ka ‘EAXaS oiorpnoas Spopw, 
Opkous maAaovs Tuvdapew paptuperat, 

ws ypn BonOety roiow ndicnpueévoss. 

rouvrTevdev ouv “EXAnves ai€avres Sopt, 

Tevxn AaBovres, oTevorop’ AvAidos Babpa 80 


e Gu > A ~ 
nkovat THaOE, vavolv, doriow GO cpou,; 


62. arwcacba 69. we ye pnror’ 
63. xamorparevew kal kaTacKkamre 75- A\aPev. 
67. Sideoow 76. Mevédaos ovv x. ‘E. of. povos 


68. drov 99. aifavres 


(83) _  I@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAT, 5 


ed ~ ef s > 9 4 . 
“amo Te WoOANAOls appaciy T NnoKnpMEvOL 
3 A ~ 4 f / 
Kaye oTpaTnyeiv, kapta MevedXew yapiv, 
e/ , 4 »>/ et 
etAovTo, cuyyovov ye’ TdFiwua OE 
Bd » ~ ~ 4 
adAos Tis wher’ avr’ euov AaPBeElv Tdde. 85 
3 4 A ~ ~ 
nOpoiopuevov O€ Kat Evvertwros orparou, 
nueo®, drAota xpdpuevot, kat’ Adria. 
, ~Q fk / 3 , 4 
Kadyas 8 6 paris dropia Kexpnpévors 
| on ) 4 ed a > 2 \ 
dveinev, ‘Idiyeverav, nv eoreip eyo, 
"Aprémcr Oioat tH Td8 otkoven médov, 90 
‘ ~ > WA A A ~ 
kat wAouv vr EceoOat Kal KatracKadas Ppuvywv 
, \ / 9 F) i , 
Ovoact, pn Ovoact © ovK eivat Tade. 
4 > A ~ 9» 3 , 4 
kNvwv © éyo Tait’, opbiw Knpvypatt 
>. U 4 
TadOuBiov eizov mavr’ adpievar orparoy, 
€ wv » SN A Uy ~ s J 
ws ovmot av TAas Ouyarepa Kraveiv éuny. 95 
« , \ s 
ov 67 wm’ ddeAos, TavTa mpocpéepwv oyov, 
of ~ a > , ~ 
émeire TAnvat Oewa’ Kdv d€XTOV TTUXaIs 
/ 4 / 
ypavvas, émeuyva mpos Oaapta Thy éuny, 
oréAAew “AxtArEt Buyarep’ ws yauoupevny, 
/ 9 9g-/ 9 A 9 / 
TO T aElwua Tdvdpos EKxyaupoupEvos, 100 
EvprAciv tc’ “Ayatois obven’ ov GéXor A€ywv, 
2 N >. e ~ > > , , 
él fin Tap nuwv etow es POiav Aéxos. 
A A > 4 ‘ 4 > 9 A 
meldw yap eixov Tnvde mpos dauapr’ éuny, 


Wevdn Evvdypas dvi wapbévov yapov. 


4 ~ ’ 
povor & ’Ayawwv iopevy ws eye tade 105 
82. woddow & dppaciv 7 QQ. weurrew AyirAre? 
83. xara 101. ToUver’ ‘ 


88. Keypnpevos 


6 


KaAyas, 


EYPINIAOY (107) 


"Oduoceds, Mevérews 6’. & 8 ov Kadws 


, ~ 
Eyvwv Tor’, avis peraypadw Kadws madw 


> } 4 é \ 
eis tTyvde SéATOV, HY Kat’ Evppovns oKiav 


U = ~ 
Avovta kal Evydovvrd p’ eioeides, yépov. 


aN’ ela xuper, tacd émioroAas Aa Gov, 110 


f A \ A 
mpos "Apyos. @ O€ KkéxevOe O€ATOS év mruyais,. 


Aoyw hpacw co Tavra Tayyeypaupeva’ 


A A sy 7 “~ > » ~ / > 
TiOTOS yap aAOXw Tois T’ Euois Oopoioly et. 


TIP. 


AY. 


Aéye kai onuaw’, va Kal yAwoon 
Evyrova Tois wois ypappacw avow. 115 
Héumw cor mpos tas modabev 
déATrous, w Andas Epvos, | 
fin oTeAAEW Tav cay ive 
mpos KoAmwon mréepuy’ EvBoias, 
AvAw akdNvoray’ 120 
eis dAAas dpas yap On 


\ / € / 
maios Saivouev vuEevaious.— 


~ A > 
TIP. wai wos ’AytAevs, A€xTpwv amAakwv, 
3 / ~ A 3 ~ 
ov péya guowy Oupov érapei 
col on T adOXH; 125 
/ e/ 
AT. zdde kal Sewov. TIP. onuaw’ & tT ons. 
4 aw 4 
AI. dvoy’, ovx Epyov, mapéxwv ’Axtrevs 
114. I16. sequuntur v. I17. 123. AexTp’ aurhaxey 
116, 117. mpos Tait wp. dedTots 124. procev—enaipe ; 
119. mpos Tav KoAmwOn 126. Desunt personarum note. 


121. eis ras a@AAas 


(129) IMITENEIA H EN AYAIAI, 7 


> 3 4 PANY) 4 
OUK Oid€ yapous, ovd 8 TL mpagcoueE?D, 
2 e/ , “OQ 3 ’ 
oud’ ore Keivw maid’ érepnuica 
vuudelous els dyKwvwr 130 
a A > , LA 
evvas éxowoetv AEKT POY. 
TIP. dewa y' éroApas, ‘Aydpeuvoy avaé, 
a “ “ a \ a)? 
és, tw THS Beas onv maid’ &doxOV 
/ Ol 4 ~ 
patioas, nyes opayiwov Aavaois. 
AT. oiuot, yvwomas éFeorav’ 135 
ai, ai’ wintw 0 Eis aTav. 
’ +12 > J / 
aX’ i0, évéeoowv cov moda, ynpa 
pnoev ureikwv. TIP. omevdw, Bacirev. 
AY. py vuv pyr’ drowdes iCov 
kpnvas, unl’ irve BerxOns- 140 
TIP. evpnua Opoet. 
: \ , 
AT. wavrn $€, mopov cxiorov dpuetBwv, 
Acbooe, Quraoowy py Tis oe AaOy 
, 4 4 
_TpoxaXro.ww oxo Twapauey-apuevn, 
maida KouiCove’ évOad’, amnvn 145 
Aavawy mpos vais 
iv yap mourais dvrnons, 


Ul / ~ A 
maw €€opua, oele yaXuvous, 


129. ewepyoa 13Q. jn voy 

131. evdwoew AexTposs 143. py Tt oe AQOy 

132. Sewa ye ToAmgs 147. iY yap uv Toumais avrgcas 

133. ovre rHs Jeas 148. wadw eLopuaces tous yadwous 
Post v. 146. 


TIP. €ora. AT. KAO pw oe efoppa. 


EYPITNIAOY (152) 


émi KuxAwrwv vv iets Oupédas. 
TIP. moros 6€ dpacas trade mws Evouat, 150 
Aeye, mraidi obey TH a T ddoxy; 
AT. adpayisda piAaco’, jv éri SéATH 
THOE KomiCes. | 
t0u' NevKaiver TOdE pus 76n 
Aaptrovo’ jos, rip te TEOpimmuy 155 
Twv aediou’ ~vAAaBEe pdxXOwy. 
Ovntwv © dABtos Eis TEAOS OVOELS, 
ovo evoainwv 


af \ of af 
oumTw yap edu Tis aduTos. 


XOPOX. 


7 
EMoAov aut wapaktiav atpopy. 160 
Vdpuabov Auvdisos évaXias, 
> # \ , 
Evpirov dia yeupatrwv 
/ 4 
KéAcaca, orevoTropOuov 
Xadkida moAw éuav mpoAtToue 
dyxiadov, vdaTwv tpodov 165 
Tas kAevas ’Apefovaas, 
’ - \ € / 
Axawwy orpatiav ws KaTiolmay, 
"Ayawy 6€ mAaTas vavot- 


/ € U4 ad > 
mopous nuilewv, ous é- 


wi Tpotay éAaTais xtAidvavow 170 
14Q- vv abest 167. ws dom’ av 
160. wap axtiav 168. "Ayatov re 


166. ayyxicdrwy 169. ws pro ous 


(175) 


IdIFENEIA H EN AYAIAI. Q. 


tov EavOov MevéAaov 
GueTEpor Tocels éverou- 
ow, Ayapéuvova t’ evrrarpioay, 
oréAAav émi trav ‘EXévap, 
dn’ Evpwra Sovaxot podou 1% 
lapis 6 Bouxddos av édaBe, 
dwpov Tas ’Adpodiras, 
OT émi Kpnvaiaior Spocors 
“Hpa TlaAAad: 7’ Epi Eouw 
poppas a Kumpis éoxev. 180 
movOurov oé Ov aAcos ’Ap- avrierpody. 
TéuOos HAvOov dpopéva, 
~owiccovea mapid éuav 
aicxuva veobarel, 
domidos Epuua, kal KNuoias 185 
Omodopous Aavawy Gédovo’, 
immwv v dxAov iéeoBat. 
kaTetoov dé dv’ Alavre cuvédpw, 
Tov OiAéws, TeAapuwvos Te 
yovov, Tov Ladapivos oré- 190 
gdavov, Mpwreairadv t’, émi Oaxos 
TWETTWV HOOMEVOUS op- 


gaiot modvrAoKos, THadapn- 


172. 173. everour 187. twmwv dyAov 7’ ider8as 
182. Opwpevav 189. tov Oireéws 
183. wapnd 190. Tois Zadrapivos 


2 


10 


EY PITMAOY 


A ~ 
dea @ ov érexe wrais 6 Toce- 
davos, Atoundea & 
e ~ t a, 
noovais SioKxou 'Kkexapnevoy, 
A 
mapa de Mnptovny, “Apeos 
# ~ ~ 
dCov, Gavua Bporoicw, 
4 9 9 
TOV T ATO vyoalwy dpéwy 
, @ 
Aaépta troxov, dua 5é Ni- 
pea kaAXNorov ‘Ayawy. 
N > , A ~ 
TOV toaveuov O€ modotY 
Aaiynpodpopov ’AytAXéa, 
N € a f A 
Tov a Oeris EreKev, Kal 


Xeipwy éFerovncev, 


eldov atyiadots mapa KpoKaAais TE 


194: 
199°; 
202. 
203- 


Spomov Eyovra auv S7Aois" 

dmidAav 8 érover modoty, 
Tpos apya TETPWpOV 

éENioowv WEpt viKkas’ 
6 d€ dippndAatas €Boat’ 
Evundos Pepntiasas, 

@ KadXlorous tOdpmav 
xpucodadaATous oTopiors 


, / / 
mwdous KévTpw Gevopuevous, 


204. TEKE 214. cropioics 


(198) 


195 


: Kar oVvoy 


200 


eek 


205 


210 


215 


TEKE 206- efemovacey 

TOV ATO NTAiwy T 206. alyiadoiot, rapa Te KpoKaAas 
icavepov Te 211. Boar 

"Ayana 213. eldopav 


ITP. 


IIP. 
ME. 
ITP. 
ME. 
ITP. 
ME. 
ME. 
HIP. 
ME. 


(220) I®DIFENEIA H EN AYATAI. 11 


\ \ / / 
Tous Mev ewous Cuyious 
NevKooTikTw Tpixt Badrtods, 
rovs & é£w wetpodopous, 
dvtTnpes Kautrator Spopuwy, 
Ul 
mupaoTpiyas, wovoxyada 8 vo opupa 220 
4 e 4 
MWouKtNodepmovas, ois mapeTaNAETO 
TInAeidas Evv SrAot Tap’ avtvya, 


tf e 
kai oupiyyas dpparetous. 


MeveAae, ToAmas deliv’, & o ov TOAMAaV xpEwr. 


MENEAAOS®. 


\ > 
aweNOe Niav SeaoroTait motos ei. 225 
Kadov yé pot Tovvedos éEwveidioas. 
/ 5) > 4 A \ / a 
KANaos av, El TMPaToOLS a MN TPaTOEW GE Ei. 
a a / 4) > \ # 
ov xpnv aoe Avoa SEATOV, HY eyw “Hepor. 
~ ~ d/ 
ovde wé depe det maow “EXAnow kaka. 
~ ~ , > 
ddAos aptdArAw Tavt’, ages dé tTHvd Epoi. 230 
oux av peOeiunv. TIP. ovd’ éywy’ adpnoopat 
, ay o> \ / 4 
oKNTTpwW Tax’ apa cov Kabaimatw Kapa. 
/ ~ e 
adAN’ evkAEés Tor SeaomoTav OvnoKew rep. 


pees: praxpous Sé, SovAos wy, A€vyets Noyous. 


218. cepadopous 225. rAlav ye 

220. wupporpryas 227. kdaios 

221. WoKAAodeppovas 228. pepw 

222. InAcidas avy drAac 230. GAAws apuArAa 


223. Sequuntur duz strophz, totidem antistrophe, et epodus, 
quas, utpote spurias, ad calcem fabule Te}eci. 


TIP. 


Ar. 
ME. 
AM. 
ME. 
AY. 
ME. 
AY. 
ME. 
Ar. 
ME. 
AMF. 
ME. 


AYP. 
ME. 
AY. 
ME. 


AYP, 
ME. 


12 EYPIMIAOY (314) 


w déomoT, adixouuerOa: cas 8 émiotoAas 235 
éEaptacas 50 éx xepwv éuav Bia, 


"Ayaueuvov, ovdev rq Sikn xpnoOar Gere. 


a / 
a. Tis mor’ év muAaat GopuBos, Kai Noywv akoopia ; 
A ~ ~ 4 a 
duuos, oUX 6 TovdE, puOos KUpLwrepos eryerv. 239 
V gt 7 AW >» of ries 4 4 > 3 ; 
ov 6€ Ti Two és Epw api~ar, MevéAews, Bia 7’ ayers ; 
4 ~ e ~ / / 
BAéov eis tjuas, iv’ dpyas Tav Aoywv TavTas AaBw. 
~ f 9 4 
Pav Tpéwas ovUK dvakaddyw BAEMapor, ’'ATpEws yeyus 5 
/ De on oéX / , € pp 4 é 
Tnvd dpas S€ATOV, KakioTwY ypaupaTwY VINpETLY ; 
> ~ 4 “~ a ~ 
eig0pW, Kal TPHOTA TavTNnVY Gav dm@adAa~ov yepwv. 
nN \ av / ~ ~ 9 / 
ov, mptv av dei—w ye Aavaois Tract Tayyeypayueva. 
> A > » 4 A 7Q/ / > 93 , 
n yap oto@ a pn oe Kaipos eidéval, onuavTp aveis ; 

/ on , é / / 
wore o ddyival y' dvoiEas & ov Kak’ eipyaow Aabpa. 
~ 4 , ~ , 

mou de KaAaBes uv; & Geol, ons advair xuVToU ppEvos. 
~ 4 ~ + 
mpocookwv onv mato am “Apyous ei orpateuy adi- 
Eerat. 249 
a \ A A ~ ) 2 / 
Ti 0€ oe Tapa Sel PuvAdooEL ; OVK dvalTXUVTOV TOOE ; 
e/ ( / ~ r) D 
ort TO BovAEecOai -p’ exviCe’ aos Sé SovAOS ovK Eduv. 
é A } 4 é \ 9 A > ~ > > > 7 s 
ovxX! Oelva; TOV éudv OtKEly Oikov oUK éagopat; 
4 4 ~ ~ 
wayia yap dpoveis, Ta pev viv, Ta Sb€ mada, TA 
0 avrixa. 253 
9 4 v a > >» + / 
ev Kexouwevoat tovnpa. yAwoo’ éripbovov con. 


vous 6€ y’ ov BéBatos adixov KTHpa KoU cages Hidros. 


238. éa* ris Snr év 1. 246. 4 yap noP 
239. Prefixum IP. 260. Ti d€ ce 
246. Aavaots adrrasi 254- éxkexouvevorai. Tovnpov 


(335) I@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 13 


/ / > an / 
BovAopa dé ao” éFeAéyEar Kal ov pnt’ dpyis vmo 
1 ott’ av o aAyuve Alay eye. 
, » A A ~ 9 
avotpemou taAdnlés, ‘ovrot KaTaww lay a’ éyw. 
> / , of, 
oic @’, or’ éxrovdales apxew Aavaidats mpos “IALov, 
“~ ~ A \ 0 ~ A 4 / 
Tw Ooxely pev ovx! xpnCwv, TH Sé BovrAecOa Oérwv, 
A > 4 ~ 
ws tarewos noba, waons SeEtas rpocbiyyavwv, 260 
A / wv > , ~ A ~ 
kat Oupas éxwy adkdElorous Tw OédovTi SnuoTwv, 
b) } by A / Chon ~ > v4 Gé 
Kal Olovs mpoapnow é€ns mao, Ket pn Tis GéAoL, 
~ 4 “ 4 \ / 9 4 
Tos TpoTas CyTwv mpiacOar TO piAoTmoV EK METOU- 
S 392 A / 9 A B r N 7AXN / 
KaT €7Tél KaTeaxES apyas, ueTAaABaArAwv aAXOUS TpOTOUS, 


~ wx 9 gS ~ 4 
Tois didkowiw ovK ér noba Trois mpiv, ws mpocGer, 


pidros, 265 

, af / / of > E) 

Svompoatros, éow TE KAEtOpwv amavos. avdpa & ov 
X pew 


Tov aya0ov, mpaccovTa peyada, Tous TpoTrous peEb- 
loTavat, 
GdAAa@ kai BéBatov eivat TOTE padiora Tois Hiras, 
nvik’ were parttora duvatos éorw evTUXwV. 
TavTa péev oe mowt’ émndrOov, iva oe mpw’ evpov 
KaKoOV. | 270 
ws & és AvAw nrOes attos yo TlaveAAnvev orpatos, 
ovdey na0, adAN é€ewAncoov TH TUXN TH THY Dew, 
ovpias mTroumns onaviCwy, (Aavaidat 8 adiévat 


vais SinyyeAAov, patny Se wn mrovety év AvAid:) 


260. 4s aracns 266. owanios 3 
261. akAyorous 290. Tav’Ta pev got... cipw 
263. €k pecov; 271. 7rGes avdis 


14 EYPITIAOY (354) 


of > of a, 
ws 8° avoA Pov eixes Oupa cvyyuciv Te, un, vewv B75 
/ / \ , ’ 
X'Aiwy apxwv, To Iptayou wediov éumAnoas Sopos, 
> \ / 4 Q 4 , A , e/ 
Kaye tjapexades, Ti dpacw; tiva dé mopov eipw 
4 
qolev ;— 
ed A S F) F) ~ 9 , \ , 
WOTE PN OTEPEVTA O apyns amoAE~at KaXdov KXeEos. 
F 3s » ‘ Ul > e “ Ss A ~ / 
Kat’ émet Kadxas év tepots etre onv Bvoat Kopnv 
~ af oh, 
"Apremidr, kai rAouv éverOa Aavaidas, robeis ppe- 
vas, 280 
ww Ou cu! to ‘ \ , eA 
dopevos Qvoew vreorns waida’ Kal mréuTes éxwv, 
, Qa ~ , ~ , ~ 
ov (ia, (un TovTo AE€ENns) on Saduapti, Taida onv 
“~ , ~ 
devp’ droareAAew, “AxtAAEt rpodaci ws yasoupévny. 
s / wn 
ka? vroorpée as, AcAnya weraBadwv addAas ypadas, 
‘ o A ~ / 
ws doveus ovKeTt OvyaTtpos ais Ever wadtoTa ye. 285 
Ol > 7 9 99\ e\ AN A / 
ovros avTos éotw alOno, os Tad’ jKovoev oebev. 
4 4 f 2 9 \ A \ / 
pupio: dé Tot werovOac’ avto mpos Ta Tpaypara’ 
“~ of > > » / “~ 
éxovoug Exovtes, eira 0 é€exwonoay Kakws, 
A A € ‘ , ~ > 4 N > 3 / 
TA MEV UTO yvw_Ns TOALTOV aovvEeTOU, Ta 0 évdikws, 
~ 9 , 
dduvaro: yeywres avtot diad@vAag~acba wéAw. 290 
3f ~ 
‘EAAasos wadior’ Eywye THS TadaiTUpoV TTévw, 
é ~ \ 4 ? 
n, OéXovca Spav ti xedvov, BapBapous Tous ovdévas 
~ 3 , 7) A A \ A \ , 
KaTayeAwvras éfavnoe dla oe Kal THY ONY Kdpny. 
a) 9 0 e/ 4 4 a 
pnoev’ ovv yevous Exatt mpoaratnv Oeiunv yOoves, 


> ef tf o~ ‘\ \ Ul 4 
pnd OTAwWY &pXOVTA: vOUY xXpNn TOV OTPAaTNAATHY ExeLV 


275. elyes Svopa 284. AeAnoa 
276. apxwv IIpiapou re 289. yvepas 
277. oben, - 294. pndev’ av ypéous Exari 


278. apyas 


XO. 


AY. 


(375) IOIFENEIA H EN AYAIAI. —-—g 


s € f >, A -~ , a\ of , 
TOAEOS, WS apywy avnp Tas, Evveowv nv Exwv TuxXN. 
\ , 4 4 
dervov, Kaciyyntoit yiyverOat Noyous, 297 


e/ F > ¢ 3 
payas O, OTav wor éurégwo eis Eprv. 


, 4 3 > ~ ~ Ss 4 A , av 
BovAopai o” etrretv Kaxws av Boaxéa, wn Alav avw 
5) \ ] \ 
BrAéphapa mpos Tdvadeés dyaywv, dAXAa cwHpoverrepoy, 
\ > ~ ~ 
wis adeA@ov dvr’ advnp yap xpnoros aideicOar gurel. 
> 7S / \ -~ e A of > wf 
EiTE Ol, TL Oelva uaas, aiaTnoov Oup Exar; 
~ -~ 4 / ~ 
ris ddu«el oe; TOU Kexpnoa; AéKTPAa xpnoT épas 
Aa Bev ;x 303 
ouUK éxous av wot TapacxeEV: wy yap ExTHTW, KaKkws 
npxes’ €iT’ eyo Sixnv d0 owv Kak@v Oo pn opareis ; 
i Saxver we TO DiAoTimov ToUpOV; GAN’ €v dyKadais 
a“ a 4 A A 
evmpeTn yuvaika xpynCes, TO NEeAOYLOMEVOV Trapels 
A af = \ 
Kal TO KaAOV, ExELv’ TovNnpoU wos jooval Kaka. 
> \ , 2 > 
GAN’ éyoa, yvous moooOev ovK ev, pereOéunv ev- 
BovXiav’ 309 
~ e/ > 
paivouat; ov maddov, dais, aroNéoas Kakov AExOS, 
“~ 4 on > 
dvanaBelv Gere, Geov wor tTHv Tuxnv SidovTos ev. 
af \ / e/ € , 
w®uorav tov Tuvdapeov dpKkov ot Kaxodpoves 
c s / 9 \ > 
piroyapot pynornpes’ 4 SE y' éAmis, oiuat pev, Beds, 


25-/ 2A ~ 
Kagem pazey avTo madAov fh ov Kal TO cov obévos: 


296. modcws 303. Aexrp’ épas ye Ypnore A. 

299- Kaxws ev, Boayéa p.rd.dvq@ 305. dixny Swow xaxwy 

300. cwppovéerrep 308. exe; 

301. “Avip yap aicypos aideic® ov 309. ei 8 éyw—perereOnv evBovaia. 
iret. 314. eerpater 


XO. 


ME. 
AY. 
ME. 
AP. 
ME. 


Ar. 


ME. 
AM. 
ME. 


16 EYPINIAOY (394) 


& \ 4 / 9 ~ 
ous AaBwv aorparev’ (Ero 8 eto!) uwpia Pppevwv 
A 4 ~ 9 
ov yap dovvetov TO Geiov, dAN Exer Evviévac 316 
\ ~ , ef 4 
TOUS KaKWS TayevTas OpKous Kal EvynvayKkacpevous 
A 5) ~ 9) Or 
Tapa 0 OUK d7TOKTEVe ‘yw TEKVa’ Kal TO OO [eV EU 
A 4 af ? 
mapa oikns éorat, Kaxiorns evvidos Tipwpia, 
\ \ , 
éue 6€ cuvtnfovor vuxres nuépar Te Saxpvots, 320 
wv - F) V4 -~ A 3 , 
avona Spwyvra Kou Sixata Taidas, ovs éyevapny. 
~ 4, ~ e 
tavTa oot Bpaxéa A€NekTa, Kal cagpy, Kal padia 
A ~ ry 4 “ 
et de pun BovrAe Gpovetv ev, Tap’ éyw Onow Kadws. 
- - ’ 
ot’ av Stadopo: Twv mapos NeAeypEevov 
-o~ tA 
pubwv’ Karwos & Exovort, petderOar TExvwv. 325 
> > / a > A s V4 
ai, at’ didovs ap ouxe KEeKTyuat TaXas. 
/ \ / 
et Tous idrovs ye mn OéXes aroNAuvat. 
\ “~ \ 9 ~ , 
Seifers S€ mov pot waTpos éx TavTOU yeEyuSs; 
Y ; 
~ A > N “~ af 
Evocwdpovely yap, ovxt cuvvocely, Euv. 
eis KoLVOV adAyeElv Tois Pidowst yen Hidrous. 330 
~ ? > A \ ~ > 
ev Opwy mapaxade pm, aAXNa myn AUTTWV ELE. 
~*~ 4 - 
oux dpa Soxet cot tade Troveiv Evv ‘EANaO; 
A) _ ~ ° 
‘EAAds 8€ cuv col xara Oewv vooet Tia. 
9 \ / 
TKNTT PH vuV avXEL, TOV KaTlyvnTOV TpodoUS’ 
wo > s 
éyo 8 én’ adXas eit pynxXavas Twas, 335 


> a 
pidous 7 é€7 aXdXous. 


315. orpareve 7 oimar 6 eloer 329. cuvowppoveiv cor Bovdrop’, AAA 
316. Deest. Ov cuwoceiv 

319. wepa dixns 330. €¢ Kowov 

321. eyeivapey 333. xara Oeoy 


326. al al’... kexTnuny 334. avyets 


(414) I@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


AFTEAQ2. 


4 a 
w TlaveAAnvev avae 
"A , ef to , \ A of. 
YaMEUVOV, Kw Traida wor THY ONY ayo, 
é 9 9 4 
qv “Ipuyéverav wvouates év Sopors. 
~ ~ , , 
pntnp & opapret, ons KAuvtratynorpas Semas, 
~ \ / > \ 
kai mais "Opéarns, ws ov Teppbeins iow, 
af 
xpovov madatov Swuadtwv Exdnuos wv. 
4 \ 
dA’, ws makpav ETELvoV, Evp’TOV Tapa 
V4 
Kpnynv dvavvxovet Onduvrovy Baow, 
> ~ > 4 
avTai Te mTwAol T°: eis Se AEtUwVYWY yONV- 
~ 9 A e ~ 4 
kadeiuev avtas, wis Bopas yevoaiaro. 
A A 4 ~ ~ ? 
éyw O€ mMpodpomos, ons TapacKeuns xapty, 
¢ VA ~ A 
nkw’ weTveTat yap orpatos (Tayxeta Oé 
~ tA ~ A 5 
dijEe nun) ratda onv adiypevny: 
mas © ets Géav OmtAos EpyeTrar Spopw 
wtros Epxerar dpdue, 
A AQ / af e 3 > / 
anv Tai orws idwo.v’ ot 0 Evdaipoves 
éy waot kXELvol Kat wept BAErTot ' BooTots. 
rE °° “y / / \ /, , : 
éyouot Mévacos TIS, H TL MoaToETAL ;x— 
af 3 
i mo0ov Exwv Ouyatpos ’Ayauepvov: dvat 
EKOMLOE TrAaiba;—Twy 0 av nKovoas Tade’ 
a. 
"ApTéutce mpoteAiCovot Thy veavida 
AvANidos avacon’ tis uv aferai more ;— 
aN’ éia, Tart Towwid EEapyou Kava, 
33Q9- wvopacas wor év donors 345. woroi 7 


341. wore teppbeins 349. dn€e 
343- Evpurov rapa 


3 


17 


340 


350 


* Bporey 


355 


AY. 


18 EYPITNTAOY 


“~ ~ 4 4 
orepavoiabe kpata’ kai ov, Mevédews ava€, 
r) ) / 
UMevacov evTpemiCe, Kal KaTa oTEyas 
~ ’ , 
Awros Boacbw, kai modwy éorw KTUTOS’ 
~ A 4 eo of , a , 
us yap Tod’ ner maxaprov TH TrapOevw. 
, > ~ 
émnves’’ dAXa oretye SwuaTwv éow 
A 4 ~ ’ ~ 
ta & GAN’, tovons THs TUXNS, EoTat Kados. 
w /, ~ / 
otuot, TL Pw dvaTnvos; apLouat oben; 
& > f ) 
eis of’ avaykns Cevyuar’ éumemTuKaper. 
umnrGe Saiuwv, woTe TWV TOdiopaTwY 
~ 4 “~ 9 ~ 
TOAAW yeveoOat Tav Euav Topwrepos. 
e 3 4 °° e of / z 
4 Svaoyevera O ws Eyer TL YpNoMOV 
) A € ~ » 
kal yap Saxpioa: padiws avrois éxel, 
wv 4 3 3 ~ ~ A / A 
avoABa 7° eireiv’ Ta O€ yevvaiw puow 
/ a“ , A V4 
avavTa tai’ta’ mpooratnvy Te Tov Biouv 
\ “~ af “~ F) / 
Tov Onuov éxouev, TH T SyAw SovAEvopuev. 
2 A A 2 a A 3 ~ , 
éyw yap éxBaretvy peév aidovpat Saxpu, 
A A a a 
TO pn Saxptoa 8 avits aidovuar Tadas, 
> A / A 9 VA 
eis Tas peyiotas Evudopas agdiypévos. 
> tA UA A , \ > 7? 
elev? TL now pos Oauapta THY Euny; 
~ , ~ ~ 
mos déFonat viv; motov dupa oupBaro ; 
\ , > 93 / > >» \ ~ e/ , 
Kat yap h amwiéo ET Kakols, a MOL Tapa, 
~ 3 v4 e@ ed 
€AGovG’ akAnros. eikoOTws O ay’ Ex7rETO 
4 \ 4 
Guyarpt vuudevoovca, kai Ta Pidtrata 
e/ a“ » / 
Swaovo’, tv’ iuas dvTas evpnoet Kakous. 
365. apFopat ocbev. 375. aves 


366. éurewrwxape ; 381. vwudevovca 
372. mpooTartny ve 


(436) 


360 


370 


375 


380 


XO. 


ME. 
Ar. 


ME. 


(460) ISITENEIA H EN AYAIATI. 


> / 4 : 
THv 8 av Tadawav mapbévov (ti mapbevov; 
/ / , 
Aiéns vv, ws Eoue, vuudevoet TAYa) 
co >. OF / ‘ , See 
WS WKTIO * Oiual yap viv ikeTevoely TaACE 
3 ) ~ 
Q. warep, droxreveis pe; ToLovTOUS yapous 
4 \ 5) 
ynuevas a’ros, xdortis EoTt Gor Pidos.— 
\ s 3 4 > \ > , 
mapwv & ’Opéorns éyyus dvaBonoerat 
adouvera cuveras’ ETL yap €oTL vnTOS. 
> > e/ , , 
ai, ai’ tov ‘EANeévns ws pw dawAcoev yao 
/ e / / e/ ’ a Oo 
ynuas 0 IIpiauou Ilapis, 0 mw eipyaora: Trade. 
> \ 4 9 e - at / 
Kayo KaTwKTEID, WS yuvaika det Levy 
A ~ , 
vmeép Tupavvwy Evudopas KkaTaorevev, 
A 4 ~ wn” ~ ~ 
adeAge, Sos por deftas THs ons Oryeiv. 
/ A A , wv , 
didwut’ wov yap TO Kpatos, aOAos 8 éyw. 
, 4 e\ A ~ \ 
IléXova KxaTouvup, OS TarTnp TovmOU TaTposS 
~ “~ > 93 / \ , > » / 
Tou aov tT’ éxAnOn, Tov Texovta tT’ ’ATpéa, 
> A F ~ > \ , ~ 
nN pny épeiv Got Tao Kapdias cages, 
\ \ ¢ ~ 
Kal pn “ritndes undév, GAN’ Goov dpove. 
t ) A 
éyw o adm dacwv éxBadovt’ tdwv Saxpu, 
w F) \ 2 ~ 7 aN 
WKTEINA, KaUTOS avTadyKka Got TaXLy 
Kat Tov wadaay éLagioraua Adyowv, 
9 of / + 2 © > \ ~ 
ovk eis oe detvos* eiue 0 ovmEp Ei aU vuV 
Kai OL Tapatva pnt amoKTeivey TeKVoV, 


pnr’ avOeréoOar Tovpov' ov yap évdiKov 


383. THvd av 391. Os p elpyarra 
384. adne 403. els o€ 


385. ikerevoa: 


19 


395 


400 


405 


XO. 


Ar. 


20 .. EYPITITAOY 


f 
oé wev orevaCev, Tapa 0 oéws Exe, 


, A A A > » \ ec“ 4 
OvnoKew TE ToUs Tous, Tous 6 éEuous Opav aos. 


ti BovAopat yap; ov yapous éEatpérous 
&AAouvs AadBow’ ay, et yapwv ipeipopat ; 
dNN’ atroNoas adeAQoy, bv pw har’ Expnv, 


4 f +. > ~ 
‘EAévnv EAXwmat, TO KaKov dvTi Tdyabou ; 


wv 4 > F , A ~ > 39 / 
appwv, véos T nv mpi’ TO moaypa O éyyubev 


TKOTMY, EwEloov oiov nv KTElvEe TEKVA. 
of 4 ~ 
&ANws TE mw EAEos THS TaAXatTrwpou KopNs 
~ 4 3 ? 
elon Oe, cuyyévetav évvooupeva, 
e\ ~ > ” 4 , U 
n TwVv éuav exate OverOa yaw 
péAAa Ti 8’ ‘EXevns rrapbevw TH of META; 
irw orpateia dtadvOeio’ é& AvaAtoos. 
\ O wv . ~ } ’ / \ \ 
ov 0 dupa ravoa dsaxpvos Téyywv TO cov, 
\ A ~ / 
addeApe, Kame mapakadov ets dakpva. 
’ / 4 “~ U / / 
et d€ Tt Kopns ons Oeaohatwy yeTecTi cot, 
pn "pol meTeaTw" TOL veuw ToUpoY pépos. 
\ 9 a 
adAN’ ets weraBoAras nrOov amo Sewvwv Aoywv 
4 A . 
eixos mwémovOa’ Tov dud0ev repuKoTa 
vA W “~ 
TTEpywv peréTmETOV’ avdpos OV KaKOU TPOTFOL 
, ~ ~ ; 
Towide, ypnobat Totot BeATiorots del. 
~ f 4 ee 
yevvat’ éXeEas, Tavtradw te tH Atos 
4 me , r) 
MpeToVTa? Mporyovous ov KaTaoyuves oéGev. 


> « UA > ed \ 4 9 A 
aww oe, MevéAa, ott mapa yvwpnv eunv 


412. Ta mpayparea 8' 422. pn po 
418. oTparia 429. Mevedaos 


(485) 


410 


Al5 


420 


429 


ME. 
Ar. 
ME. 
AT. 
ME. 
AY. 
ME. 
AT. 
ME. 
Ar. 
ME. 


AI. 
ME. 


Ar. 
ME. 
AT. 


(507) I@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


tA ~ : ~ 9 
umeOnxas opGws Tous Adyous, cov T’ dis. 
b > e/ f A 2 F / , 
aAN iKOMEV yap els avayKkalas TUXaSs, 

A € A 2 n 4 
Guyarpos aiuatnpov éxmpagat dovov. 

a / _ A ~ 
Tws; Tis. dvayxacve: oe THY YE ONY KTavELV; 
ef “~ , 
amas “Axyawy Evd\dNoyos orpatevpaTos. 
ou, et viv eis “Apyos 7 amrooreAcis mad. 

-~ ~~ Y 
Aabouue TOUT’ av, GAN’ Exe’ ov ANooper. 

A “~ ~ wv 
TO Totov; ovTOL xp Niav TapBeElv dyAo». 

/ a , > » / ~ 
Kadyas €pet pavrevyar ‘Apyelwy orpatw. 


aN 3\ , 4 ~ ) 2 / 
ovx, fv Oavn ye mpocbe: TovTo & evpapes. 


\ \ ~ / / ee / 
TO pPavTtKOY Trav o7épua dtAOTimMoY Kakov. 


IQs \ sQ\ UA , 
Kovoev ye xpnaTov, olde xpno mov Tapa. 
? ~ 2 / ve 3 > 7 
éxetvo & ov Sédotkas, ovm’ EloepyeTat ; 
\ A A U ~ , \ , 
ov pn ov pales, mws vrodaBou av Noyov ; 
A , , / 3 4 
TO Luovpeov orepua waver’ oidev Tade. 
3\ of » 93 \ e/ \ > \ ~ 
ok €or "Odvacers 6 Tt OE KdME THMavel. 
9 “~ af fs 
mouiNos aet meuKke, TOU y OxAOU META. 
/ \ > / ~ ~ 
pirotimia mév évexerat, Oem Kaka. 
of ~ / > 2 > / / 
ovKouy Ooxels wv, oravt’ év ’Apyelows peoois, 


AéEew a Kadyxas Oéogar’ éEnynoato, 


21 


430 


445. 


430. vareOnxes 443. mas vrodaBomev Aoyov; 


436. Anoopas. 447. piroripia 
441. xovdev y’ @ypnorov...rapov. 448. ovxovy Soxe: voy 
442. Op eloepyerar ; 
Post v. 430. 
ME. rapayn 7 adeAdav ris 30 Epwra yiryverat, 
mAcovetiav Te SwpaTwv’ arertuca 
TOLAVOE TUYyEvELaY GAANAWY TIiKpQv. 


22 EYPIPIAOY (588) 


wv / ‘on , 
kay’ ws vmréotny Oipa (kaTa vevdouat) 450 
€ / ‘ 
"Apréucdr Ovoew; ois EvvapTacas oTparov, 
\ vw 2 9 / 9 / , 
O€ Kau aToKkrewavras ‘Apyetous Kopnv 
v4 , 
ooafat KerXevoer’ Kav mpos “Apyos éxpuyu, 
4 ~ 
ENOovres avrois Telyeow KuxAwriors 
dvapmacovet Kat KaTacKaypouot viv. 455 
n~ > A / » s U a. 
TOlauTa Tama WhuaT. w Taras eyo, 
e r 4 A lon a “~ V4 
ws nadpnuat moos Oeav Ta vuy Tade. 
ef , > \ 
ev pot dvAatov, MevéAews, dva orparov 
2 \ e/ , 
€AOwv, Srrws dv un KrAvramvyotpa rade 
4 e ~ ~ 
maOn, piv Atdn raid’ éunv mpocbe AaBor, 460 


€ 2,39 9» , , / ~ 
Ws ém’ éXaxloTols Sakpvols TpaTTwW KaKWS. 


XO. pakapes, of petpias Geou, or pop. 
Meta TE Twppocivas MeTE- 
axXov NEkTpwv ’Adpodiras, 
yadavela ypnoapevor 465 
/ 7 of A 
Matvopnevwv olaorpwv, dA on 
diduy’ "Epws 6 ypucoKopas 
LS on / / 
TOE evreiveTat yapiTwh, 
TO pev ém’ evaiw ToTHw, 
To 8 émt auyxvoe Biotas. 470 


2 , 
GITEVETTW VV GMETEOWYD, 


451. os Ewapracas 466. pawoper’ oictpwv 
455. Evwaprdcover 467. Deest o 
Post v. 461. 


~ % 4 c 
vueis TE oryny, w Levar, pudaccere, 


(553) IPIFENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 23 


Kurpt xad\XNiota, badapwv’ 
7 > 9 ‘ V4 

cin 0 Emote meTpia 

A 4 4 > ef 
pev xdpis, mobo 8 doror, 
kal peréxouue tas ’Adpodi- 475 

Tas, mwoA\Aav 8 azoGeiuav. 

/ \ / ~ > / 
Stadopor dé guaes Bpotwr, avTisTpotpn. 
Stagopot 5é tpdmot to 8 dpb- 

ws éoOAov cages det: 
tpopai & ai madevopevwr 480 
péeya Pépovot ets dperar 
TO TE yap aideicbat codia, 
tav T é£adAacocovcay Exe 
Xap, Uro yvwuas éevopav 
To Seov, Evbev Sofa eper 485 

, 9 4 ° ~ 
KA€os aynpatov Boras. 
méya Tt Onpevey dpetav, 

yuvakl pev kata Ku- 


\ > 5) / ) s 
mpi KpuTrTav, év avopact 0 au 


Koopos ‘évdov, & puuptoTAn- 'Zoyow 490 
64 pei(wo wodw abger. 

éuodes, w Ilaps, * * * Emqoos. 
* * * * * * 

473- €in Se por 482. codia 

476. woAAav 7° 485. eva dofav 

478. didrpomo dé tporos' 0 8 copes = 486. Bioray, 

480. wadevopevar 490. © pupomAnOns 


481. pépove' 492. @ Ilapis, 9 Te ov ye 


2-4 


EYPITIAOY (574) 


Bouxodos dpyevvais érpagns 
‘Idaiais mapa pooxots, 
BapBapa cupiGwv, Ppvyiwv ‘ 495 
avAwv = fe = ‘ aytiwaduv wvoay 
"OrdupTrov KaAapos wAEeKwv, 
, » J 
(evOnrAo & érpéepovto Boes, 
4 , a cc 
OTE oe Kpiots Euevev Oeav) 
éNeavTooeTwv mapot- 500 
Gev Souwy, os tas ‘EAévas 
év dvtwroit BAEpapors 
Ww a 
Epwras Edwxas, 
€owrt 3 autos érroaOns: 
5Oev Epis Epes 505 
‘EAAada avy Sopt vavai tT’ ayer 
> 0 4 
eis wepyapa Tpoias. 


MeyaAat peyadov eddapovia. 


Tnv tov BactAéws 510 
494- dears 503. Epwra dedexac 
498. 5€ TpEepovro 50S. Epee Ep 
499- neve 507. es Tpoias wépyapa 
502. avrewor Srepapocw 508. ies, ies 
Pro vv. 496. 497- 


avery, Odvuwou cadapor 
pyppaTa wEexey 

Post v. 499- 
@ © ‘Eddasa wepwe 


(592) 


doula péev dvd aictov moouvpeba, 


I®@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


» > 9 >» A 
der’ ‘Ipiyéverav, dvaccav éuny, 


tnv Tuvidpes te KAuvTaiuvnotpay, 


ws ék peyadwy BeBAaoTHKaO’, 


4 e/ , 
ért T’ Evpnkets Kovol TUXAS 


Oeot & oi xpetaoaous of +’ dABoddpor 


515 


TOs ovK evdaiyoot Ovyrwr. 


orwuev, Xadkidos Exyova Ooéppara’ 


thy Bacidveav 


SeFupe? Sywv aro un opadepes, 


dyaves S€ xepoiv padaky yveun, 


520 


pn tapBnon TO vewoTl sodov 


TO0E KAELVOY TEKVoV ’Ayaueuvduov. 


pn 84 OopuBov, pnd ExmAnkw 


Fetvar Eetvars wapexwuev. 


KAYTAIMNH2ZTPA. 


525 


A / \ \ 4 2 , 
TO gov TE xXpnoTOV Kat Noywv evdnpiav’ 


éATrida 8 éxyw Tw’ ais én’ éxOAoiow yapors 


Tapes vuuaywyos. aAN’ oXnuaTwv 


§12. Tuvdapeou TE 519. 
§13- éBr\aoryxac 521. 
515- Beoi ¥ 522. 
516. rev Ovarey 523. 


” J 

oxXAwy pro ovwv 

tapBnon vewori pot p. 
A) > Ul 

To KX. tT. Ayapepvovos 


py S€ OepvBov 


Post v. 519. emt thy yaiav 


Post v. 523. raise ‘Apyeias | 


26 EYPITHAOY 


é£w mopevel as pepw depvas Koon, 
4 4 9 3 4 3 ’ 
Kal wepmeT ets weAadpov evAaBoupevot. 
A 3 Ss , ~ A W 
au 0, w TéKVoV pot, NEl7rE TwALKOUS OXOUS, 
éBpov tiWeicoa KwAov, dabeves & aya. 
kdwot yepos Tis évddTw oTNpiypaTa, 
/ F) , e vA 2 / ~ 
Oakous amnyns ws av éxAlTw Kados. 
ot 8 eis TO mpocbe oTHTE TwAKAY CUYyur, 
A A 3 Ul # / 
poBepov yap arrapauvOov dupa mwrAtxov. 
4 ~ ‘ A > 4 4 
Kal maida Tovde, Tov ’Ayauémvovos yovov, 
) / 4 
Aatval ’Opeorny’ ert yap €ote vymeos. 
, / ~ ‘ wv 
Téxvov, kabevdas TwAKw Saye xe ; 
éyerp adeAgis ep UMEeValoy EVTUXWS' 
~ - > A \ 
cvdpos yap ayabot xndos, avtos éoOAos wy, 
, \ ~ “~ 
Arypet, TO THS Nupydos iadOeov yevos. 
4 4 , 
w oéBas éuol meyiorov, “Ayapéuvov ava, 


e/ 3 aA F) ~ 4 
nkopev, epeTuais ovK amuarrovea oelev. 


(611) 


540 


533- Kai po: 535. aid és ro mpcobev 542. ro Nupydos waidos i. x. 


Post v- 532. 
umes S€ veavidaow ayKxadrats em 


sefacbe, nat wopevoat é£ oxnparey. 


Post v. 542. 

ééns xaOnao devpo pou modes réxvoy, 

mpos wntép ‘Idiyevera, pakapiay S¢ pe 
Eevaict Taicde wAnoia orabcica Sos, 

Kat Sevpo on warépa mpocemne cov didov. 

543- 5$44- In Edd. hi versiculi prepositos habent vv. 545- 546. 
Proxime sequuntur tres alii, 

éya Se BovrAopat Ta oa orepy’, ew TaTEp, 
vrodpapovoa, mpooGarelv dia ypovov. 

no0w yap oupa dy cov. opyiobgs dé jan. 


(631) IMITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 27 


I@ITENEIA. 


W UNTEP, UTodpapovea oa” (dpyiaOis dé mn) 545 
A 4 > ~ 
MpOs OTEpVa TAaTpOS OTEpVAa Tada mpoTBadrw. 
9? , ? > 
aX’, w TEKvov, xpn’ iromatwp 8 det ToT’ Et 
, / ~ > 
Madiora Taidwy, THO SooUs éyw “TEKOV. 
s 4 9 dQ 7 9 > , vant / 
W TaTEep, éveidov ao” daopévy ToAAW XpPOVvy. 
A \ A , 9 ~ 
Kal yap TaTNp aE TOO ivov UirEp audoiv Aéyers. 550 
~ s / 2 r) / 
xaip* ev d€ pw’ ayayov mods o° éroinoas, TaTep. 
» ~ ~ ~ 4 
ovK 010 Srws ha ToUTO, Kai un Pw, TEKVOY. 
af / ) 
Ea. ws ov BAEmeEs eiKnAOV, aopmEvoS pm’ Lowy. 
/ \ a 
TON’ avdpt BactrEt Kal oTpaTnAdTy pmedet. 
A ~ ~~ 4 VA 
map €uol yevou viv, un “wi dpovridas Tpémov. 555 
a e Wf 
GAN’ eit Tapa .col viv amas, KoUK &ANobL. 
/ r) 4 
medes vuv oppuv, dupa tT’ Exrevov pidrov. 
9 I, 4 / 9 e / > @¢ A f 
tov’ yéeynOa o° ws yéeyn@’ cpav, Texvov. 
a” 4 , 
kametra deiBes Saxpv’ am’ oupatwv oebev ; 
\ A ea e 9 ~ >» 9» v4 
Makpa yap nulvy ny Wlove aTovota, 560 
loux olda, pidral’, & rT AEyers ov por, warep. 
s | ) io 14 \ 2 io / > 9 ‘ 4 
OUK 010 O TL Ons, OUK Olda, PIATAT Epmot TATEP. 
) J ~ 3 Ss 4 > Dt 
Evvera NEyovea paAAov Els OiKTOV pe ayes. 
> 7f “ 9 ~ 4 A 9 9 ~ 
QOUVETA VUV EpOoUMEV, EL DE Y EUdpavw. 


/ A ~ > , \ > 
Twamat’ TO ovyav ov alevw’ ce 0 jveca. 


545: vrodpapovca §53- €a° we ov Breres pe 

546. wepiBartw 555+ mpos sou yevou viv, xal pn ‘at 
547- Xp® pro xpy et prefix. AT. 557. vy 

548. waidwv reve, 558. yeyn® Ews yeynOa o opwy 


550. warnp ce 563. a@owera pev y 


I®, 
Ar. 
I, 
Ar. 
Io, 
AI. 
I®, 
Ar. 
Id, 
Ar. 
1®, 
AT. 
Io, 
Ar. 
Io. 
AL. 
Id. 
Ar. 
Ie, 
AT. 
Io, 
AT. 


28 EYPITIAOY (656) 


Lf s / 
Mev’, wW TarTep, Kat’ oikov émi Téxvos oéBev. 565 
4 - A A ) 
GérXw To dé OéNew ovK Exwy aAyUvopat. 
aw / ? 
GAowTo NOyxat, Kal Ta MevéAew Kaka. 
/ ~ 3 » 
&Aous dAet mrpda6’, aye Siodécavr’ Exe. 
4 ~ ~ 
ws tow amijcba xpovov év AdvAisos muyxots. 
~ , 4 
Kat vov ye w ioyer On Te un OTEAAELY OTpAaTOV. S70 
“ 4Q , 
wou Tous Povyas Aé€youow wkiobat, TwaTep; 
@ 4 a 
ov pnrot’ oikeiy wher’ 6 Tptauou Magis. 
UA 3 > , gS , A > f 
Makpav y amraipets, w watep, AliTwY Ene. 
‘els Tavrov qe, @ KOpN, CV om TATpi. 
1 .? 9 A S , 4 > ef ~ / 
eis TavTOV, w Ouvyarep, ov O kes ow TaTpl. 
~ 5 5] 
gev. et nv Kadrdov enol coi 7’, dyew Evprdovv éue. 575 
wo o> of \ \ on e/ , , 
ET €OTL Kal Gol WAoUS, tva MYNTEL TAaTPOS. 
\ \ 4 » \ , , 
Evy untpl mAevcac’, n MOovn Tropevcopat ; 
4 a > \ A A 7 
povn, povwleia’ amo matpos Kat pnTepos. 
9: > ’ / 
nov mw és adda Owpar’ oKiCes, marep; 
\ . 
éacov' ov Tot xpn Tad Etdévat KOpas. 580 
“AQ » ~ 4 s > A / 
omrevd éx Dovywv pot, Géuevos ev Tdkel, Tarep. 
Giocai we Ovoiavy mpwra Set tw’ évOade. 
~ , ~~ 
ada Evy iepois xpn To y evoeBes oKorely. 
: 4 a 4 
elaee ov" yepviBwy yap éorn~es meAas. 
#9 A \ s /, , 
oTicouev dp audi Bwuov, w matTep, yopovs; 585 


CnA@ wo padrov i me, TOU pnoev ppoveiv. 


566. Bérw ye ro Gere S 576. alrets ri; Kai cor 

568. wpocdev, & pe 580. Ea ye 7. ov ypH TO TAD’ 
571. wxyoba 583. Tod eve (es 

573+ Deest ¥ 584. eornén 


575+ pev' i nv Kadov por 586. Cnrw oe 


KA. 


Lr. 
CA. 
Lr. 
CA, 


(678) IMITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


A A v ~ / 
xwper O€ meAacbpwrv évros, opPOnvar Kopats, 
A , ~ 
mixpov irnua dovoa Se~idv TE por, 
4 } \ A 9 / / 
MéeA\Xovoa Capoy TaTpos aTolKnoEV ypovoy. 
s 4 + ~ 9 q 4 
® oTEpva, Kal wapndes, w EavOal Kopat. 
ws axOos ruiv éyéve? 4 Dpvyav mors, 
‘EXé 4 ‘ 4 ~ A 
€yn TE, Wauw Tous NOyous, TaxXela yap 
A 4 > 9 4 , / 
votis doer pw’ dupatav ravoavTa aov" 
~ 4 
i? eis péAaOpa. oe Sé mapa:toupuar Tae, 
/ U4 of 
Anédas yévebAov, ei katwxticOny ayay, 
MéAAwY “AxtAAE Ouyarép’ éxdwoev éunv’ 
> e/ 
dmooTo\al yap pakapia péev, dAX’ dps 
, ‘ 4 e/ w# / 
Odkvovat Tous TexovTas, OTav aAAow Sopors 
a Co /, 
qTaidas wapadioe@ moAkAa poxOnoas TaTnp. 
9 50° > 7? / 3 . / 3’ 2 AN 
OvxX wo aouveTos eu’ weicerOa O Epme 
4 «/ “~ 
Kavtnv Soca Tad, (Wore pn oe vovleTeiv) 
e/ A € / 9 4 4 
Stav Evy vuevatorow efayw Kopnv. 
‘AN’ 6 vomos avTa TH Xpovw Evicyaver 
d r D xpdvp Evnoyavel. 
an \ Ss ADs » ef , 
ToUvoMa MeV OvY Tatd’ oid STH KaTHVETAS, 
~ , 
yévous 6€ moiou, xywrobev, pabeiy Oérw. 
/ ~ , 
Aiytwa Ouyarnp éyever’ "Acwrov mratpos. 
A ~ ~ wv , 
tavtny Se Ovntav 4 Oewv ECevee Tis; 
4 4 
Zevs' Aiaxov & épucev, Orvwvns mpopov. 


~ 9 5) ~ ~ , I } 4 
rou © Alaxov mais Tis KkaTenxye OwpaTa ; 


588. Sefiav +’ enor 603. cunoyaver 
590. mapnides 606. éyevar’ 
600. Se pe 607. eCevte ris; 


601. pH ce 


29 


590 


595 


600 


605 


30 EYPITIAOY 


IInAevs. 6 TIndevs 5 éxye Nnpéws xopny. 
Geov SiSovros, 4 Bia Oewv AaBuv ; 

Zevs ryyunoe, Kat Sidwo” 6 Kupuos. 

yauet Sé wou vv; 4 Kat’ oloma oVTiOV; 
Xeipwv ty’ oixed ceuva TqAiov Babpa. 

ov gaci Kevravpeiov wxicbat yeévos ; 
évravl’ Edatcav TndNéws yapous Geoit. 
Géris S EOpevev, 7 mwarnp, “AxtAAéa; 
Xeipwv, tv’ 70y pun pador xaxwv Bporwyv. 
get. codds F 6 OpeWas, xu ddovs copwrepos. 
Towase mados ans dvnp éxrat moots. 

ov meumrros. oixel & aotu moiov ‘EXAdéoos ; 
‘Amidavov dudi worapov, év OOias dposs. 
éxeio’ arate: onv éunv te mapbévon ; 
Kelvey peAnoe TAVTA TH KEKTNMEVH. 
GAN’ evTuxoiTny. Tit O Ev ruépa yapet ; 
Stav oeAnvns evtuxns EXOn KUKAos. 
mpotéevca & 40n maids todatas Gea ; 
pédArw, “rt Tavty Kal KaQecrayev TUN. 
karverta Saicers Tovs yapous és YoTEpov; 
Qioas ye Ouual’, & we ypewv Ovaat Oeois. 
jucis S€ Ootvny rou yuvatel Onooper ; 


év0asde, map’ evmpuuvoiow ’Apyeiwy wAarats. 


613. 4 Kar oldpa wovtiov ; 625. evrvyeirny 

614. [InAciov 628. perdrAw 4’, ext ravTy 
615. olxetoOar 629. esverepoy 

618. py paby 630. awep p’ expny 


619. pev’ copos ¥ 


(701) 


610 


615 


620 


625 


(724) I@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 31 


Kadws 7’, dvayKaiws Te auvéveycar 0 dps. 
s e\ ~ > / “~ / 
ota ovv 6 dpamov, w yuvar; wiGov dé pot. 


~ é c 
‘ri ypnp’; eweicOnv «at wapos Aoyos ceOev. 


~ > , 

‘rt ypnua; wetOccOar yap eiOiopa oeber. 635 
jueis pev évOad’, ovréep eoO 6 vupdios— 

\ / \ U » € a“ , 
Mntpos Ti xwpis Space’ wy pe dpav xpewr ; 
2 t A a oA , 
éxdwoouev onv twatia Aavaidwv pera. 
jas S€ Tov xpn THViKavTa TuYyyaveu” ; 
xwper mpos "Apyos, mapBévous Te There. - 640 

a) ~ , > 
Airovea Traida; Tis 8 dvarxynoe Proya ; 
3 \ a ~ ed , , 
éyw wapeew ws, O vuudiors mperret. 
ovx 6 vouos ovTOS' n GV avr’ iret Tade ; 

\ wv 3 ~ ~ 
ov Kadov év OxAW o EFomtrAEioBat oTpaTo. 
KaXOv Tekovcav Tama y éxdouvar TéKva. 645 
» A 

kat Tas y' év olka pn movas eivat Kdpas. 
dxupoiot mapfevwor Ppovpovvrat Kadws. 

- \ > 
mov. KA. pa tv avaccav, ’Apyeiav Bear. 


é\Oav ov takw mpacce, Tav Sduos SF eyo. 


oiuor patny ne’, édmidos 8 drecpaAny, 650 
€& dupatwv Sapapt’ drooteiAa OéAwv. 
copiCoua S€, Kdri Toiot pidTaTors 


/ a 
TEXVAS TOPiCW, TaVTAaXN viKwpeEvos. 


633. xadws 0 643- Kat ov S€é pavn’ ny Tae. 
637. pnrpos Tt x. 5. ‘av pe 649. Se pro ov 
Post v. 649. 


a A «a , U 
&@ Xpn wapetvar vyudiow: wapbEvois. 


32 EYPITNAOY (749) 


xen 8 év Soporow avdpa tov wopov rpEepev 
yuvaika yxpnotny xayabnv, 4 un TpEpe. 655 


XO. He by Cypoevra Kat or popn. 
divas dpryupoetceis 
ayupts ‘EAXNavwv orpatias, 
dva Te vavol kai Evv brAors 
“IAcov, eis TO Tpoitas 660 
Doi Bniov dSaedov, 
tav Kacoavipay iv’ axov- 
w pirrev EavOovs mroKkdpous, 
XAwpokopw orepave dsadvas 
KkoopnOeioav, drav Oeou 665 
MavToouvoL Mvevows avayKat. 
oracovra 5 émi wepyapwv = avrtarp. 
Tpoias, apt TE TELXN 
Tpwes, trav yadAxaoms “Apns 
WOVTLOS EUTpwpOLTt TAATALS 670 
etipeania mwedaCn 
Lipouvvrios dyEerors, 


\ “~ 9 fe 
Tav twv év aden dio- 


6 59- vavoly 670. evropoict 
666. wavrocuvar 


Post v- 653. 
dpws b€ avy Kadyavt: re Ounrory, 
To THs Beov didov 7, Epo 8 ovK evtuyxes, 
eLicropnowy eit, poxOov ‘EAAdoos. 


IdIFENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


acwv Atorxovpwy “EXévav 
4 
éx Tlptduoy xopioat Gédwv 
> om 
eis yav ‘EAXada Sopirdvors 
, ~ 
aomiot Kal Noyyats "Ayaov. 
r + ~ 
Tlépyapov dé, Ppuywv * oAuy, * pupa 
oh 4 4 
Aaivous wept mrupyous 
4 
kukAwoas Sopt cowie, 

4 \ 
Aatmoropous Kehadds oracas, 
wépoas KaTaKpas 7OAW, 

vA o 
Once Kopas troAuKAav- 
4 
Tous, dasapta te Tav IIpidpov. 
ois 9 \ 
env’ éuot, 
, ~ 4 
pnt’ Euotot TEKVWY TEKVOLS 
; ‘ d 4 
éAmis ade mor’ éAGor, 
4 e 4 
Olay at woNuxXpvaot 
~ vA 
Avéai, cai Dpuyav adoxor 
CTaTOVGt, Tap’ torois 
“~ / 
puvOevoa Tad’ és dAAAas 
4 
Tis dpa p’, evtAoKapous Komas 


Saxpudev Tavueas, Tarptoos 


680. ape powip 690. oryoover 


3x 


675 


eae. 


680 


685 


681. Aawnropous 693. épupa Saxpucert’ axoveas 


684. Deest ray 
Post v. 681. 
‘ womopa Tpoias 
Post Vv. 684. 
a Se Avs ‘EAeva 
xopa woAukAauros evetras 
id a 
woow TporAtToVvoea. 


84 oa EY PITMAOY (793) 


dANOpéevas aroAwTiel, 
dia we, Tay KuKvou SorAtyavyevos éxyovoy; 695 
et 6n aris Erupos, es 
Eruyev Anoa. 
1*# * = Spvih wrapéve, 1 wAabeio” 
Avs ot’ fAAaYOn Séuas, ett’ 
év d€ATo.wo TMiepiow 700 
_ pvbor tad’ és avOpwaous 


yveykay wapa Katpov a\Aws.— 


AXIAAEY®3. 

~ ~ 9 . ~ Ps U a e / 
mov tav ‘Axawy évOad’ 6 otpatnAatns ; 
tis av dpavee mpoordAwy Tov IIndéws 
Cnrouvra vu maid év muAas ’AytAXea; 705 
oux é£ icouv yap pévopev Evpirou méAas" 
oi pev yap nua ovres. aCuyes yapwy, 
Ww >» ° 9 7 > 4 | 
oixous épnmous éxAurovres, évOade 
Oaocovo’ én’ dxrais, ot 8 éxovres évvidas 
kal Tatoas’ ovTw Sevos éumemrrTux’ Epws 710 
tnode orpateias ‘EAAaO’,, ovx avev Oewv. 

> A 9? 4 > \ , , 
ToUMOV pev ovv Sikatoy éue AEyew xpEewr' 
Gddos 8 6 yenCwv avros vrép avrol ppacet. 
ynv yap Aurwv Dapoadov, dé TIndéa, © 


694. ovAopevas 709. én’ axras* 

695. yovoy pro Eexyovoy - - 710. Gwadee’ pro nal waidas 
696. ervye And’ cpl iarapeve 911. ‘EAAao ¥’ ovK 

699. addrayOn . 713. vwEp auToU 


700. ev SeATOIS Meepion 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


(818) IdITENEJA H EN AYAIAI. 


mevw ‘ai Nerrais Tateid Evpisrou poais, 
Mupmidovas ioxwv of 8 det mpooKeipevor 
Aéyouo’: ’AytAAeU, Ti pévouev; TOGOV ypovoY 
ér’ éxpetpnoat ypn mpos “IAcov orddov; 


dpa 7’, et Tt Spaces, h “may oixade orparov, 


Ta Twv "Atrpedav un péevov pmeAAnuaTa.— 


> ~ ~ 7 
w wat Geads Nnpndos, évdo0ev Aoywv 
THY GwVv dxovoag’ ELEBnv mpd Swparov. 
ts 4 9 > A c , rf \ 
@ TOTME aldws, THVDE Tiva NEvoOOwW MOTE 
yuvaika, popny evmpenn KexTnpevny ; 
ov Oatpa o” ruas dyvoeiv, ovs un mapos 
kateides’ aivo 8 ore. wéBets TO Twppoveiv. 
tis ei; Ti 8 nArABes Aavaiday eis EVAXOYov, 
yuvn mpos avipas doriow meppaypevous ; 
Anédas peéev ie vrais, KAuvtamvyotpa S€ pot 
Svoua, mooi o€ povariv "Ayapuéuvov avak. 
kadws éXe~as év Bpayel Ta Kaipia. 
aioypov Sé por yuvarkt cupBadrrAew Aoyous. 
~ av , U > >: « ‘ 
peivovy Th devyes; defiav. y Eun Kept 
, 9 A 7 a 
Evvarov, adpynv pakapiay vusdeupatwv. 
vi gus; éyo oor deFidv; aidoipe® av 


"Avyamémvov’, et Wavouuev wv pn por Gems. 


715; Talcse 7 Evpisrov WVOAIS 727° vis 8 ei; 
716. of p ae 730. moots dé mor ow 
717. Wwolov ypovoy 733. Sewov pro petvoy 


72.0. eAnMaTa 


85 


715 


720 


125 


735 . 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. 


AX. 


KA. | 


AX. 


fP. - 


AX. 


36 | EYPITTIAOY : (835) 


Oeuis pardiora, Thy éunv érel yapeis 
maid, w Oeas wat mrovrias Nnpnioos. 

motous yayuous rs; dbagia pm’ exe, yuvat, 
€i fy Te Wapavoov~a Kawvoupyets Adyov. 
Waow TOO éuméduKev, aidetePa idous 
KQLVOUS Opwol, Kal yauou pEeuynpevots. 

ov TwWroT é€uvnoTevoa Talida anv, yuvat, 


ovd €£ ’Arpedwv nrOE por Adyos yapwv. 


“~ ) 
vi Ont’ av ein; ov madrwW av Adyous Euous 45 


, 9 N \ t > 9 A A A ~ 
Oavual’, éuot yap Oavpar’ éori ta Tapa cov. 
# m / 9 > 7 , 
eixale’ Kowov éorw ekaCew Tade 
apo yap éyevdoucba trois Aoyous tows. 
9 > # , 6 } i , , 
ahr  werrovla Oé&tva;, pynoTEVW yaslous 


oux dvras, as elfacw' aidotpat Tdde. | 7150 


4 A / 

lows €KEpTOUNoOe KaME Kal OE TIS. 
2 9 9 , A 9 A \ 4 , 
aXrX apera dos avta, Kal pavrws Pepe. 

~ 3 9 A 3 ~ 4 V4 9 ww 9 9 ~ 
yaip’> ob yap dpOois dupactv o° Er’ etoopw, 
evdns yevouevn, xat mabovo’ avagtia. 
kai col TOO é€otiv é£& éuov- moow Sé vov 155 


/ Uy ~ , 4 
oTeixyw patrevowy Twvde SwuaTwy Eow. 


5 é ~ ~ 
w £év’, Aiaxot -yéeveOAov, peivoyv w, wé Tor Eyw 
- nT. eee ; / 
Tov Oeas yeywreé™raida, kai o€ tThv Andas Kopny. 
~ a ~ 
tis 6 kadwv, TUAas Trapoi£as ; ws TeTapBykws KaXel. 
739: enol pro prs 755+ Kai cot 


748. dudw yap ov WevdopeBba 757. WS O€ TOL ACY. 
749. GAN’ wemovOa Seiwa’ sine interr. 


IIP. 
AX. 
IIP. 
AX. 
TIP. 
AX, 
TIP. 
AX. 
KA. 
IIP. 
KA. 
IIP. 
KA. 
ITP. 
KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
_ TIP. 
KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
IIP. 


(858) I®IFENEIA H EN AYAIAI, 37 


“~ “~ a 9 “ 
Sovros’ ov dGBpvvopa THOS 4 TUXN yap OUK Ea. ‘760 
Tivos ;. €uos péev ovxi’ ywplis Tdya Kdyapeuvovos. 

~ ~~ 4 
tnobde THS wapoWev oixwv, Tuvddpew SdvrTos maTpos. 
écrapev ppat’, ci Tt xpnTets, wv pw’ éwéeo yes obvea. 

s , ~ ~ 
n povw mapdvTe OnTa Taicd épéorarov muAais ; 
ws ovo Aéyots av? Ew 8 EOE BacirAEiwv Souwy. 765 
s ~ eA A , 
@.Tuxn, mpdvoia F 4 un, GwoOoV os éyw Oérw. 
€ / ) , / / 4 > Ww U 
6 Adyos eis MEAAOVTA GuoEL yYpovov' Exe: 8 SyKov TiVva. 
~ € 7 4 
Seftas Exart pn péAN’, et Te moe xonCes Aevyerv. 
~ cA of 
olcba Sara pw’ Sotis wy ool Kal Téxvots EvYoUS Euy ; 
olea o° évr’ éyw radav SwuaTtwv éuov AadTpL. TIO 
XOTt pw’ év Tails caiot Hepvais EXaBev Ayapepvwv ava€ ; 
~ J > td 
nrOes eis “Apyos peO’ rjuwv, Kappos noW det ore. 
< 54 ‘ \ \ a > 4 ~ Ww & 4 
wo Exe Kal ol mev EvvoUS Etul, ow 0 HooOV TOME. 
4 ~ ~ e 
exkadurre viv rod piv, ovotivas Aéyets Aoryous. 

~ \ \ € / > 7 , “~ 
Talla onv TaTnp 6 ducas avToxeip pmeAAEL KTAavElV. 

~ A > Ss ~ 5) > ~ 
TUS; awewtTua’, w yepate, pvOov ov yap ev dpoveis. 

Co ,VoO rv A 4 ~ r s Oe 
Q~acyavw evKny dovevwy THS TaXatTwpou CEpHV. 

7 + > 2 7, 1 ¢ ; ; 
@ Tada Eyw° MEUNVWS apa TUYXavEL TOCIS; | 
4 B ow ~ 2 b \o~™ 
apTippwv, Any Eis TE Kal OnV Waida’ TOUTO 8 ov Hpovel. 
’ ’ P 
ék Tivos Noyou; Tis avTOv dUTaywv dAacTopwy ; 780 


bérpal’, (ws ye pnoi Kadyas) tva mopevnrat orparos 


760. 4 TUyN yap p' OvK eg 768. pn mer’ 

762. Twvde trav wapoev 769. otc8a Syra y 

764. 4 povw wapoev dnra 773. yur oy pe Tais cais Pepvats 
765. Prefixum KA. ws povois 781. oTparos. 


766. els weAdovT’ dv won 


KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
ITP. 
KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
ITP. 
KA. 
IIP. 
KA. 
TIP. 
KA. 
IIP. 
KA. 
AX. 
KA. 
AX. 
KA. 


38 EYPITMAOY (880) 


wot; TaAaw’ éyo, Tarawa Oo Hv wWaTHp NéAAE KTavElY. 
Aapdavou apes Swuad’, ‘EXévnv MevéeAews Orws ANaBn. - 
cis dp’ Ipuyévecav ‘Edens vooros fv mempwpevos; 784 
ndvr’ eas. "Apréucde Quoc maida onv peAdAE TaTnp. 
6 O€ yapuos tiv’ elxe mpopacw, ds ur’ Exdpucev ex Sopwv ; 
iv’ dyayots yaipovo’ ’AytAAEi maida vuudevoovea ony. 
 Ouyarep, ices ém’ dN€Opw Kal ov Kal puntnp weber. 

oixtpa macxeTov ov’ ovoat Sewa S “Ayauépvewv ErAn. 


otyouat TaAawa’ Saxpvov Gupar’ ovKéTe oreryer. 790 


elmep adAyewov TO TEKYWY OTEpomevny SaKxpuppoEty. 


av 0€ Tad’, w Yyépor, wobev ors Etdevar TeMVapPEVOS ; 


SeATOV GxouNnV hépwv ToL, pos Ta Tply yeypaupEeva. 


oux éwv, hf EvyxeNevwv raid ayew Oavoupevnv; 794 
A A a of ~ Q \ , fs: F 

a Bev oUVv ayEwW Ppovav yap Eruxe GOs Toots TOT’ ev. 

Kara mus pépwy ye SéATOov ovK Epol Sidws AaPerv; 


-MevédrXews ageided’ ras, ds Kaxwv tavd’ altos. 


& téxvov Nnpydos, @ mat TIndéws, kAvers Tade; 
éxAvov overav dOXiav. oe, TO 8 ed ov avAws Hépw. 
maida pou KaTaxTevovel, wots SoAwoavres yapors. 800_ 
péuqoma Kayo Tore ow, KovX arAws oUTW Hépw. 
ovK éradecOnoopuat ‘yo mpoomereivy TO OV youu, 
Ounros éx Yeas yeywra’ Ti yap éyw cvEeuvuvouct ; 
émt Tivt oMoVvoaTTEOY pot MaAXOV, i} Téxvou Tépt; 
dN’ auvvov, wo Oeas rai, TH T éun Svorpakia, 805 
786. tiv’ ciye THY popacw, HL 800. ydpors ; 


787. dyayns...vuupevovea 802. ov ewaderOycopai ye 
790. Saxpuoy 7 804. én! rivoe 


XO. 


AX. 


(904) IdITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 39 


ry TE NexOeion SauapT: of, paTnv péev, GAN’ Spes. 
col Katacrévac’ éyw viv Hyov ws yasoupevny, 

viv O éri opayas xouiCw cot 8 dvedos. ikerat, 
doris OvK fuuvas’ Ei yap pn yapyourw éCuUyns, 

GAN’ éxAnOns youv.raraivns wapbévov piros roars. 
A U 4 ~ A 4 ‘ 
mpos yeverados oe, mpos we Oefias, mpos untepos’. 811 

4 A A / > »® , a t a 9 U / 
dvopa yap TO Gov. arwdeo"’, » o duvvabew ypewr. 
ovx éxw Bwyov xatagdvyciv dAAov, H TO Gov yoru". 
ovde iros ovdets méAas po Ta & “Ayapeuvovos KAves 
2 A 4 4 9 7. 9 / 2 ~ Q 
Wud, Kal TavToAp. adiypat O', womep Eloopas, yuyn 
VaUTIKOV OTPATEUP avapyYoV, KaTl Tois Kaxots Opacu, . 
xpnowwov &, drav OédXwow. qv dé ToApHoNS oY pov 
~ > € ~ , aN \ \° 9 , . 
xeip’ Vrepreivat, ceowomel Hv Oé un, ov ceowopeda, | 
A ; 
dewov TO Tixrerv, Kat péper Pirtpov péya: 7 
maowv Te Kkowov éo8 Urepkapvey TéeKVoV. . 820 
Unrodpwv por Ouuds aiperat rpdow, - 
émiotatat o€ Tois Kaxoiot tT’ doxadav, 
merpiws Te xyaipew Toiow éFwyxwpevois. 
AeAoytopévo: yap oi To.0id eioivy Boorwr, 
dpOws dtaCnv Tov Biov, yvwuns pera. - 825 
Eoriv ev ovv iv’ you pn Niav poveip, 
ori O€ xwrov ypHotwov yvaunv exer. 
éyo 8',.dv dudpos eioeBeoratouv Tpadeis 
Xeipwvas, Euabov tous tpdrous dmous exe 
S11. wpos ons Sefias, mpds Te 818. ef dé un 


uNTEpOS 830. waciv 76 xowov, oc 
814. Ovdels yerg por 824, 825, Choro tribuuntur. 


40 EYPINNIAOY (928) 


Kat Tois "Atpeidais, ny pev rryovrat Kados, 830 
meaoucd, STav O€ fy KadwWs, OU TEicopat’ 
GAN’ évOas, év Tpoia 7’, édXevOépav guow 
4 af we > » A , / 
mapexwv, “Apny to kat’ éue Koopunow dopi. 
\ 2 ~ ~ 
ae 0, wo oxeTNIa Wabovaa pos THV PiATaTwv, 
el ‘ wv 
a 6n kat’ avipa yiyverat veaviay, 835 
~ 9 a ~ 
TOOOUVTOY OikTOV TeEpiBardwy KaTaT TEND ° 
KOUTOTE KOPN On TOS TaTpos ThaynoeTat, 
éun pariobeio’: ov yap éurdéxew mAoKkas 
9 A a ~ 4 > A 4 
éyw wapetw ow Twooe: Tovpov Oépas, 
TOUVOMa yap, Ei Kal pn otdnpov jpaTo, 840 
» A / a A A 9 of 
Toupav dovevoe: maida onv, (Td 8 aitiov 
, A € \ » > fs » \ ~ > » A 
moots aos), ayvov & ovKet’ dori ow’ épov, 
WV ~ 
ei Oc Eu’ OAeiTat, Sia TE TOUS EuouUs yapous, 
€ \ -~ 2 > A , 
9 Sewa TAaTa KoUK dvexta tapGeEvos. 
Oavpacra 8 os dvakt Hripdopeba: 845 
> N , F vos 3 , > A 
€y® KaxioTos nv ap ‘Apyelwy avnp, 
A > » 
éyw TO pnoev, (MevedrAews 8 ev advdpacw) 
ws ovxt TInAéws, dA’ aAdoTopos yeyus, 
# 4 > A of “~ / 
eirep ovever ToUpov dvoua ow Troce. 
“~ , 
ma Tov Ot vypov kupatov TeOpappevov 850 
e/ 
Nnpéa, duroupydv Oéridos 7 we eyetvaro, 
e “~ 4 
ovx aera ons Ovyatpos ’"Ayapéuvwv ava€, 
ovd’ eis axpav yelp’, wore mpooBadeiy wEeTAOIS’ 


831. In fine, ob wercopueba. 845. nripacpern 
833. “Ape T@ kat’ eve 


(952) IDITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 41 


tT 4 e 
n ZimvAos éorat mors, (Gpiopa BapBapww, 
e/ > .e 
oOev wepixao’ oi otparnAaTa yévos) 855 
P6ia O€ Tovpov 7 ovdapou KexAnoeTat. 
‘ A 4 a , > > @ 
mupous dé mpoxuTas xépuiBas 7’ évap~eTa 
KaAxas 6 pavtis, (ris S¢ pavris €or’ avnp;) 
Os Airy’ adAnOy, woAAG SE vevdy, AEyet 
4 e/ A 4 4 / 

Tuxwv OTav O€ wn TUXN, StoixeTat. 860 
z ”~ € 
) THY yapuwv ExaTt, pupae Kopat 
OQnpwot NEKTpov ToUpov’ éipnTat TdOE 
9 > ed 9 ec “” e > 
GAN’ UBpw és juas UBpio’ "Ayapépvov aval: 
xenv & avrov aiteivy rovpov Ovoy’ éuov wapa, 
Onpapa maidds: (4 KAyvramuvnotpa 8 époi 865. 

Ul > > » ~ 
parior’ éveicOn Ouvyarép’ éxdovvat moet) 
édwka Tav “EAAnow, ei ampos “IAcoy 
’ 50° af , 3 ? > , @’ 5) 
év TWO Ekamve vOoTOS avK rovoumel’ av 
TO Kowov afew, wv per’ ExTpaTevoper. 
pov & ovdév etut, mapa ye Tos orpatnAatats, S870 
év evpapel de Spav Te kat pn dpav Kados. 

(aa) o 4 eA \ 9 / 
Tax’ eloeTat aidnpos, (dv, mpl ets Ppuyas 
éNOeiv ovov, KnANiow aipatos xpavw) 
ef tis pe THY onv Ouyarep’ E<aipnoeTat. 
GAN’ rhovyale Oeds eyo mednva oor 875 


MéyloOTOS, OUK WY’ GAN’ Suws yeryoopat. 


854. 4 DimvAos 867. Edwxe 7 dv 
856. roupoy sine 7’ 869. eorparevouny 
857. avafera 871. ev evuaper TE 
861. 4 TeV yapouwTwy 873. povov...aiuare 


865. 7 KA. 8 prot 
6 


XO 


KA. 


AX. 
KA. 
AX. 


42. | EY PITMAOY 


4 9 a ~ ) 
éAeEas, w mat IIndews, cov 7’ afta, 
“4 ~ 9 4 / ~ “~ 
Kat Tns évaNias Oaipovas, wenvys Oeou. 
~ ~ a > 9 / \ ’ , 
@ev. Tws av o ETraivemayu pn Lav Horyots, 
o> 3 5 een os 3 / \ U 
nT evoEews, nT amroNETatu THY YapL; 
aivoupevar yap a’ya0oi Tporov Tia 
fL~OvTL TOUs aivouvTas, hv aivwo’ ayay. 
9 U \ 4 ) a ‘ 4 
aioxuvouat 6€ tmapadepouc’ otkTpous . Noyous, 
~ 3 rf ~ 9 ~ 
iSia voravoca’ ov 8 avocos Kakwy éuov: 
GAN’ ovv éxer Tt OXHMa, Kav arwlev 7, 
»_ AN € \ ~ 2 ~ 
dynp 6 xXpnoros dvoruxovyTas widedeiv. 
a on > 
oixreipe & suas’ oixtpa yap wemovOapev 
A ~ \ \ A 2 a~ > WV 
1 TopwTa pev oe yauBpov oinbeto’ exe, 
\ / ) aN > \ / 
Keyyv kateoxyov éAmid’. €ira col Taxa 
of , 2 ~ , 4 
Opis yevorr’ dv, aots Te péAAovaow yapots, 
~ .Y ~ ef 4 
Gavoio’ éun aaiss & ce pudadgacba xpewv. 
9 sz \ ‘J \ 
aXN’ ev prev apyas eimas, ev O€ Kal TéAN’ 
~ 4 4 ~ > A , 
gov yap GéAovtos, mais éun cwOnoerat. 
4 e a \ rd , 
BovrAa viv ixeTiv Gov TepiT@TU~aL your ; 
9 o A IWs 3 g ~ 
amapBevevta prev Tad- et O€ oor doxel, 
€ = af > of > » 
ner Se aidous, dup’ Exouc’ éAevOepov. 
a\ A UY an | , , 
| nN wapovons, TavtTa TevEopna oedev; 
MEeVveTW KaT’ Oikous' Deuva yap wEpvuvETat. 
Opws 0, doov ye Suvatov, atdeicbat ypewv. 
‘ ~ a > of 3 9 
ov pntre onv maid E~ay’ dw eis éunv, 
881. of yaoi 889. cira co 


882. éav alvac’ 890. Tote: pro cois TE 
888. ev oe 


(975) 


880 


895 


900 


KA. 
AX. 
KA. 
AX. 
KA. 
AX. 
KA. 
AX, 


(909) ' JOITENEIA H EN AYAIAT. 43 


9 wv 9 0 
pnt’ eis dvedos auabés EXOwueEv, yuvat. 
A A > , > A o\ ~ 7 @ 
orTpatros yap dOpoos, apycos wv Ttwv oixaley, 
A€oxas wovnpds kai Kkaxooropous dtAet. 
mavTws o€ m’ ixerevovres H&er’ eis ivov, 
‘ 9 9 A 
eit’ avKétevtos nv’ éuol yap €or’ aywv. 905 
, e ~ om 
peéeyiorros vas éFaTadAakar kaxwv. 
ws Ey y’ dxoicac’ tof pn Yevdas mw’ épeiv’ 
~ v4 9 ~ . 
revdn N€yov pev Kal patnv éyKepTopwv, 
Oc ade, atts ’ > oA / ; 
avousu un Oavommn O7, hv cwoow KOpNY.. - 
f ~ e .) ~ 
dvato, auvexws OvaeTUXoUVTas wdehwv. 910 


4 on ef A - » 3f - 
QKOVvE On vuUV, va TO Mpaye ExN Kadws. | 


4 ~ >» gf e » , A 
Tt TouT’ EXeEas; wis aKovoTEOV YE GoV. 


4 > ~ ~ 
mewuev avths matépa BéATLOV dpoveiv. 
, yg \y/ ~ l 
Kakos Tis €oTl, kat Niavy TapBet oTparov. 
GAN’ ovv Adyou ye KaTaTraAaiovow AOyous. - 915 
Wuypa pév éAmis- ti 6€ ypewy pe Spav,, ppacov. 
ixérev’ éxelvoy mpwTa pn KTEelvely TEKVA:! 
A > 92 , A > , 
ny © dvriBaivy, mpos éueé oot mopevTeov. 
kai dn TO xpnCov EmiBev' ov. ToUuov xpewy 
ywpetv, xet yap ToVTO THY Gwrnpiav’ 920. 
Kayo v dueivwv mpos didov yevnoopat, 
3 > r) 2 , 
orTpatros T dv ov méeuyraro p’, El TA TeayuaTa 


AeAayiopévws modooot wadrAov 4. oGevet, 


gos. 48 pro Hv QIS- GAN’ of Aoyor ye 

go8. Aeywv Se 916. ri de ypn pe Spav 

git. on vv . - 918. dv pro ny | 
G13. aris pro auTas gig. el yap to xpnCov.eniBer 


Post vy. 923. Kadws S€ kpavOevtay mpos rdovyy pirat, 


AX. 


KA. 


“44 EYPITIAOY (1023) 


coi T av yevorro Kav éuou yxwpis Tadce. 

ws cwpov’ eiras. Spaaréov 8 & cot Soxei. 925 
nv 8 av Ti pn mpaoowpev wy eyo Oédw, 

nov o avtts. douerOa; zou xpn pm’ aONiav 
éNOovcav evpety anv yép’, ezikovpoy KaKov ; 

jets oe chuAakes, OV xpewv, puAaEouey. 

pn ves o° i8n oretyovoay erronpuévny 930 
Aavawv 8i’. dxAov, pndé tatpwov Sopov 


aicxuv’: 6 yap tot Tuvdapews ovx afios 


a » / > \ ef , 
Kakws axovew’ ev yap ‘EAAnow peyas. 


éxrat Tad. apxe cot pe SovAcvew ypewv. 
9 9 i) 
et & eioi Oeol, Sixatos wy dvnp av ye 935 


a A ~ ~ 
éxOAwv Kupnoes’ et O€ pn, Ti Set rroveiv ; 


XO. tis dp’ vuevatos Sia Awrov AiBvos,  — srpogy. 
Mera Te diAoxopou KiOapas, 
cupiyywv & vro Kkadapoeor- 
oav éoracey iaxyay, 940 
or’ ava 
IIyjAtov ai KarAuTAcKapor 
Teepides éri dati Oewy 
xXpuccoraveanoy ixvos 
év Ya Kpovovo-at 945 
IInA€ws ets yauov nAOov: 
926. 4v 8 avra uy wpaccwper av e. 0. 939. kad\apococay 


929- urAdaocopev 940. Ecracav ia-yvay 


934. eorw rad . 943- ev Sacrt 


(1045) IOITENEIA H EN AYAITAI. 45 


pedwoot, Oétiwv dynpact tov 7 Aiaxiday 
Kevravpwy av’ dpect KA€ou- 
oat IInNtada xa’ vAav; 
6 6€ Aapédavidas, Atos 950 
AEKT pw Tpupnpa pido, 
Xpucéoiow advoce ror- 
Bav év xpatnpwv yvadoss, 
6 Dovyios Tavupnons. 
mapa de NevKodayn v-apuabov 955 
etAtooOmEevat KUKAW 
TEVTHKOVTA Képat Nn- 
_ péws yapous éxopevoay. 
dva 0 éAatTaiot, orepavader TE yAOoa, oe 
Giacwos €uorev immoBoras 960 
Kevravpwy éni daira trav 
Geav kpatijpa te Baxxov. 
mo 0 av- 


Pevecccccccvonesenece 


PPCOCRO DESO EO CEL ORLOD CES EdESELOeEDDERCeReERnTeDESED 


Wawes Ococadal, peya cous 965 


, = 4 , ~ > 
DotBos 6 pavtis, 6 pmovway T 


cidass yevvacrets 


Sencgreccccossoccvene: 


Pee? eConOHaa oe, 


Ov eeescccnnscorevawcensescneeeecdecsenedacseronesecerePSteretsesedenngerecEaeeRoeeeegederrecsecesesecnosscccersenrecerensenscoereccconesocnsecoconceceneonbactoseone 


947: laynpact 965. aides ai Oeeoadat 
948. év Spect KrAvoveat 966. pavris o DoiGos, 
956. KUKI 968. eFwvopacey 


957- Nuprios 


46 


970. acmieratc: 


979 
981. 
983. 
984. 


[Bpdreov aivagcovres Aatuor, | 


EY PITMAOY 


3 ~ 4 
aomirtais, Ipiauoro KAet- | 


00 Cov eneeeeneascnceseccaceceseceneneesecenesencceracsceererscnnensecossseroseeessesesecsneenensee 
CPecennrerecereenecenenesceccesmssnsscc Bde eeserenecnstereesseeseneeeesenecenasscese 
Oe or Mer re error re irororer y 
Cen meaerecesececeasenereaccesecesoccccensccOeenersensenereeceoeneeneeseescesseoneeees 
ePeseccereccscoverevscsssenncenoescocoses sono neeeer teneennroepeeseoetesesensoeeeteseee 

oF One erecgencceeencsecocescconseneccceserscnn estes ceoevesenes seneccoessc ener pees: 


O00 000000000000 00009 0000 Ot PEDROS OE SODODEDCEC CE CERO DEDEOOE SO DSOE ED LeOEODe seteonaeS 


pakapiov.— Tore Saipoves 
Tas evTarpioos yapov: - 
Nupndwy Eecav mpow- 
ras IInAéws & vpevaious. 
\ > 9 \ / 
oé 0 él kapa 
_ | - 
oTeyovot KaA\Xtkopav 
. 
wAoKapov “Apyeio, Badiar.. 
éXahov wore TETpaiwv 
am’ avtpwv éXOoveay dpel- 


av, 4 mooxXoV aknpaTov, 


ov ouptyyt Tpageioav, oud 
év porBdnoet BovkoAwy, 
mapa 5é paTpt vupdpoKopw 


1* * “"Ivaxidais yapov. 


985. cpewy pro opeiav 


(1069) 


970 


975 


980 


"EM WOOS. 


985 


990 


1 kNEwov 


Nupnisos 986. Deest 7 
Kapo- 989. Bouxcrwy - | | 
7 GXiav pro Badiav ggo. rapa S€ pntép: vupdoxopov 


Deest EAagov 


(1069) IMITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 47. 


~ ~ ~ 4 
wou TO Tas aldous mpdcwroy, 


oe ‘ \ af ] 
OMOTE TO MEV AGETTOV EXEL 


/ . 2 9 \ , 
Suva, ad 0 apeTa KaTOT- i 4 
obev. Ovatois duedcirat,; . 995 


avopia Sé vouwy Kparet, 
Kat Kowds .ayav Bporois 
~ f 
on tis Bewv POovos ENOn ; 
4 YY ‘ 
\. &€nAGov otkwv, .rpooKkomoupevy | déuas ' vel wdda 
> , ; ~ mA > ~ ~ 
Ayapéuvovos rovd", os émi Trois avtrou Téxvors 1000 
, 2 
dvooia mpacowy avrix’ evpeOnoerat. 
4 9 ~ 
~, Andas yevebdov, év. cadre o” é€w dduwv 
e 2 e/ 3 vw a 3 A 4 
evpnx’, wv’ elzrw rapevov xwpis oyous, 
oUs OUK dkovEeW Tas yaoumévas mpémet. 
> Cl A > 4 
\. ci 3 or, 08 cot Kaipos dvriAduTat; 1005 
~~ A 
“. &xmweume waida SwuaTwy .waTpos MéTa* 
ws yepuiBes Tapeow EevTpETICMEVAL, | 
tA 0 Lend 4 ~ 
mpoxuTa:. Te, Barre rip Kabaporov xepoir, 
\ , e\ aed ~ 
MocxXoL TE, TPO yapwv as Gea weceivy ypewv 
999- Toow pro Seuas 1008. wvp kabapeiov ex yepav 
1007. NUT pemiopevat 


Post v. 992- Tas aidous 
ba ‘ aa 9 ig ‘ ww 
: ] TO Tas aperas duvacw exe 
obévew Ti rpocwror, 
Ld 9 ¢ 9 A ‘ 
Post v. 999- XpoMov awovra, xaxr\eAorwoTA oTeEyas’ 
9 ‘ , e ao ~ 9 a 
év Saxpvoi 6 4 rakawa wais enn, 
moAhas icioa peraodas cdupparey, 
Oavarov akovcac’, dv waryp Bovdeverai. 
ponpnv 8 ap elyov wAnciov BeBnxoros 


KA. 


AY. 


KA. 


AYP. 


48 EY PITITAOY (1114) 


"Apréudt, uéAavos aiuaros duonpata. - 1010 
~ o 3+ \ s Ul \ > of 
Tots Cvomactv pev ev Aéyers, TA 0 Epya. cov 
» > ef , 3 > 4 > 4 
ovK 010 Saws yon pe dvouawacayv ev Aéyenv. 
4 A , 3 4 S A \ 
xwpe dé, Ouyarep, éxros’ oicba yap marpos 
4 a / F) A ~ 4 w# 
mavrws a peANe yxumo cols memo aye 
é 
AaBovo’ ’Opécrnv, cov Kaaiyynrov, TéKvov. 1015 
| A U e/ ~ 4 
tSov, mapeoriv nde meBapyovcd cot 
ta 8 @\N’ éyw mp0 Thode KapauTns ppacw. 
Tekvov, Ti KAaets, ov EO’ ndéws dpas, 
3 a“ > v4 s wW , xv c 
eis ynv © épeicac’ dupa, mooc8 eyes wémXous; 
~ \ ~ 9 ~ 9 ~ 
gev. tiv’ av AaBouu Taev euwv dpxnv Kaxwy; 1020. 
/ 
anmact yap mpwrowwt ypyoacOa mapa. 
> 4 € 7 e e 
vi 8 €or; ws mol javTes Ets EV HKETE, 
A 
Evyxvow exovres Kal Tapaypov duparwvr. 
v2.2 |v 2 , , , 
ED Qv EpwTHTW TE YEVVALWS, TOC. 
ovdey keAevopou Set o°* épwracbat Oérw. 1025 
A ow A \ i 3 bd A , ~ 
THV Taiba THY Onv THv T Eunv peAAES KTaveEW; 
3 t 3 ~ é' 
ga. TAnuova Tt’ Ede~as, Vrrovoeis F a pn oe xen. 
Io >» ee” 
> no UX IS» 
KaKElVO POL TO TMpwTov amoKptvat TaN. 
ov 87, qv y épwras etxoT’, etkor’ av KAvots. 1030 


ox GAN’ épwTw, kal ov pn ey’ GAAG pot. 


101I. ovopact 1026. bef 7 

1014. pedAer YE. TOUS aremAOLs 1027. TAnMOVa 7 
1017. mpos THOOE 1028. Deest in Ald. 
1018. ri kAaiews; ovde O ndews opas 1030. elkdra KAvers 
1020. I®@. prefixum. 1031. od, Gar’ _ 


9 e ¢ 9 s ~ 
Post v. 1021. Kav vorTaTotol, Kav pecolot NavTayov. 


(1136) IDITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 49 


> 4 ~ 9 ' 
® TOTMa potpa, Kal TUX, Saiuwy 7 euos. -  - 
2-4 i. 4 °  -— ‘W iM : “~ a 
KaMOS ye, Kal THO, Eis TpLWY Ovadatpover. 
ae > ~ / 
TiO yoiknoat; KA. Trott’ éuou wevOee rapa ; 
6 vous 85 auvros vouv éywv ov Tuyyavet. 1035 
, 
amwAonecOa: mpodésora: Ta KpuTTa jou. 
f ‘ - 
mwavr’ olda, Kal memvopel, a ov méeAAeS pe Spar 
2 A Se b| ~ e ~ / ? , 
@UTO 0€ TO Giyav oModoyourTOS EoTt TOV, 
\ 
Kal TO orevaCey ToAAd’ pr Kans Neévyuv. 
F A ~ 9 ~ 7 
OOv, iwrw' TO yap avaioxuvrov pe Sei; 1040 
evdn Aéyorra, mpocAaBeiv tH Evpcopa.. 
J | 
akove Oy vuy' dvaxaduyw yap Aoryous, 
f a es 
KOUKETL Tapwoots xpnoducoO aiviypac. 
TpWTOV peVv, iva Gor TpeTA TAT dvediow, 
, | | _ 
éynuas adxovoay pe, kaAaBes Bia, +. 1045 
,) , oo ; A 
Tov mpooGev avopa Tavradoy kataxravoy’ 
A > A ~ ‘4 , 
Bpépos +e Tovpov oo rpocwpicas Tady, 
pactTev Biaiws Tov éuwv drootacas.. 
\ ‘ 4 ADs > \ A c 
kat tw As oe maid, éuw d€ cuyyovw, 
immo pappaipovT’ émrertpaTevoaTny. - 1050 
mwatnp Sé mpéo Bus Tuvdapews oa” éppyaato 
e 4 4 3 \ > - UA 
iKeTnv yevouevov, Tana 0 Eoxes av AEXN. - 


o~ 4 
ov got KaTadAaxeion, rept oé Kai Sopmous 


1032. & worma TUyn, Kat poipa, Kal 1039. wn Kapuvys 
Sainwv x Epos. 1042. 89 voy 

1033. Kapos Te 1044. wpwra Tour 

1034. tiv pro vi 8 | 1047. ®pocovpicas 

1037. kal weruop a ov ve 1049. Asos ye...€ue TE 


7 


50 EYPITITAOY 


Evupaprupyces ws aueuTros nv yun, 
eis 7 "Adpodirny cwdpovoica, Kal TO cov. 


péeAaOpov aifavo’, woTE oO EioloyTa TE. 


xaipev, Oupaté tr’ é£€tovr’ evdatpoveiv. 2 


aomavov 5é Onpevy’ dvdpt rotavtny AaBeiv 
dapapta’ dpAavpav & ov oraus yuvaik’ éxew. 
tixtw © éri tpiol mapbevoise watda cor 
TOVvd’’ wY pias OV TANnMOVws  amToTTEpEls. 
kav Tis o° Epntat Tivos Exati vw KTeveis, 
AEEov, Ti noes; 7 "ue ypn Aeyew TA. oa; 
‘“EAévnv Mevédews iva AaBy.—Karov ye vo 
Kakns yuvackos pucOov drotioa TeéeKva’ 
Taxficra Toit pirtaros wvoupeba, 

ay’, €& oTpaTrevoe, KaTadimov pw’ év Swpaciy,. 
Kdkel yevnoe: Sia pakpas drougias, 

tiv’ év Somos pe Kapdiay éfev Sdoxeis, 

Srav Opdvous Thad cicidw wavras Kevous, 
xevous Sé maplevwvas, émi Sé Saxpvors 

povn Ka0apat, thvde Oonvwootc’ ae, 
"AmwAecev o°, w& TEKvov, 6 GiTicas TaTIp, 
avrés xravev, ox GAXos, ove’ &An xeEpi—; 


py oyra mpos Oeav unr’ avayxaons ue 


1056. oor eloiovra TE 1067. qv oTparevon 


1059. pAaupav 1068. yerjon 
1064. MevédAaos...xadov yevos 1072. xaOypat 
1065. arotica 1073. © guTevcas 


(1158) 


1055 


1060 


1065 


1070 


1078 


3066. raxbeion 1075-6. Sequuntur v. 107g. 


Post.v. 1074. Towvde poOoy Katadimwy wpos Tous Sdpnouse 


(1184) IMITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 51 


Kany yevéoOat wepi oe, unt avTos yevn. 

évei Bpaxeias mpopacews me Set povor, 

ép’ io eyo Kal maides ai AeAetupevat 

deFducba SéEw, qv oe déFacba xpewv. 1079 


> ~ > , \ +] ~ . 
etev. Ovoes O€ THv Waid’ Elita Tivas EvxaS Epes; 


A rf a 7 c a 
‘Ti cot katevger Tayabov, spaCwy TEKvoO ; fi 
\ 9l 7 9 wo > 7? 
{voorov movnpov oikobév y’ aicxpas iwyv ; | 
GAN’ ee Sixatov adyabdv etxerOai Tt oot; 
im 27 9 > , A cy e 4 ) x\ 
n Tap dauverous Tous Oeovs rryoiued’. av, 
2 ~ ) , 
Ei Tolow avlevracc Ev poovnmouer. 1085 


ixkwv © és “Apyos mpoamecet TEKvoLoL Gois ; 

GAN’ ov Oémuis wor. Tis S€ Kal mpoaBAEWeTat 
maidwy oa, iv’ avtwv mpoOeuevos KTavns TWa; 

Tavr nrOov on Sta AOywv. nH TKHTTpa oa 

povov Stadéperv, kal oTpaTnAaTteW oe OEt; 1090 
dv xpnv Sixatov Adyor év *Apyetows A€yetv, 
BovAeo@’, “Ayatol, mretv Ppvyav éxi xOova; 
KAjpov Tiderbe, raid’ Srov Oavetvy ypedv.— 

év tow xy av nv TOd° dAAa pn oO” E€aiperov 
cohayiwv mapacyeiy Aavaisaict raida ony. 1095 
ji MevédAewv apo pntpos ‘Eppiovny xraveiy, 

ouTep TO moayp nv. vov © é€yw mev, 4 TO cov 


acwlovca NEKTPOV, Taid’ drooTEpyoopal, 


1076. Ede: pro pe der 1089. 4 OKATTPA gor 
1080. év0a pro era 10gQ!. ov xen 

1084. oT’ ap’ 1094. yap qv...my a 
1086. mpoorecos 1096. mpos untpos 


1088. éav avTwr 1098. mardes va Tepyoopa 


XO. 


I®, 


52 EYPITNAOY 


ni © é£auaptovo’, vmarporos veavida 
4 ? 
Lraptn KouiCove’, evtuxns yevnoerat. 
4 of om 
ToUTwWY apervai p’ ei TL un Kadws AEYyw' 
3 
et 0 ed A€AEKTAL Taya, py OU ye KTAVNS 
A ‘4 9 ‘| ~ \ 4 4 
THY OnV TE Kaunv Taida, Kal cwhpwy eve. 
a \ / } / f \ 
mQov: TO yap To Tékva cvoowlew Kado, 
2 , > A ~ > oN > / ~ 
Ayapepvoy’ ovdets Totad’ dv avreiro: BpoTrav. 
> A A 3 a > S 7 4 
eu pev tov ‘Opdews eixov, w watep, Noyov, 
, f) Uy 5) d @ ~ , 
meiOev éeradova’ wolf cuapTety por weTpas, 
KnAeiv TE TOIs Adyolsw os EBouAOpND, 
~ ~ ‘ > > ~ 
evra? av nrAOov vuv dé Tam’ éuov coda, 
/ ~ > » 
Saxpva wapéfw tavTa yap Suvaiped av. 
e , \ , 9 Ul / 
ixetnptav o€ yovatros étanrtw aebev 
A ~ e/ e/ 
TO Twa ToUpor, OwEep ETiKTEV HOE Gor’ 


uy yo dmoéons awpov' Ov yap TO dws 


Aevoce’ ta 8 vad yns wy p ety dvayKaons. 


tA > 9 a 4 A A ADs 9 4 
mpwTn o €kaheoa TaTépa, Kal ov maid épe’ 
t ~ ~ ~ 3 A 
mpwrn o€ yovact ooiot awa dove’ éuov 


giras yapiras Edwka, kavredeEaunv. 


/ ) S e/ ? ) > 
Adyos 0 6 pev cos nv G0: “Apa oa’, w& TéKVOV, 


: , / > » / ov 
evoaipooiv mor év dopoow dyoua 
Cwoav Tre kat OadrAovoav afiws éuov;— 


«> A >» IQ F z \ \ 3 , 
dupos 6° 08° nv av mept cov E~apTwpuerns 


e é e 4 é , 
10QQ- vroaT podoy pro vroTpoTros 1114. Brewew pro A€vaocety 


1102. ef 8 ev A. veot, py by ye K. 1116. youvact 
1105. mpos tad pro roied av 
1110. duvaineba sine av 1122. avriAaCopat 


(1204) 


1100 


1105 


1110 


11ls 


1120 


111g. evdainovos dvopos ev 6. 0. 


(1237) IDITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 53 


“yévetov, ov vu dvmiAdCupat xept: 

Ti & ap’ éyo of rpéoBuv; ap’ etodeEouac 
éuav piraow vrodoxais Sduwv, ratep, 
qovev riOnvovs amodisovcd oor Tpopas;—  —=—«1125. 
TOUTWY éyw peV THY AdYwV pYnuNY exw, 

ov 8 émtAéAnoa, Kai pe amoxreiva Oédecs. 

pn mpos oe TléAomos, xai mpos “ATpéws rarpos, 

kai Tiode. untpos, i}, mpiv Woivovo’ eye, 

vuv Sevrépay wotva thvde AapBave:  . _ 1130 
vi pot péteati: Tav "ArAce~avipov yayuov, 

‘Erevns re; wo0ev 7AO éx’ GACOpw Taupo, TaTeEp; 
BrAéYov mpds ruas’ Supa Sos, Pidnua te, . 

iv’ ad\Aa tovTo KatOavovc’ exw oeébev 

punpetov, Av. pun Tots éuots meaOys Néyous. - 1135 
adeAHe, puxpds pev av x’ éxixoupos ida, 

Buws Sé cuvdaxpucov, ikérevoov mwarpos 

Thy onv adeXgnv py Oavetv? aicOnua Tor 

Kav vnriowwlt TwVY KaKkaV éyyiryverat. 

idov, ciwrwv AiooeTai o° BS’, w maTEep. -. - 1140 
GAN’ alderai me, Kal KaToixteipov Biov. | 
vai, mpos yeveiov ao” avrouecOa Svo gidw' - 

6 pév veoooos €or, i 8 nutnuevn. 


<\ ~ , , , 
év Evvre“ovea, TavTa wKynow Aoyor' - 


1123. eyw oe | 1138. atcOnpa vi 
1128. yn wpor ye [leAowos | 1139. Kav. wnwios ye 
112g. kal ras ye pnrpos. | 1141. Blow 

1135. €& pro Ay a 3 1142. dveo pire 


1137. Sites Se oy Saxpuow. ixerys yivov narpos 1143+ 98 prog} 


XO. 


Ar. 


54 EYPITNAOY 


a ~ s 
TO gus TOd dvOpwroow Hoicrov BAErey, 
A 4 > ; NY od 
ta vepbe 5S ovdév’ paiverat 0’, ds ebyerat 
Gaveiy’ xaxws Civ Kpeiooov fj Oavetv Kados. 
> ~ r 4 
w TAnuov ‘EANévn, Sta we Kat Tous Gos yapous 
r) N , e 
ayav ’Arpeidas Kai Téxvols eet peéyas. 
8 » 4 
éyo Ta T O1KTPA GuVETOS Elut Kal Ta pM, 
gira tv’ éuavtov Téxva’ pawvoiunv yap av. 
~ ~ en , 
Sexvws O° ye: mot TavTa ToApnoat, yuvat, 
~ a 4 td ~~ QA ~ r ~ 
Servos O€ Kal pn’ TovTO yap mpagat ue et. 
e “AG ef U 4 , 
opal’ ocov orparevpa vavppaxrov rode, 
e/ f 
yadkéwr @ GmAwv avaxtes ‘EAAnvev boot, 
« 4 a» 3f > » / , af 
ois vooros .ovK éor ‘IAtou mupyous emt, 
, 4 
ei un oe vow, (uavTis ws Kadyas réyer) 
~ \ / 
oud’ ott Tpoias é£eActv kNewov Babpov. 
4 4 ~ 
Meunve & dppodirn tis ‘EAAnvev orpata, 
~ - 3 , 
mwAev ws Taxiota BapBapwy émi yOova, 
wavoai Te NEKTpWY apmayas ‘EXAnUiKoY’ 
a 4 a t ~ 
ot ras év "Apye: mapGevous Kkrevovci jou, 
~ , > . 0 ; a. 
Uuas Te, kdue, Oeodar et AvoTw eas. 
ov MevéXews me KatadedovAwTat, TéKVOV, 
2 / . 2 
ovo’ émi TO Kelvov BovAomevov €AndAvOa, 


Ee 
€ 


aA’ ‘EAAas, 7 Set, xav OéAw Kav un OédAw, 


Oiaat we’ Tourev 0 jocoves Kabéoraper. 


1146. ra vep0e & ovdeis: 1158. xawov Babpov 
111. gprAqv euavrov TExva 1159. EAAnyxas 
1152. pe pro por : 1162. xtelvouvct pow 


1555- Deest 0 1163. Seopator ei Aver | 


(1250) 


1145 


— 1150 


1155 


1160 


1165 


(1273) I®ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 


éAculepav yap Set uv, dcov év col, TéKvov, 
kdpol, yeverOa:, nde BapBapors vo 
“EAAnvas Ovras Aéxrpa cvAacba Bia. 


ct 

KA. ® TEKVOV, Ww TEKVOY’ 

b ~ ~ s 

ot ’*yw Oavarou Tov cou peed. 

gevyet oe matnp Aidn mapadous. . 

av A ~ ”~ a 3 
I®. ol "yw, MNTEP, MNTEP, TAaVTOV 

uéros cis auhw wemrTwKxe TUXNS, 

> + ~ 
KOUKETL [MOL ws, 
oud’ deXiov rdde Héyryos. 


a \ aA 
tw,. t, 
vipoBorov Ppvyav varos, 
/ e/ 

Hpiauos o6¢ wore Bpéos | 
dmaXdov EBade, parpos amompa 
4 > | ld 
voopioas, ET Mopw 

4 Ud A 
Oavaroevte Tlapev, os 
"Idaitos “Idaios 
édéyer’ édeyer’ év Dovyav mode, 
pnror’ wedes Tov api 


Bovot BovkodNoy trpapevr’ 


55 


1170 


11%5 


1180 


1185 


1170. ovAAacBar | 1174. Of yo ph. M. TAVTO yap 


t17I. @ TEKVOV, Eeva 1181. pntpos 


1172. ot éyw Savarou cov 1186. pnwor” apere 


1173. adn 
Post v. 1180. “Idas 7° open 
Post v. 1187. 'Arctavdpov - 


56 | EYPITHAOY (1293) 


oixioa: dui TO AevKov Vdwp, 561 
kpjve: Nuudav xeivrat, Aeuov 
_avOeot OarrAwv yAwpoisy 1190 
évOa more TaddAas éuorev, Sorvppwv TE Rveaks 
“Hpa 6’, 6 Atos 7’ a&yyeAdos ‘Epuas, 
(a ev éri 1d0w Tpvpaca 
Kumpts, ad d€ dovpt TaAAas, 
“Hpa dé Acs avaxros evvais Baciricw) - 1195 
kplow émi oruyvay épw Te . 
KkaAAovas, e€uov € Oavaroy. 
xO. w Kopa, mpd0upa o° éAaBev 
“Aprepis mpos “IAtov. 
Id, 6 6€ Texwy pe Tav TaAavar, 1200 
® maTep, W. uarep, 
olyerat mpodous épnuov. 
wo Svoraraw’ éyo, mikpav 
mikpav idovaa SuceAevay, — 
ovevopa, dioAAvpat a 1205 
apayaiciw dvociocw dvociov Tarpos. 
pn pot vawy yadkeuBorAaddwy. . 
apupvas AuvXis deEar@at . 


1IQI. Epore kal Sodkioppwy K.  11Q7. Tas kaddoveis, enol Se 8. 
° 1192. “Eppas & o Anos a. 1198. 0 # xdpas 

1194. Sopt 1201. © uaTep bis, 

1195. evvator Bacirior 1208. ao. Auais 


Post v. 1190. kal podcerr’ av0ea vaxivOwa re . > 
' Ocator Sperew’ 


Post v. 11Q7- Svopa ev Pepovra Aavatsaow 


XO. 


Id. 
KA. 
Id, 


(1322) IdITENEIA H EN AYAIAI,. 57. 


s > > e/ 
Tougd cis Sppous 
wperev EhaTav Topraiay, 1210 
9 5) t 4 > # 
und’ avraiav Evpirw 
mvevaat Zevs avpav addors 
adAav Ovarov, 


~ A ~ 5) 
Tos Mev Yalpev, Totot & dvayKar. 


7) woAupoxOov ap’ nv yeEvos, 1215 
i TwoNUpoxOov wav apeEpiwy, 
1% pew o€ TL 1 oudé ypewy Er 
dvorotpov *dvopacw * * dveupeiv. 
> \ > A 2) , a 
LW, ld, avopact veikos 
Ul 4 , > of 
mMeyaa wabea, peyada 8 ayea 1220 


Aavaidas ribeiaa Tuvdapis xdpa. 
9 \ \ 2 7 ~ ~ 
EywW MEV OLKTELDW GE GUUdopas Kakwy 


“ ee a > ov ~ 
TUXOVTAY, Olas puntoT wheres TUE. 


® TEKOVTA pHTEp, dvdpwy SxXAOV Ei~opw TéXas. 
~ ~ “~ a e A ~ > A 
Tov Te THS Deas maida, TExvov, w GU Seip’ EAnAVOas. 


SiayaraTé por méAaOpa, Suwes, wis kpuyw Séuas. 1226 


120g. 7. els dp. els Tpoiav 1221. Tow Aavatoas 
1216. Deest may 7, p Sevp e. 


Post v. 1211. sequentia sic se habent 

mvevoat Toumay 

Zevs pericowv avpay addorw 

aAAav Ovarav Aaipes: yaipew, 
~ A 4 a ] s ¢ 

tots S€ Aumav, trois 8 avayKav, 

trois 8 efoppay, trois 8 oreddew, 
a ‘ LU 

toior de pedAew. 

r arohupoyOov Ke T.A.~ 


KA. 


KA. 
KA. 


AX. 
AX, 
AX. 
AX. 
AX, 
AX. 
AX, 


AX, 


AX. 
AX. 
AX. 
AX. 
AX. 


AX, 


58 EYPIMIAOY (1841) 


ri 8é, Téxvov, pevyes; ID. "AytAAéa Tovd’ idetv ai- 
oxXuvopat, 

wis ti dn; 1M. 7o duoruyxes pot THY yanwy aida péper. 

ovx é€v dBporntt Keitoat mpos TA vuY TETTWKOTA. 


addAa@ piuy’* ov ceuvornros Epyov, jy SuvwueOa— 1230 


w yUvat Tadawa, Andsas Ovyarep. KA. ov vevdq Opoeis. 
dei’ év ’Apryeiows Boata:. KA. riva Bonv; onuatve por. 
dupi ons maidos. KA. rovnpov elras olwvov Adywv. 
ds xpewv opata viv. KA. ovde’s roiad’ évavriov Aéyer ; 
eis OopuBov éyw tw’ avtos HAOov. KA. eis tiv’, w Léve ; 
capa Neve Onvat wétpoiot. KA. pov kopny ow wv éuny ; 
avro rouro. KA. tis & av érAn ocwpartos Tov cov 
Ouryety ; 1237 
mavres"EAAnves. KA. orpatos 5¢ Mupudovev ob oor 
ii nv; 1 ey Opa. 
apuros nv éexeivos 'éxOpds. KA. 8¢’ dp’ dAwAapev, TéKVov. 
of we TOV yapwv drekddouv jooov’. KA, drexpive 8 Ti; 
THY env péAAove'ay evvayy uy ktaveiv, KA, dixata yap. 
jv epnucev watnp po, KA, kdpyobev y érépyaro. 
GAN’ évikounv Kexpaypov. KA. 70 woAvd yap Sevov 
KaKov. 1243 
GAA’ Guws dpnEouev oor. KA. kai paxel wodAoicwy Eis ; 


1227. Tide pevyes, texvov; IM, ray 1234. Kovoels 
"AxidAea, Tov l. ai. 1235. €yw@ Tot KavTOS 

1229. wpos Ta vv wempaypeva 1236. oeoCew 

1231. Prefixum XO. pro AX. - 1240. TeV pro Tov 


1233- Aoyov 1244. payn 


e e e e e ® e rs vw 


(1359) _ J@ITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 50 


etoopas Tevxn pepovras rovad’; KA. évaio Twv ppevov. 
GAN’ dvnovuerOa. KA. mais ap’ ovxért ohaynoerat ; 
vA - 9 e e 
ouK, €uou y’ exovros. KA, a£€ee 8 bores ayer ac Kopns ; 
pupio y’* ad&e & ’Odvocevs. KA. ap’ 6 Zicvou yovos ; 
_ avros ovros. KA. idta rpaoowy, 7 oTpatou TaxOels U7; 
aipefets éxwv. KA. rovnpav y’ aipeoww, puapoveiv. 1250 
GAN eyo oxnow vv. KA. &£€e 8 ovy éxotcav dpracas ; 
‘ ~ 3 ~ 

Snradn EavOis eBeipns, KA. éué dé ypn Ti Spav Tore; 

a : “~ e 
dvréxou Ouvyarpos. KA. ois Tovd’ over’ od ohaynoer at. 
GAN@ pny eis Tavrov H&E. 

Id, prep, cicaxovaréov 
TOY EuaV NOYwY’ paTHY yap o Eiaopw Oupoupevny 1255 
~ ? \ 2 Ds ea ~ > ef 
ow Tore’ Ta 0 ddvval’ ruiv KapTepeiv ov padiov. 
A \ RA L4 / > f / 
Tov pev ouv Eévov Sikatov atvéoa: mpoOumtas” 

A ~ ~~ ~ ~ 
ada cal oé Toul dpav xpn, wn SiaBAnOn ortpare, 
Kat wAéov moatwpev ovdev, Bde dé cupopas TuXN. 
oia 8 etonAOev pt’ axovcov, untep, évvooupevnv. 1260 
kaTOavety pév por SedoxTat’ TovTO 8 ato BovAopat 
evxAews moatat, wapeioa x’ éxmodwv TO Suvoryeves. 
devpo on oxévar pel ruav, pnrep, ws Kadws eyo. 
eis Ew ‘EAXas 9 peyiorn taca viv aroBAére, 

3 A , ~ A ~ A 
kav €uot mopOuos Te vawy, kat Ppvywy KaTacKadai, 


~ wv “~ 4 
Tas TE ueAAOUCGAs ‘yuvaixas, qv Tt Spwor BapGBapor, 


1247. ovK Eou y 1258. diaBrnOns 
1249. idia 1259. os d€ pro doe dé 
1252. eme de Ti yp 1262. ro dvopeves. 


e. ~ ¢ ® of 9 , 
1254. eis ToUTO ¥ n&et...€icakovoaTe 


XO. 


60 EY PITNMAOY (1381) 
une?’ dpraev dav toved’ dABias é£ ‘EAAaOos. 1267 


~ ~ e 4 
TavTa Tavra KaT@avovca pvcopat, Kai ow KAEOS, © 
, e 
‘EAAa@d’ ws rAcvOépwoa, waxapiov yevnoerat. 
A b rd ~ 
Kal yap ovdé Toi Tt Niav Eve Hirdovuyeiv xpewv' 1270 
“ 4 » 9 
mac yap w “EXAnot kowov érexes, ovxi ool pMovy. 
9 A a A 4 > 4 a 
aAAa pupio Mev avopes doniow mwedpaypyevot, 
, > »s §F > Wf v4 > / 
pupion © épérp’ Exovres, warpidos nocnpevns, 
Spav Tt ToApnoovow éxOpous, yumep ‘EAAaoos Oaveiv, 
4 8 éun Wuyn pl’ ovca mavta KkwAXvocE Tade; 1275 
, \ / FP > sf ~ > ow 9 ~ 4 
Ti TO Otkatov; ap Exowmev Toad av avTeitety Eros; 
kar’ éxeiv’ EAXOwmev’ ov Set Tovde Sta paxns porciv 
macw ’Apyeios, yuvaikos ovvex’, ode xaTOaveiv’ 
cis xy dvnp Kpéloowv yuvatkav pupiwy dpav aos. 
et & €BovAnOn TO owua ToUpov”Apreus AaBeiv, 1280 
€uTroowy } ‘ya Ovnros ov 7 Oco ; 
M yevnoouat ‘yo Ovnros ovca TH Oew; 
aXN’ adunyavoy, SiOwur copa Tovpoy ‘EAAade 
Over’, extropOeire Tpoiav. ravta yap pmvynpeia jou 
Sta paxpov, Kal aides ovTo., kai yapo., Kal Sof’ éun. 
BapBapwr 8 “EXNAnvas apxew etkos, aAX’ od BapBapous, 
prep, ‘EAAqvev? To pev yap Sovdov, oi 8 édXevOEpor. 


\ \ \ s ~ , af 
TO PEV TOV, W VEAL, yEvvaiws EXEL’ 1287 


AN om / A A A ~ ~ ~ 
TO THS TUXNs SE, Kal TO THS OEov, vowel. 


1267. ras pro rovad 1281. yeyxyoou’ eyw 
1270. ovde Tor Aiav y' Evol . x. 1285. elxos dpyew 
1274. exOpous re 

, ‘ , = 9 SoM 2 ~ 
1276. Ti To Sixatov Tov ¥; ap Eyomev avremmeiv Eros; 


Post v. 1267. tov ‘EXevns ticavras oreBpov, Hutw npracev Tapis. 


AX. 


Io. 


AX. 


(1405) IMITENEJA H EN AYAIAI. 


/ ~ - 
"Ayapepuvovos mat, waxapiov pé tis Dewy 
~ s 
EuedAe Onoev, ci TUYOIL THV yapwr. 
oa A ~ , \ , 
Gnxo@ S€ cot pév “EAAGS’, ‘EAAados 6€ oe° 
€U yap TOO elmas, afiws Te Twarpidos. 
“ ) ~ / 
padrov 6 AéxTpwv cwv mobos p’ eioepxeTat, 
A \ Fv 
ets Thy piow BAEVavTa’ yevvaia yap El. 
Spa 0°. éyw yap Bovdopai o’ evepyerety, 
~ ( 
AaBeiv 7 és otkous' adxGonar 8, iorw Geris, 
et un oe cwow Aavaidacr dia payns 
ENOwv. &Bpncov' 6 Oavaros Sevov Kakdv. 
Aéyw Tad’, ovdev ovdev’ evAaBoupevn’ 
e ‘ ~ \ \ ~ 9 2 ~ / 

4 Tuvodapis mais. dia TO owp’ apKxel mayas 
~ aA / s 
dvipwv tiWcioa, kai povous' av o’, w Eéve, 
A ~ » 3» \ s ? , / 
un Ovnoxe dt’ eve, und aroxretvys Tia: 

éa 0€ owoai mw ‘EXAad, jv Suvvapeba. 

Fz ~ >» ww 2 54 \ ~ > of 

@® Ans aploTOV, OUK EXW MPLS TOVT ETL 
4 ~ ~ 

A€yerw, érel wor Tade Soxet* yevvaia yap 

~ 4 A 5 A > o + 

poveis’ Ti yap taAnGes ov etmor Tis av; 

e/ De at \ aN , 4 

duws 0 lows ou Kav peTayvoins Tdoe. 

e 9 \ Qa > >» 9» ~ , 

ws ouv av eldys Tam éuod AEeAeypeva, 

> e/ ~ 

éEAGwov rad StrAa Onoopat Bwyov wédAas, 

Ws ouK €arowy o, aAdAa Kwrdvowy Oaveiv: 
, \ \ \ ~ 9 ~ 4 4 

xXenoe O€ Kal ov Tois Euots Adyos Taxa, 


I2glI. TOU pro cou 1300. &pyer pro apKer 
1296. a@yBopai 7’ 1307.. tows ye Kav 
1298. adpoiwov 

Post v. 1292. To Jeopayeiv yap arodmove’, 6 cov KpaTei, 


? 4 A ‘A ? 2 9 al 
eFedoyiow Te XpnetTa, Ta TF. avayKae ye. 


61 


1290 


1295 


1300 


1305 


1310 


Id, 
KA. 
Id, 
KA. 
Id. 
KA. 
Id, 
KA. 
I®, 
KA. 
I®. 
KA. 
Io, 
KA, 
Id, 
KA, 
I®. 
KA, 


Id, | 


KA. 


62  EYPITMAOY (1480) 


ee , ~ / 
oTav medas ons dacyavov Sépns iSys. 
~ td ~ , a 
BNTEp, TL oiyn Saxpvors Téyyes KOpas ; 
A ’ 4 > »9 “~ 
ExwW Tarawa rpopacw, wor’ adyelv pera. 
~ A A a ~ 
Tavoa, "ue my KaktCe’ tTade S€ por mov. 1315 
é > ~ > a 
Aery’, ws map’ nuwv ovdév ddunoe, TEKVOV. 
49 i A A A / > , \ 
MnT ovy ou TOV GOV wAOKapOV EKTEMNS TPLXOS, 
, Is > , 9 4 a 
Tl WOTE TOO Elwas, TéKVOV; aTo\ecaca oEe— 
9 , , > » A ) > \ wf 
oU ov pe’ ceowopuat Kar’ éue 6 EvKAENS Evet. 
~ ~ \ A 4 
mows elas; ov mwevOety pe onv ~uxnv xpewy; . 1320 
4 > 9 4 , > , 
nKior’, éet pot TUuBos ov ywoOnoeTa. 
, A A 4 
tt 6n TO OvnoKxe; ov Tados vouiCerat ; 
A ~ “~ “~ \ 4 
Bwpos Peas pot pynpa trys Atos Kopns. 
9 » > , ‘ , \ F 
aX’, w TévoV, wot TEimopat’ Eyes yap Ev. 
“~ , f , 
ws evTuyouca y’, ‘EAAdOos 7’ evepyeris. 1325 
4 \ / 9 ~ , 
Ti On KaoryynTaow ayyeAw oebev; 
pnd dud Kkeivas péeAavas éEavns wémdous. 
eirw S€ mapa cou didov Eos tt wapbévoss ; 
4 9 
xaipev x’. "Opéornv © Extped’ avdpa rovee pot. 
a e 
mpocéAkvoat viv, botaTrov Gewpevn. 1330 
9 e/ > 
w pidrtat’, érexoupnoas, Ooov eixes, Piro. 
>» ef ~ 
Eo? & Tt kat’ “Apyos Spwoa cor xapiv epw; 
1315. wavoal pe,...race 9 éuot 1322. To Ovyjoxey sine interr. 
1317. ye pro ov 1327. audi xelvars...efayyy 
1318. ri dyra Too elras, @ TEexvov; 1329. 'Opeorny 7 
131Q. ov aU ye" cerwopat 
Post v. 1312. ovKovy edow o adpociwn tH on OBaveiv 


€ABeov S€ civ SrAow ToIade mpos vacy Beas, 
Kapasokyow ony Exel mapovoiay. 


a, 


Post v. 1317. wyt’ Gud copa pedAavas aprioxy memdovs. 


(1455) IODITENEIA H EN AYAIAI. 63 


WaTépa ye TOV EuoV pn OTUYEL, TWOTW TE GOV. 
~ A ~ ~ ~ 
devous adywvas Sia oé Set Keivov Spapeiv. 
w A “~ 
adkwy pe vmép yis “EAAaOos SuwAecev. 1335 
4 ® ” 2 9 
dorw 8’, ayevvas, ’"Arpéws 7 ovx d€ius. 
, > > ” ) U ; / 
Tis pw eto a&wv, mplv omapacoerOat Kopns ; 
/ \ ~ A > 9 ~ 
Eywye pera cov— I. pn ov y’* ov Kados AExeS. 
U4 9 ’ “a 9 q ~ “ 
meTAwWY Exouevn cwHv— I. euol, unrep, miBov- 
v4 
pev’, ws éuol Te wot Te KaAALOV TOOE. 1340 
\ > 3 “~ ~ ’ , / 
matpos © dmadwv Twvdé Tis ME TWELTETW 
c ~ e 
"Aprepidos ets Neuwv’, Sov cHhaynoopat. 
? 4 5) 
w® Téxvov, oiyer; IM. Kati madw yy ov pr podw. 
Aurovea pntep’; ID. ws dpas y’, ovK adEtos. 
4 4 ni I® 9 2A , } 4 
TES, MN pe TpOALTNS. . OUK éw oraCew dakpu. 
Uuets 8 revnunoat’, wo veavides, ———- 1846 
maava TH un Evudpopa Aros Kopyy 
“Apreuw itw € Aavaidas evpnmia. 
kava 5S évapxécOw tis, aidecbw dé rip 
’ ’ \ \ > 
mpoxuras Kabapoiowt, Kal maTnp Epos 1350 
évdeEtovcbw Bwycov ws owrnpiav 


"ErAnot Swoova’ Epyopat vixnpopov. 


A 
ayere pe trav "IXiov 


kal Dovywv é€XerToOAW 


orépea wepiBora didote, pépe- 1355 
1333- Deest ye . 1338. eyw pera ye cov 
1334. Keivov det 1341. omadev 


1337. omapatecOat xopuas 1344. pnTéepa 


64 EYPHNAOY 


Te, (wAoKapos bbe KaTacTEdety) 
xepviBwv te Tayas. 
éXiaoer’ dupi Bwpor, 
duit Bwpov “Apremy, 
‘ a #7 
Tav avaccav "Apter, 
A 
Tav pakapay’ 
> ~ \ 
ws éeuois, El ypEwr, 
e/ , / 
aipactvy Oupaci Te 
Géopar’ é€adeivw. 
XO. w& mTdTvVIa, TOTMAa MaTEp, ws 
Saxpva oot 
e / 
Swoopev apeTepa, 
? ~ A 4 
jap tepois yap ov mperret. 
@ veavioes, 


> ff 
Evverracider’ ’ Aprepev 
* * * * *¥ % * 


XadAxidos avrimopov, 
es 5 ’ , 5 jis 
iva te Odpata pépuove oai’, 

AvAidos cTevoropoiow dppois. 
Io, iw, iw. 
~ ~ > 
ya parep w IleAacvyia, 
XO. kaXeis moAopua Llepoéws, 


1367. mayaiow 1366. Saxpva ye cor 
1368. vaov pro Bepov 1369. Prefixum I, 


1362. epotor 1373. orevoropois 
1363. atpac 1374. fw semel 
1365. mntep 1375. pnrep 


Post v. 1372. 5: €uov dvona racd’ 
Post v. 1375. Muxgjvai 7’ éuat Sepamawar. 


(1478) 


1360 


1365 


1370 


1375 


(1561) ISITENEIA H_ EN AYAIAT, 63 


KuxAwriwy mdvoy yEepwv ; 
Id. EOpeas “ENAad: péya gus* 

Oavoica 8’ ovK dvaivopat. 
XO. KAéos yap ov oe pn Airy. | 1380 
I®. iw, iw. 


® Aapurradovyos dpuépa, - 


Avs te deyyos, * érepov Mele Erepov 
ETEpoY alwva Kal 
potpayv oiknoopev, 1385 
xXaipé pot, pidov daos. 
XO. io, id. 


tee tav “IXiov 

kai Douvyav éXérrodw 
oreixourav, emi Kapa orégn 1390 

a 4 A 
Badopevay, xepviBwv tre wayas, 
‘\ of 4 

Bwpov ért Saipovos 

paviow aipatoppurois 
Xpavoveay evgua Te ow- 

patos dépav, chayeioay. 1395 
2 A A ~ 2° , ~ 
evdpowot Tayat TaTpwat  *ob 3pdco mayav 
pevouol soe yépuiBés TE,  *0°, adda yépuiBer, 

orparos 7 ’Axawy Oér\wv 


TAlou woAw poreiv. 


1378. aos pro pes 1394. Gavovcay evgun re 
1391. BadAopevav...rayais 1395+ Sépny 
1392. Beopov ye daipovos Beas 
9 


‘EYPIMNIAOY (1521) 


d\Aa trav Aus xdpav 1400 
kAnowpuev “Aptemv, Oewv avaccay, 


~~ 4 
WS Ew EVTUXEL TOTP. 


w morua, Ouuaot BpoTrnaiors 
xXapetoa, mwéurpov eis Dpuywv 
yatav ‘EAXNavwv orparov, 1405 
Sos 7 ’Ayapémvova Aoyyats 
‘EAA@e: KAetvorarov orépavor, 


xA€os detuynorov, adudGetvat. 
1406. ’Ayapeuvova tre Aoyyats 


Post v. 1405. xal Soddevra Tpoias ey 


Post v. 1407. Sos apdt xapa reov 


TEAOZ I®ITENEIAD THE EN AYAIAI. 


CANTUS CHORICUS 


QUI IN MANUSCRIPTIS ET EDITIS SEQUITUR v. 290. 


» 4 
NAQN 0 ets apOpov nrAvOov, oTpody a. 
kai Oéav abecdaror, 
\ , vw. 9 , ‘ 
Tav ‘yuvatkeiay ov oppatwv 
e a e la 
ws mwAnoAaYyu, MELALVOV aoovaD. 
\ , a od 
Kat Kepas mev ny 5 
} A , ww 
eftov wAaTas exw 
OOwras o Mupuicovwv “Apnss 
mevTnkovTa vavat Poupiars. 
Xpuceas 0 eixoow 
Kat axpav Napioes éoracay Oeai 10 
? ~ 8 9 , “~ 
apupvas, onn Axtddelov orpatov. 
‘Apyeiwv Se ratad ionperpo dyricrpopy a. 
~ #¥ 
paes €oracay qmé\as’ 
4 
ov o Mnxicréws orparndaras 
~ > da 8 
awais nv, Tadaos ov Tpepe TATNP, 15 
Karavews Te mais | 
v 
“Beveros. ‘ArOidos 0 arywv 
e td “~ e ‘4 
efnxovta vyas o Oncews 
me e ~ > , a 
mais efys evavrcyet, Oeav 
TladAad ev pwvuryots 20 
EXwv TTepwroow &puacww Oeroy, 
ww , , , 
evonuov Te hacna vausarass. 
rev Bowrav © 8rdtona, Twovrias otpopy fi. 
“~ , ; 
wevTyKxovTa vias etdopar, 
ole evoT ONO ue 25 
Onpetots EVvoTONIGMEVAS. 


68 (253) 


rois O¢ Kaduos Vv 
xpuceov Spaxorr exwy 
angi vawv xopun Ba’ 
Aniros 3 o ynryevns 
? h ~ 30 
apye vatov oTparou, 
Duxisos 5 azo xGoves. 
Aoxpois 6¢ roicd toas arywv 
vavs 'Oi\éws ToKxos, KAUTaY 
Oponad exdumoy Troy. 
ex Muxyvas ce ras KuxAwrias,  avriotp. B. 35 
mais Arpews Exeume vavatas 
vay exatov nOpoopevous. 
a wf ys 
ov o ‘Adpacros nv 
Taryos, ws hidros Hidy, 
Tas duyovcas uedabpa 40 
BapBapwv xapw yauwv 
apatw Eddas ws AaBor. 
ex [lvAov de Neéaropos 
Tepyviov xaredouay 
Tpumvas, OHua TavpoTrovy, 45 
opqv mapotov Addeor. 
Aimavev dé dweexa arora ewwdds. 
_/- ? t vw | 
yawy noav, wy avat Touveus 
> ~ > , 
apxe. Tevoe © av vedas, 
’HAisos duvacropes, 50 
a 9 ty . 6 ~ , 
ous Emeovs wvopale mas ews” 
Evpuros & avacoe Twvoe. 
AevkynpeT mov o “Apn 
Tagrov nryev wy Meryns . 
avacce, DudEws Aoyxeupa, 55 
tas ‘Eyidvas durov . 
vycous, vavparats axpoagopous. 
Alas 0 0 Yadapivos evtpodos, 


(289) 


A ? 
- dekcov Kepas 
A , 
apos TO Aaov Euvaye’ 
“A av s 
TwWY Aocov WPMel, awrAaTaoL 
4 
eOXATAIGL TUMMDEKWD, 
4 > 9 4 
dwdex evoT popwTaraar 
a e afro A U 
vavoiv, WS diov, kai vavBarav 
, 4 
eidopav Aewv" 
@ , 
@ TIS Gl MpoTappocot 
a é 
BapBapous Bapisas, 
a 
vooTOY OUK aTroiceETat. 
wv Vv. 2? 
év0a © aiov, etoomav 
foe 
vaiov Tropeuma. 
Oo > ) , a 
TQ0E KAT otKuvs KAVOVTA GuUYyKANTOU 
4 , o 
penunv cwlouat oT paTeuparos. 


SCENA 


EURIPIDIS IPHIGENIZ IN AULIDE VULGO ADJECTA. 


ATTEAO®. 


°Q Tuvdapeia wat KAuramwnorpa, donww 
étw wepacov, ws KAvars epwv doyun. 
KA. @Ooyyis xAvovca devpo ans agdixouny, 
rapBovca TAnWwY, KaxweTANynEVn Hoy, 
pn por Tw GdrAnv Evpdhopav jnas Pépwr, 
pos ™ Tapoucn. AT. os uev ovv matcos wept 
Oavuacra co Kai cewa onunver Berw. 
KA. my pédAXe Tolvuv, adda ppac ocov TaxXos. 
AL. add’, o Grirn deorrowa, wav revert cagdws. 


69 


60 


65 


70 


70 


hée~w 0 amapyys, nv Te wy oadeica pov 
, o ~ > o > 
yvwun rapatn ryAwacav ev Aovyors eunv. 
erel yap ixouec@a trys Atos xopns 
a » 
‘Apréepicos aXcos Neiuaxas T avOnpopous, 
vg? > F) ~ , , 
w nv Ayawy auddoyos orpaTeupaTos, 
anv Taio ayovres, evOus ‘Apyetwy oxXos 
» ~ av 
nOpoiteO* ws 3 écedev "Ayaueuvov avat 
> \ A , > 4 , 
emt oayas oretyouvcay eis adcos Kopny, 
td , v 4 a 
aves Tévace, KauTradkw oTpevas Kapa, 
ddxpua mponyer, oupatwv wéwAov Tpobels. 
n O€, ora0eica TH TEKOVTL wANCIOD, 
>. > " 
dete Todd’ "QO watep, wapemi cor 
Toupoy € CWA THY EuHs UTEP TaTpaSs, 
‘ A e , e , 3 ’ d 
Kat THs amwacns EXXados ryatas urrep, 
Oica Sidwu’ exovca mpos Bwuov Beas 
ww ] + , o 
aryovras, elmep eoti Oeodarov Tove. 
9 wv ~ 
kal Tov &m evTUXOLTE, Kat viKnopov 
dwpov TYxaTe, waTpioa tT ekixoBe yiqv. 


) a \ , 9 ’ ’ ~ 
mpos TavTa, wy avon tis Apyetwy emou, | 


“~ , \ 4 ’ , 
owyn wapétw yap cépny cvxapotws.— 
Tocaut Edete mas 0 eOaufsnce KAUVwY 


2 , » AY ~ , 
evpuxiav Te, KapeTnv THs tapOevov. 


oras 0 év peaw TadOufios, @ Tod nv pedo, 


, 9 “~ Q A aA 
evpypiav aQvermTe, Kal oIyynv oTpaTY. 


, » “~ 
Kadyxas © 6 paris cis Kavouv Xpuondarov 


wv LP ale \ , U 
EOnxev o€0 xetpi pacyavoy omacas, 
~ wv ~ t > Wf a 
kodewy EawOev, Kpata T. EaTe\pev Kopns. 
o mais 8 o [Indes ev Kuxry Bwpov Beas, 
~ e ~ 
AaBwv xavovv, EOpete, yEepufsas O opov. 
> ’ . : 
éreke 0° "QO Onpoxrov “Aprept, wat Anos, 
° 9 , , 
Td Napumpov Eeidiccove ev evdpovn aos, 
} / ‘ Qu o's e } , 6 
éfar To Ovua Tod, & ye aor cwpouueBa, 


orparos T Axawy, Ayauduvev avak 6° omov, 


(1541) 


10 


15 


20 


25 


35 


(1574) 


v7 
axpavrov alua xaddrapbevou dépys, 
A a ~ ) 
kai 00s ‘yeveaOat wAovv vewv amnuova, 
tA t] ~ e ~ 
Tpoias re wépryap eteXerv nuas dopt.— 
ets ynv © Arpeida, mas atparos T Eatn BdETov. 
\ 
tepevs d€, Pacyavov AaBwy, erevéaro, 
Aamwov T EreckoTe:O, va wAn~eev ay. 
9 , WV. a) . . 
€uol d€ T GAryos ov pucpov eioner peri, 
A , ~ 3 v ec oa 
Kaorny veveuxws. Oadipa o qv atdvys opar. 
~ ~ Ww , ~ 
wANYyiIS KTUTOV yap mas. TIS noOer av cadus, 
, Gevov & oun oldev ov cys eia€d 
anv mwapQevov 0 ovk oidev ov ys Eicon. 
Bog © tepevs, daas & exnynoe orparos, 
aw >. » ~ 
deArrov eiotoovres ex Oewv Tivos 
? = 
dom’, ov ye wyd opwpévov xiotis TapHy. 
4 » > ’ 
éhados yap aowaipove exer eri xOovi, 
r ~ : , 
idetv peryiorn, Starpewns te THv Bear, 
¢ a A aoe » > Wf 38 : “A A 
ys atuart Bwyos eppaiver apdnv rns Beov. 

_ “A , ~ A v 
kav rade Kadxas (aos dokeis 3) xaipwr, Edn’ 
> A “A . A “~ 

Q rovd Ayawv Koipavo: Kowov oTparou, 
ee“ , 38 / A e \ 
opare Tyvde Ouciav, nv 4 Beos 
wv fv » 

mpovOnxe Bwuiav, edadov operdpomov ; 
TavTnv padisra THs KOpns acraCerat, 

e A r] 4 » ~ , 
ws py puaivor Bwuov evyever Pov’ —‘ 

e oe ~ »? > PY , A ~ wv 
noews Te TOUT Eede~aTo, Kai TAOUY oUptoy 
Sidwow guiv, TAtov +r emdpouas. 
mpos Tavra was tis Oapoos aipe vauBarns, 
XwWper TE TOS vay’ ws nuepa T70€ O€t, 
Auwrdvras nuas AvAloos KoiNous muxous, 
Airyatov oldua ccarepqv.—emet 0 amrav 
karnvOpaxw0n Buu ev Hopaiorouv ddoryi, 

A , » #¥ 4 e , , a 
ra rpoopop veal’, ws ruxot voorov aTpaTos. 

, > , , d , 4 
méure & ‘Arvyaueuvwv pw, ware cor paca Tace, 
Aevyew O ozroias ex Dewy poipas kupei, 


Kal dofav eoxev apOtrov xa@ “Eddaoa. 


71 


45 


50 


55 


65 


70 


15 


‘EYPINIAOY 


adAAa@ trav Aids Kopav 
w ~ 4 
kAnowpuev "Apremv, Oewv avaccar, 


~- , 
WS ET EUTUYEL TOT LM. 


a , 4 A 
w moTuia, Oupact Boorycioss 
~ ; Ul ~ 
xXapetoa, meurov ets Ppuywy 
yaiav ‘EAAdvwv otparov, 
, > » re , 
dos 7 ’Ayapéuvova Noyyxats 
‘EAAa& KAEvoraToy orédpavov, 


KA€os deiuynorov, dudieivac. 
1406. "Ayapéeuvova re Aoyyais 


Post v. 1405. kat Sodcevra Tpoias ey 


Post v. 1407. Sos apt xapa reov 


TEAOZ I®ITENEIAZ THE EN AYAIAI. 


(1521) 


1400 


1405 


CANTUS CHORICUS 


QUI IN MANUSCRIPTIS ET EDITIS SEQUITUR v. 230. 


2 wf. 
NAQON 6 ets aprOpoy nrvPov, oTpopy a. 
cai Oeav abecarov, 
A , wv » , . 
Tay ‘yuvatkeiay ov oppatwv 
e , e ta 
ws TwAncayu, meiAwov aocovar. 
A , A 3 
Kat Kepas Mev nV 5 
p \ , wv : 
efiov wAaTas exwr 
OO.wras 6 Mupucdovwy “Apns; 
mevTyxovra vavat Boupias. 
Xpuceas 0 etkoow 
>. 70 vw A 
kat axpav Nypndes earacav Oeat 10 
, a 9 9 , ~ 
apupvas, onn Aytddelov orparou. 
Apyeiwy dé taico tonpeT poe dyrieTpogn a. 
vaes toracay 7éXas" 
t e , , 
wy o Mnxorews orparndatas 
qwais nv, TaXaos ov Tpepet TAaTNPs 15 
Karavews re mais | 
VBevedos. “ArOidos 0 arywv 
e , ~ e > 
e€nxovra vias o Onocews 
aais ets evavdoyet, Oeav 
Tla\Aacd ev pwvuxots . 20 
ev ~ 
EXwy wrepwroicw apuacw Gerov, 
td 
evonuov Te Pacua vauarass. 
trav Bowrav 0 drdtcna, TovTias atpody fi. 
~ 27 ‘i 
wevrnkovTa vyas eidouay, 


onuciots evoToNcuevas. 25 


68 (253) 


Tois d¢ Kacuos Vv 
Xpucecor dpdxovr exw 
® a ~ , . 
api vawv xopuuBa 
Aniros 0 0 ‘ynryevns 
_ i v 30 
apye vatov oTpatou, 
Duxidos 5 azo xOoves. 
Aoxpots dé road icas arywv 
vavs ‘OiXews roxos, KAuTav 
Oponad exNumwv won. 
éx Muxyvas dé ras Kuxdwrias,  avniorp. 8. 35 
mais ‘ATpews Exeuwe vavBaras 
yawov exatov nOpoopuevous. 
4 v7 ? 
ow 3 ‘Adpacros nv 
Taryos, ws Piros pidry, 
Tas duyovcas uedapa 40 
BapBapwv Xapw yanwv 
apatw EdXas ws AaBor. 
ex [luAouv dé Neéoropos 
Tepyviov xaretdouay 
Tpuuvas, Onua Tavporovy, 45 
opav mapoxov Addeov. 
Ainavev de dwoexa orodot éxwdos. 
<= ? ? vw ‘ 
yawy noav, wy avak Louvers 
S a > a 
apyxe. Twvoe © av meédas, 
"HAios duvacropes, 50 
a ® A » ¢6 ~ , 
ovs Ezresous wvonace mas ews’ 
Evpuros 0 avacoe Twvoe. 
AeunpeT ov o “Apn 
Tagtov nyev wv Meryns 
avacoe, Purews Aoxevpa, 55 
Tas  Exidvas Aurrwv . 
, , 9 , 
vycous, vausatats ampoadopous. 
Atas 0 0 Ladapivos evtpodos, 


(289) 


A o 
- deEcov Kepas 
, 
apos To Aaov Euvarye’ 
~ wv 4 
TwWY Accov WPMel, wraTaol 
, 
eoXaTaict cUMTEKwD, 
? 8 9 , 
dwoex evo Tpo@wTaraicr 
eo 4 
vavolw, WS diov, Kai vavBparav 
sQ7 , 
eloopay Aewy" 
? , 
@ TIS EL MpoTappodot 
, , 
BapBapous Bapidas, 
vooTOY OUK amoiceTat. 
wv W.. 
év0a © aiov, edonav 
vaiov mwopeuma. 
’ > ’ , 
Tae KaT oikovs KAVOVca ouryKANTOU 


pun anv owComat OTpaTEevpAaTos. 


SCENA 


EURIPIDIS IPHIGENIZ IN AULIDE VULGO ADJECTA. 


ATTEAQO®. 


*Q Tuvdapeta mai KAuvramunorpa, donwy 
étw mwepacov, ws KAvas Enwv oyun. 
KA. Ooyyns kAvovca devpo ons agixouny, 
rapBovca TAnpwv, kaxweTwANyuErn HoSy, 
an por TW GAXnv Evudhopav Axes Héepwr, 
apos ™ mapouen. AT. o%s ev ovv matcos wept 
Oavnacta cot Kai dewa onunva Ded. 
KA. my peAXe Toivuy, adda HPpal Scov rayos. 
AL. aad’, o Qrirn d€orowa, wav reveer capes. 


69 


65 


70 


70 


4 > ~ wv ~ 
he~w 3 amapyys, jv Tt py oadeiod pov 
, s ~ s > , 
yvwun tapatn yAwooay ev doors eunv. 
eret yap iKouecOa THs Aros xopns 
, wv > 
‘Apreépecos aAaos Neiuaxas 7 avOnpopous, 
4? > »8 ~ , , 
w nv Ayawy avdAXdoyos orpaTeuparos, 

~ wv 9 wv 

onv Taio ayovres, evOus Apyeiwy oy os 
e +) » ~ Ww 

nOpoieB'* ws 0 eceidey "Ayauenvov avat 

> A A s , av , 

emt oharyas aTetyouvcay es adcos Kopny, 

> , wv , ’ 

ave TévaCe, kauTradkw orpevas Kapa, 

daxpuva mponyer, oupaTwv wémdov Tpoeis. 

n 0&6, oraQeica Tq TexovTt TANoiov, 

v 9 

édeke Toae* “Q TaTeEp, mapemi cot’ 

4 ~ ~ b ~ e 
Toupov O€ Gwma THS EuNs Vrep TaTpas, 

\ A e , e ‘a ’ d 
kat THs amaons EXXados ryatas Urep, 
Bicat didwu’ exovca apes Bwudv Beas 
v7 td + a o 
ayovras, elmep eoti Oéadarov Tod. 

wv ~ 
kal Tovw Eu evTuyotTe, Kal vixnopov 
pa / ‘* > 977 a 
wpov TUxaLTe, waTpioa T ekixaoOe ynv. 

a ~ > ~ 
mpos TavTa, un avon tis Apryetwv emo, | 

“A , a, ’ 
avyn mapétw yap depny evxapdiws.— 
~ wv ~ 
toaauT édete’ ras 0 eOauByce KAvwv 
ad s ) q a , 
ev\puyiav Te, Kapernv ths twapQevov. 

Ww » 2 >, > 
aras 6 ev peaw TadOuBios, @ Tod nv peédor, 
evdyuiav aveime, Kal ovynvy otpaT@. 

“4 e , 2 a“ , 
Kadyas & oO pavTis ets Kavouv XpvonNarov 
av »~\ ‘ , U 
eOxjxev o€0 yetpt pacyavoy oracas, 

A wv ~ t > WV a, 
KoNewy eawSev, KpaTa T. ExTeyev Kopns. 
e ~ , ~ 
o mais © oO IIndéws ev Kikdw Bwpov Beas, 
“~ v , CY e ~ 
AaBav xavovv, EOpeee, yepueBas O opov. 
> #v ~ \ 
edece o° QO Onpoxrov Apreut, mat Aros, 

A A ~~ > » 9 , a 
To Aaumpov eidiccove ev evhppovn aos, 
iar 7h Oona w62, 8 oye ao Supodned 

ear To Ouua Tod, & ye cor dwpoupela, 

ti 9 »9 ~ b 4 wv : 9 e ~ 

orpatos T Ayawyv, Ayaueuvev avat O omou, 


(1542) 


10 


15 


20 


25 


30 


35 


(1574) 


wv 
axpavrov alua xaddurapGevou dépns, 
A “a ~ » 

kat dos ‘yevécOar wovv vewv amrnpova, 
Tpoias re wépyap ekedeww pas dopi.— 
eis ynv 0 ‘Atpecca, was oTpatos T eatn BAEeTwv. 
tepevs de, Paoryavov AaBwy, exevtaro, 
Aawov T emecxoreO, wa wAnkeev av. 
» r } , s Wh. » \ : » , A 
€not 0€ T aNryOs OU piKpov eioner Pperi, 

Ww 4 ~ > my ca 
Kaoryy vevevxws. Oaipa 0 nv atcbyns opav. 

~ ~ wv : ~ 

wrNYIS KTUTOV yap was. tis noOeT av caus, 
Tnv wapevov 3 ovx oldev ob ‘yas eiaédu. 
Bog & tepevs, amas O exnynoe oTparos, 
aeArrov eioovres ex Oewv Tevos 

, » ? 4 e / , A 
acu, ov rye uno OpwKEevou migTIS TaApHy. 
eAados yap aowaipovo Exar emi yOovi, 
idety peryiorn, ctampemns ve thv Dear, 
¢ r) a9 @ 4 » wv 8 . a “~ 
ys atuats Bwpos eppaiver apdnv rhs Oeov. 
kav rpoe Kadyas (aws doxets ;) yaipwr, en’ 
> ~ ~ A a“ 

Q rovd Axawy Kotpavot Kowou oTparou, 

aie ’ ’ A e \ 
opare anvoe Ouciav, nv 4 Oeos 

v , 

apovOnxe Bwpiav, edXadov operdpomon ; 
TavTHy padisra THs KOpys acraCeTaL, 

e A A > ~ , 
ws pn puaivor Bwuov euryever Dovey’ \ 

ene ~ >» 900 A o wv 
noews TE TOUT edetaro, kat mAouy ouptoy 
didwow ypiv, INiov rT emdpouas. 
mpos Tavta was tis Oapaos aipe vauvBarns, 
XWper Te pos vadv' ws nuepq Thode del; 
Auwrdvras nuas AvAtoos KotAous MuxXous, 
Avyatov oldpa dctawepgv.—eme: 0 azrav 
catnvOpaxw0n Ovu ev Hopaisrov droyi, 

A , > wv 9 e , 4 , 
Ta rpoogop nual’, ws TUyor vorTou aTpaTos. 

4 » a ’ d a 0 
nenre & Aryapeuvov p, woTe cor Ppaca rade, 
Aeryew GO omoias ex Dewy moipas kupet, 


kat dofav eoyev apOrrov xa@ “EXXada. 


71 


45 


50 


55 


60 


65 


70 


15 


XO. 


KA. 


XO. 


XO. 


/2 


yw mapwv dé, Kat TO Tparyn opwy, Neyw' 

n was aadws co wpos Geos adirraro. 

Xr , 9 » 4 ‘ a Uf , 
vins ty acaipe:, Kat wooe: mapes yoXov. 
t o ~ ~ ~ 

ampoccoxynta de Bpotoiat Ta rev Oewv 

\ ~ > , 
awlovci 8 ovs gdidovow' map yap rode 

Oavoicav elde kai BAErovcav aida ony. 

@ ad , ~ > 9 ae 9 9 o. 

ws foouai Tot TavT aKkovaac aryyeXou. 
~ ° ® ~ A td t , 

(wv 0 ev Beoist cov pevery paler TEKos. 
> a ~ A 

w mat, Oeway Tov KAEmua *yéyovas ; 

Tws Ge TpocEirw; TwS de gw ; 

~ t 4 4 
mapauvlerc Oat Tovade parny pvGous, 

ws gov mevOouvs Aurypov mavaaipnay ; 

rY A 9 , 4 4 
kat unv Ayapéeuvwv ava oreiyxet, 
t 9 wv 
TOVGO avToUs EXwV ToL pace pu@ous. 
ed wv A 
ryuvat, Ouryarpos Evex’ OAPtot ‘yevoiped ay, 
wv A wv » “ e , 
Exes yap ovtws ev Oeots opsdiay. 
A oe “~ , } , ~ 
xpn d€ ce, AaBovoay rovde pooxov vearyery 
Q a Cra 
OTeiXEv Mpos olkous’ ws TTpATOS Mpos wAovY Opa. 
~ t 4 
kal xalpe’ xpoma ye Taua co mporP0eypaTa 
Wf ~ 

TpoinBev Eorat. kai yévorre cor Karas. 

Xaipwv, ‘Arpeion, ynv tkov Dpvyiay, 

Xaipwy Oo émavnke, 


“ ) A e , 
KaAMoTa pot ckvN amo Tpotas edo. 


(1607) 


80 


85 


95 


NOTES 


ON THE 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 


v. 4. For wevoet, Porson proposed to read ozevee, and others 
have followed him in this suggestion; the answer of the Old Man, 
omevow, does sound like a reply to omevce, as in v. 2, oTelyw 
is to oTE XE. 

v. 5. Mada ro yipas Toumov aumvov, Kat er oPOarpors 
ofv waperrw]| to ‘yipas, the reading of Aldus and the MSS. 
has continued in the editions until lately: vo: is in the margin of 
Barnes, and appears to have been his own correction. Some com- 
mentators have made needless difficulties in explaining this and 
the following line; they may. be rendered almost literally, My 
old age ts very slecpless, and sits wakeful upon my eyes. 

v. 6. Ennius, who translated our Tragedy of Euripides, gives 
_the following version of this passage: 

Acam. Quid nocti’ videtur tn alltsono 

Celi: clypeo ? 
Senex. Temo superat stellas, cogens 
Sublime ettam atque ettam noctts 
_ Itaner. 

The above lines are cited by Varro (Ling. Lat. Lib. 6) without the 
name of the author. Scaliger discovered them to be Ennius’s, 
and from another passage of Varro (Lib. 4) corrected alttsono for 
altissimo. It hence also appears that the question of Agamemnon 
does not end, as it is commonly quoted, with Quid noctt’ videtur ? 

v. 8. Letpios, eryyUs THs EwTamopou [HAeados alcowy Ett 
peaonprs. | Compare Orest. 1001. ‘Eatamopou TE Opounua 
IleXetados. Most of the commentators, from Scaliger downwards, 
have remarked the error of Euripides in placing Sirius near the 
Pleiades. Boeckh (de Grac. Trag. p. 277) observes, “ Ubi Sirius 
in summo ceelo est, (ueoonpns) Vergilie supra horizonta posite sunt 
gradibus 50.” Matthie says, “ Non mirer si Euripides Sirium cum 
splendida stella que est in fronte Tauri, Aldebaran vocant, confuderit.” 

10 


80 NOTES ON THE 


v. 76. Aldus and the other old editors place a full stop at 
the end of v. 75. and read MeveAaos ovv xa’ ‘EdXad oiotpyaas 
povos. But all the MSS. have MeveAaov. o de wal’ ‘EdAad 
ola T pyoas nopw: this restores the true reading, except as concerns 
the last word, for which Aldus seems to have substituted povos 
upon conjecture. Instead of sopw, Markland proposed a number 
of guesses, and among the rest Spowep, without being himself aware 
that he had here hit upon the true word. dpoue, with speed, is fre- 
quently used in a similar way—in v. 350. Epyerat dpomy. Orest. 
716. dpouwp oTelyovra. Ion. 1576. dpomy omevoac. Bacch. 747. 
apQeicat Spoup. The error seems to have arisen from the acci- 
dental omission or obliteration of the first letter; another tran- 
scriber finding pou, vocem nihili, changed it by transposition of 
two consonants into pop. 

v.79. alfavres dopi] Porson compares eAOovres Sopi, Aris- 
toph. Lys. 1153. This line appears in Aristotle, Rhet. 111. 1. 2. 
where instead of dopt is read mooi, and this Musgrave adopts, 
very erroneously ; even the MSS. of Aristotle have dopot. 

v. 80. oTevozopa refers to the narrowness of the strait of the 
Euripus; as in v. 1373. AvAtoos oTevoTropotow Sppots. and v. 163. 
atevorropOpov Xadxica. | 

v. 82. “Immo te woddois Gppaciy T yoKnuevot] The cor- 
rection of this line is due to Reiske. The editions till recently 
continued to give woAdois 0° dpuaciv yy: some MSS. omit y, 
which is an evident expletive. 

v. 83. The editions have kaye orpatnyer kata Mevéedew 
xaptv, where kata (Ald. xara) is a palpable corruption, which 
it is the more difficult to correct, because a substitute for that word, 
however necessary for the verse, is not required by the sense. Of 
all the proposed emendations (and they are very numerous) that 
of Heath, xapra, seems by far the most probable, and I have 
accordingly adopted it, as Hermann has done, although I cannot 
feel quite as much confidence as he expresses in its certainty. 

v. 84. This passage and vv. 258-263 are the authority of Eusta- 
thius for saying that Agamemnon was an elected commander p. 37. 
30. Ste dé ros Ayaois e& alpecews nv Bacirers 0 ‘Aya- 
pepvov, Evpurions ev ‘Iprryeveta dndot cadécrara. Again 
p. 185.3. To d€ wodAais vyoos Kat “Apres wavTi avaccew, 
delyua Eat Tov py aTAGS Xelporovnrov elvat ett ovv aipeTov 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 75 


Ms 12. tnvoe for ae is the emendation of Blomfield. TNVOE 
car AvAw was found in the copy used by the interpolator, to 
whom it suggested his | Tovee KaT Evperop. 

v.14. oTetxwper €aw is the reading of all the MSS. and so 
it had been printed in the margin of Barnes. The Aldine has 
oTelyouey eiow. : 

v. 15-18. These four lines are quoted by Stobeus (Serm. Lv1. 
2. Grot.) and the three first by Plutarch, p. 471.C. Barnes cites 
Ovid—Crede mihi, bene qui latuit, bene vixit. Plutarch has "Yepwv. 

v.18. Tovs 0 ev timais nooov Cyrw] Stobeus has erawe 
for (nhw. He probably quoted from memory, and recollected 
Hipp. 264. Ovrw ro diav focov errata Tov unoev aryap. 


v.19. Kai pyv To kaov Y evravOa Biov] Piov may be 
construed either with vo xadov, or with evravOa: the latter 
signifies tn this station of li Life. Esch. Choeph. 891. ‘Evrav@a « "vp 
on Tove agukopny KQKOU. 

v.21. All the Editions have cai To prormor, Markland 
observed that the metre required either xai QA. or TO Te Gir. 
Musgrave and Matthie prefer the latter; but there are scarcely 
any clear instances of the proceleusmatic foot as a substitute for 
the anapest in a legitimate system; and it ought certainly not 
to be admitted as an emendation. Yet there is no doubt that 
the poet intended to describe the love of popularity expressed 
by To giAoTyov in two other places of the play vv. 263. 806. 
The article must therefore be repeated in the mind from to KxaXov 
in each of the two preceding lines; it is similarly suppressed by 
our Author in an anapeestic system in Electr. 1351. Ofow 0° dctov 
Kai TO dtkatov Dirov ev Biorw &c...where he plainly intended 
to express TO eater, prety. 

v. 22. Auk’ mév, Aumer de mpoots Tauevov | ‘¢Hunce versum 
mapwdei Macho Comicus apud Atheneum. vi. 10. p. 244. A. 
‘O Xapepov dé, kai mar’, w Bedrior’, egy, Truk pen, 
m posta rauevov oe Aves wavTaxy. Porson. 

v.23. Tote pev—rote O€, for ‘4\X\oTe—aAAoTe, Esch. Ag. 
99. ToTe wev xaxodpwv TedreOa, Tore 0 ex Ovowy aryava 
saivovs ‘EXris—where caivova is the happy emendation of Bi- 
shop Butler for paivoue . 

v. 27-32. These lines are found in Stobeus p. 480. He gives 
apicréws, which is preferable to the common reading apioréos, 


76 NOTES ON THE 


though the latter is admissible. See Porson’s note on Med. 5. The 
construction is similar to that of Hipp. 1044. Kai cov ye xapra 
ravra OavuaCw, rarep. 

v.28. Ouvx emi wacw o edutevo aryabois, ‘Ayanepvor, 
‘Atpévs.] Hipp. 461. ypnv o emi pyros apa Ilarepa gu- 
revetv, Plutarch twice quotes this passage of the Iphigenia, p. 33. 
E. and p. 103. B. Stobsus has edus for epurevo’. 

v. 32. Ta Oewy otrw Bovrcuev Extra} Instead of the two 
last words Stobreus quotes vevouiorat, which Barnes and other 
editors have printed in the text: this word is appropriate enough, 
and a parcemiac is natural at the conclusion of the Old Man's 
moralizing. Still there is no doubt but that Euripides wrote what 
is found in Aldus and the Manuscripts, and was read by Plutarch, 
and that Stobeus’ memory deceived him, Ta Oewy Povddcpeva, 
the will of the Gods. See v.1165. Oud émi ro xewou Povdo- 
pevov €AnAvOa. 

v.34. Aedrrov re ypades ryvd.] I once thought that we 
ought to read det ~—r70 . But though ypapew ry paupara 
eis déATov, and év deATYp may be common, yet I do not remem- 
ber ypagew deATw: on the contrary deATov ypadew may be 
defended by Alcest. 988. Opyocas ev caviow, tas “Opdeia 
kareypaivev Typus. The accusative -is also confirmed by oppa- 
yiGes and Aves which follow. Some think that Ovid had this 
passage in his memory, when he wrote (Met. 1x. 522) Deztra tenet 
ferrum, vacuam tenet altera ceram. Incipit et dubitat; scribst dam- 
natque tabellas; Et notat, et delet; mutat, culpatque, probatque ; 
Inque vicem sumptas ponit, positasque resumit. 

v. 38. In one of the Paris MSS. is this scholium: ‘Omnpixov 
Touro’ Oadepov xara daxpu xeovra. (Od. A. 556.) 


v.42. Ti mwovets; Ti véov rapa cot, BaciAcv;| Most Edi- 
tions have Ti roveis; Ti movers; Tt veov; Ti veov wept col, 
Bact\ev; some of the early copies have only once Ti vrovers ; and 
I apprehend that the repetition was owing to the accidental 
doubling of ti veov; in the following line, which made another 
anapest necessary for the verse. I cannot recollect an instance 
to be compared with the present, in which two interrogative repe- 
titions come together, and therefore think with Bishop Blomfield, 
that neither should remain in the text. I have no recollection of 
qept being elsewhere used as it is in this place, and have therefore 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 77 


not hesitated to substitute mapa, agreeably to common usage. 
Professor Dobree (Advers. Vol. 11. p. 88) testifies that this was the 
reading of Porson. 

v. 45. 27 yap Bh aroyy TOTE Tuvdd pews Tlepmree epyny, 
=uvvuppoxouov Te dixatov. | Tore is not unfrequently used in 
reference to a time which is implied but not expressed; as in 
Orest. 99. Alc. 938. Here the words gepyny and Euvy. plainly 
imply that the time was that of the King’s wedding. There is there- 
fore not the slightest reason for the correction given in Barnes’ mar- 
gin, wore. In v. 771 the same old servant says, Xort a ev TAXIS 
gaiot epvais édaBev Aryaueuvwv avat. Almost all editions 
give wéumev, which, besides the rejection of the augment, is not 
a proper substitute for emeue. Therefore I have had no hesita- 
tion in printing were, the emendation of Porson and of Elmsley. 
Hermann is displeased with Oixatov as being too arrogant an epithet 
for the speaker to apply to himself; and has accordingly printed 
éumewv and dtxaot, a change which 1 cannot help regarding as the 
reverse of an improvement. This character is represented as being 
loquacious, and self-important, and as using the privileges of an old 
and confidential domestic. Moreover, Sixatos is a very appropriate 
word, signifying disinterested, the reverse of KepoaAcos, as in v. 935. 
See the note of Elmsley on Med. 86. (Ot mev dixaiws, ot dé xal 
Képoous apt.) 

v.50. Ot ra TpOT wABicpevot] Tro. 1262. méya 0 od- 
Biaeis. 7 

v. 52. Aewai & aera, kai car adAnd\wv ovos =vuvi- 
ora8.| Matthie has adopted in his text the conjecture of Mark-. 
land POovos instead of @ovos, a change which weakens the force 
of the passage. Hermann properly regards amethai Kai qovos 
as a legitimate instance of the figure ev da dvow: “ Habet ista 
figura locum in iis, que et conjuncta et disjuncta cogitari possunt, 
non in illis, que disjuncta absurda sunt.” 

v. 54. To mpa@yua 5 arcdpus elye Tuvddpew warpi, Aoovai 
re un dovvai te, THs TUXNS Saws “AWatT apora] Markland 
cites a passage from the Supplices of Aischylus v. 384. of which 
the present seems to be an imitation: Aunyava de, xai ofos 
a exet dpevas, Apacal re py dpacai Te, Kal TUyny edly: 
hence he conjectures that: we should read in Euripides tis 
tuyyc 6’. Matthie prints this in his text; but in his note inti- 


78 NOTES ON THE 


mates some repentance for having so done. Souval re ay Oovvai Te 
(I mean, whether to give her away or not) is an instance, very 
common in the Tragedies, of infinitives which are independent of 
the construction of the rest of the sentence: besides, TUXN and 
n Tvyn have different meanings; the former denotes fortune, or 
chance; the latter, the event. But there has been a still more 
improbable conjecture hazarded on this passage. There is found 
in Hesychius aQpavara, ampockomwa’ Evpuridns ‘Iguyeveiq ev 
Avdic. As the word aOpavora is no where met with in the 
play, it occurred to Hemsterhuis that it might be substituted for 
a ptora in this passage; a conjecture which, with all reverence 
for his great name, I must regard as most unfortunate. The word 
might have existed in some part of the Tragedy now lost; but 
the words Ts TUXys Orws “Aiar apiocta, how he might best 
deal with the tncident, are liable to no suspicion. Hom. IL. I. 110. 
Smrws ox apiora eT augorepaat ryewnTat. 

v. 59. aovdas xaBeivat] Compare Helen. 1235. zrovdas 
TEMWPLEV, KAL dtadAdyOnri pot. Should we not there read caOwpev 
for Téuwpev ? ) 

v.61. The early Editions have Touvrw cuvapuvew eiris ex 
dopwv AaBwv Olxorro, tov + exovT arwcacba réxous, 
Kamtotparevev, xat xatacxamrewv mwodw. Heath removed the 
anapest in the first of these lines, by restoring the future, the re- 
tention of which tense is as necessary for the syntax as for the metre ; 
and Markland pointed out the emendations necessary in the rest of 
the passage. Most, if not all the MSS. have aww6oin. I think 
therefore that aawaacQa was introduced by the Aldine editor, 
who mistook the meaning of the passage, and imagined Tov exovra 
to imply the ravisher, instead of the husband. The words «ai 
KaTaockarrTew oAw are to be considered’ as in a parenthesis, 
as far as the construction is concerned. 

v. 66. vu7reA@etv in this sense occurs in v. 367. and in Andr. 436 
dodw mp vTNAGes. Suppl. 140. Poiov pu’ urndOe ductoracrT 
awiryuata. Soph. CEd. T. 386. AaOpa pw vaedOwv where the 
Scholiast says evrav0a to ume\Owy amo metadopas Ter 
madawvTwy déyerat, Stay Tovs avTimadovs vrépywvrat 
Aabovres. | 

v.67. Aidwo’ edécOa Ouvyarpi uvnotnpwv éva] We may 
remark the metrical peculiarity of a vowel continuing short before a 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 79 


word beginning with «uv here and in another line of this Tragedy 
v.749. ‘AN’ 4 wéerovOa Ssewa; pvnorevw cyduous— Before 
Markland, it was read didworw with an anapest for the second foot. 
Elmsley (Edinb. Rev. Vol. xvii. p. 499.) proposes d:dous, alleging 
the rarity of an elision in words similar to didwot. However, he 
himself refers to six other instances in Euripides; and there ap- 
pear to be objections of a different kind opposed to his conjecture: 
if a participle were to be used at all, it should, I apprehend, be 
dovs, not dsdovs: and as the proposed reading makes it necessary 
that the stop after diAa: v. 68. should be removed, the sentence 
would become needlessly embarrassed. Hermann, however, has 
embraced Elmsley’ 8 conjecture. 

v. 68. “Ore avoai deporev Adpoditas pita] The common 
reading is 6Tov. Matthie has adopted Heath’s emendation é7ov: 
I should consider O77 preferable. But I have adopted, as easier 
and more probable, 6rw, which has been already proposed by 
Boissonade ; I understand the sense to be, To whomsoever the fond 
gales of love might carry her. 

v.69. ‘Hd etre’, ds oe aye apedev Aafserv, Meve- 
Aaov | Every edition has Ws ‘ye unwor o. A. except Hermann’s 
which gives ws dé. My own emendation ds cde appears ‘o in- 
dubitable, that I am rather surprised it should have been left for 
me to introduce it. 

v- 70. Helen. 27. Ipsa loquitur. hemody oe Bovaorabu "ldatos 
Iépes Lraptyy agixel’, ws Euov oXNowy Aexos. Elmsley (Mus. 
Crit. 11. p. 296) ingeniously conjectures BovoraOp’ ‘Idaias yOoves, 
from this passage of the Iphigenia. Clemens Alexandrinus quotes 
the six following lines to MeveAaov (Pedag. 111. 2.) In v. 71. 
he writes xpivwv for Rpras: 

v.72. avOnpos pev eivarwv orokn Xpvow Te apmpos] 
The manuscripts of Clemens have aronsv, which pleases me better 
than arog. Then I should prefer ypvow dé, that dé may answer 
to pev in the preceding lines; for I cannot assent to the opinion 
of Elmsley who compares this passage with Bacch. 453. Arap ro 
pev awa ovx auopdos el, Eéve: where mev is emphatic from 
having no corresponding 38. 

v.75. @xonquov AaBov Mevedaov] Having found Menelaus 
eas There is no need for Markland’s correction AaBw». In 
Tro. v. 949. Helen herself relates this story. 


80 NOTES ON THE 


v. 76. Aldus and the other old editors place a full stop at 
the end of v. 75. and read MeveAaos ovv xa’ “EdAdd oiatpyacas 
uovos. But all the MSS. have MeveAaov. o dé «aff ‘Eddad 
aoTpycas uopyp: this restores the true reading, except a8 concerns 
the last word, for which Aldus seems to have substituted povos 
upon conjecture. Instead of pope, Markland proposed a number 
of guesses, and among the rest cpous, without being himself aware 
that he had here hit upon the true word. dpoug, with speed, is fre- 
quently used in a similar way—in v. 350. épxerat dpomep. Orest. 
716. dpouyp oTetyovra. Ion. 1576. dpome oxevcac. Bacch. 747. 
apOeicat dpous. The error seems to have arisen from the acci- 
dental omission or obliteration of the first letter; another tran- 
scriber finding pose, vocem xikili, changed it by transposition of 
two consonants into uope. 

v.79. attavres dopi] Porson compares €AOovres dopi, Aris- 
toph. Lys. 11538. This line appears in Aristotle, Rhet. 111. 11. 2. 
where instead of Copi is read woci, and this Musgrave adopts, 
very erroneously ; even the MSS. of Aristotle have dopoi. 

v. 80. oTevowopa refers to the narrowness of the strait of the 
Euripus; as in v. 1373. AvXisos oTEvoropoiow Sppors. and v. 163. 
atevoropOpov XNadxica. 

v. 82. “lamas Te woAddois Gppagivy T noxnuevros] The cor- 
rection of this line is due to Reiske. The editions till recently 
continued to give xoAAas @ apuaciv yy: some MSS. omit Y> 
which is an evident expletive. 

v.83. The editions have xaye otpatiyery x@ta Meved\cw 
xapiw, where xqra (Ald. xara) is a palpable corruption, which 
it is the more difficult to correct, because a substitute for that word, 
however necessary for the verse, is not required by the sense. Of 
all the proposed emendations (and they are very numerous) that 
of Heath, xapta, seems by far the most probable, and I have 
accordingly adopted it, as Hermann has done, although I cannot 
feel quite as much confidence as he expresses in its certainty. 

v. 84 This passage and vv. 258-263 are the authority of Eusta- 
thius for saying that Agamemnon was an elected commander p. 37. 
30. St de ros ‘Aas é& aipécews gv Baoirevs 0 Aya- 
pepver, Evprxions eév ‘Iqeyeveiqg dndot cadpecrara. Again 
p. 185.3. To de wodAais ynoas Kal “Apyet wavTi avaccer, 
dei'yua eat Tou py amas XEtporornroy elvat cit ovv aiperov 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 8l 


Baorrea Tov Aryanépvova xaTa Twas, ols kat o Eupirténs ev 
TH Kat avrov ‘Iduyevetqa cuvntyoper. 

v. 87. Elms. Addend. ad Heracl. 714. ‘‘Illud apud Nostrum 
Iph. A. atAoig ypwuevor attingit Ciceroniana locutio, cum sane 
adversis ventis ust essemus, Ep. ad Div. xtv. 5.” Barnes notes the 
double form of accusative AvA‘oa and AvAcv, comparing Qerica 
Gerw, Oéucca Oem, Kumpida Kumpw. 

v.88. Kadyas 3 o pavris amopig Kexpnuevos Aveirer] 
The common reading was Kexpnuévos. Hemsterhuis (ad Call. 
Hymn. in Dion. 69) corrected it to Kexpmucry: Heath to xeypn- 
mevors, which almost all the editions since his time have adopted. 
The reader will compare with this narrative two passages in Als- 
chylus’ Agam. 177, and 3 in the Tauric Iphigenia of our author v. 15. 

v. 89. aveiAev’ Expnoe, Hesych. Consult Alberti’s note on the 
use of this word, and Schaefer on Bos. Ell. p. 164. 

v. 93. op@lw xnpuyuatt] Blomfield Gloss. ad Esch. Pers. 895 
renders opBtos ad incitandum apius. Angl. rousing. 

v. 95. ‘Qs ovmor av Tas Ouvryarépa KTavew eujv] 
Elmsley on Med. 764 explains av TAas by TARTOMEVOS. 

v. 96. ov, ubi, quo tempore. Brodeus. “ Aversus ab sene et sub- 
missiore voce, ut is non audiat, hec dicit Agamemnon, ov 67 a’ adeA- 
os, ravra m poo Pe prov Noryor,” Exreice TAnvat ewd.” Hermann. 

v. 99. SredrAew AyidrAet Ouvyarép ws yanouuevny] oréddew 
is the reading of Markland, instead of weu7rew. I feel no doubt 
of the correctness of this emendation. Euripides could hardly 
have said €reuwWa meumew: and oréAAav expresses the meaning 
more accurately, as in v. 118. Elmsley’s proposal to read aye 
is unquestionably wrong; for nothing could be more opposite to the 
wishes of Agamemnon than that Clytemnestra should accompany 
her daughter to Aulis: see v. 379. 

v.101. ovvex is the correction of Barnes for Tovver’. 

v. 102, AExos uxor, as in v. 310. also evvy in v. 1241. AexTpa 
uxores Vv. 1170. 

v. 103. “Hee qnoque usque ad Mevéedews ita dicuntur, ut 
non exaudiat senex.” Hermann. exew wetOw is habere instrumentum 
persuadends, as Soph. Phil. 61. Movyy & eXovres tyvo GAwow 'IXiov. 

v. 104. Yevd7 Evvayyas avti mapOévov ryauov] Markland 
proposed Gui aapQevov, which some editors have adopted. I 
consider avi, the reading of the old editions and manuscripts, to be 
the i one. The meaning of the passage is, having made up a 


82 NOTES ON THE 


pretended wedding, in return for the maiden; i.e. as the means of 
procuring her to be sent to Aulis. 

v. 106. Observe the Ellipsis of éyw in this verse. 

v. 108. MS. Flor. 1. omits oxiav, whence three other copies 
give kar evdpovny, also without cxiav. 

v. 111. Compare Iph. T. 760. Tavovra xaryyerypappev ev 
dedrov mrvyais Adyw ppacw aor wavT, avaryryerka idors. 

v. 114. 115. These two verses used to follow v. 117, an error 
first noticed by Reiske. 

v. 116. Tleuaw cot wpos tas mpooGev Aédrous]. Hitherto 
it has been written wpos Tats mp. deATots, the meaning of which 
is, in addition to my former dispatches. I have not hesitated to 
introduce the accusative; the requisite sense being, in relation to 
my former dispatches. The old man, speaking of this very inci- 
dent in ve 798. says, AeArov @xouny épwv cot pos Ta arp 
ry ery paupeva. 

v. 118. The common reading is My oreAXew Tay cav iv 
apos Tay koArwon arepury EvGBoias. I have erased the second 
vav which was inserted by a metrical corrector, who was desirous 
of making two dimeters. It is to be observed that this system 
consists, partly of Spondaic lines (which :are dimeter -catalectic), 
and partly of anapestic dimeters or monometers. The generality 
of verses of the first description consist exclusively of long sylla- 
bles: they seldom contain either dactyls or anapests, except where 
those feet follow one another, as in v. 122. watoos Saigouev Upue- 
vaious, and in v. 1210. wpedev éXaTay Toutaiay, a licence which 
the legitimate anapestic system repudiates, or rather, only tolerates 
in case of necessity. In this passage most editions place the prepo- 
sition mpos at the end of a dimeter line, which is an improper 
collocation, and though the article ray is rightly joined with cav 
ivy (i.e. the daughter of whom I spoke in my former letter), yet it 
is neither requisite nor appropriate in the second instance, for 
there were other places to which the words xoAmwons awreput 
might be applied as well as Aulis. This sea-port, although sepa- 
rated from the Island by the narrow strait of Euripus, is styled 
its ming. . 

Markland indeed understood wrepuya as implying Chalcis in 
Eubeea, and wished to read in the next line xavAcv. This seems 
surprising, as he himself gives the very reason why the word 
might be properly applied to Aulis; he says “‘Ilrepv& est 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 83 


‘quidquid procurrit ultra reliquum corpus, sicut ala in avibus.” 
I cannot approve the notion of Hermann, who i imagines that there 
is in this passage a double construction, oréAAcw mpos mrepuya 
EvBotas, ad prominentem angulum Eubew, and orédXew Audw, 
accusative nude postto. However he properly explains the epithet 
ax\varav as applied to Aulis, because it affords a refuge to 
shipping from the ebb and flow of the Euripus. 

v. 121. 2. All the editions give Eis tas GAAas wpas yap on 
lates: daivonev vuevaiovs. Here also ras has been inserted to 
fill up a dimeter verse. It is not found in Par. A. Flor. 1. 2. 
and' perhaps other Manuscripts. eis Tas aAAas dpas would imply 
to next year. But Agamemnon-would rather say eis adXas wpas, 
to another season. The postponement of the nuptials is expressed 
by the future tense followed by eis, as in v. 620. KawetTa oaices 
TOUS ‘yauous as UarTeEpov; 

v. 123. The old reading was 

kat Tos AxsAevs, AeKTp apumraxwv, 
ov peya puocay Ouuov ¢ erraiper 
cot on T aoyy 3 ;: 

Markland made an unfortunate attempt to correct the first 
verse by reading \extp aumAaxewy. DET pow i is Scaliger’ s emend- 
ation; see Alcest. 247. doTts apiorns AmAaxwv ado Xou THOO, 
where Dr Monk notes, “Semper scripsisse Tragicos amAaxewv, 
amAaxnua, atdaxig monuimus ad Hipp. 143, ubi vid. not. Si 
quis plura velit de his vocibus, consulat Burneium in Censura 
fEschyli Glasguensis (Monthly Review, Feb. 1796 p. 132). Hoc 
tantum monebo; az)axewy, quod legere voluit Markl. ad Iph. 
A. 123. non modo in dialectum, verum etiam in linguam peccat, 
siquidem preesens aumAaxew, vel am\axeéw, ignotum erat; awAa- 
xewv est aoristi infinitivus.” In the Iphigenia, awAaxwy was re- 
stored first, I believe, by Dr Burney. Then in v. 124, the old 
editions have Ov perya guocwy O@uuov erralpet. gvowy is the 
correction of Musgrave, emape: of Reiske. Upon this Dr 
Elmsley (in Heracl. 323) observes, “Ex aeiow formatur futurum 
aepw, cujus due syllabee priores. in a longum. coalescunt, eadem 
ratione qua ex TisaeTe fit TmwaTe, ex Ta Eua Taua. Preter 
exempla: hujus futuri a Porsono _memorata, amapovjmev legendum 
apud nostrum Med.. 938. ‘qapet Iph. A. 124. apovmev. Iph.'T. 
117. Tro. 1148. apecrat. Hel. 1613. eferapet apud Plutarchum 


84 NOTES ON THE 


Consolat. p. 102. F. Quorum nonnulla suis locis jam emendarunt 
viri docti. In Iphigenia priore in veram scripturam Ovuoy ewaper 
imprudens incidit Reiskius, qui si rei metrice paullo peritior 
fuisset, nunquam talem dipodiam anapeesticam exhibuisset, qualem 
conficiunt due long syllabe tribus brevibus interpositis. Neque 
enim eum unquam suspicaturum fuisse arbitror aliud esse futurum 
ap ab aipw derivatum, aliud ah aeiow. Porsonum exape: Oupov 
legisse monent Adversariorum ejus editores p. 249. Adhuc juvenis 
scilicet ita legendum censuit, antequam veram hujus futuri rationem 
indagavit.” 

v. 126. The words rode xai dewoy are commonly given to 
the old servant. Musgrave noticed that they belong to Aga- 
memnon; and so accordingly the dialogue is here printed. 

v. 129. The old reading was ewéedyoa. Markland properly 
observes “ Sensus, lingua et metrum postulat erepyuica, ut v. 1242 
ubi Achilles dicit, vy epbnmicev TaTnp Mot, Quam pater mihi 
muncupavit. gariCew hoc vocat v. 134. 838.” 

v. 130. Nuugeious eis aryxovwv Evvas éxdwoew dexTpov] 
Commonly evdwoew. Markland pointed out this error. All editions 
before the present have AExT pots, the construction of which is em- 
barrassed and inelegant: I am answerable for the reading AexTpov, 
scil. wxorem. 

v. 182. The editions have dewa sye ToAuqgs. Markland per- 
ceived that the imperfect was required. | 

v. 133. The old reading was ovrw Tis Beas a palpable error. 
The sense requires Os tq, which Canter pointed out, and Barnes 
silently adopted. 

v. 187. Ennius (apud Fest. v. Pedum) thus renders this 
passage 

Procede ; gradum proferre pedum 
(Nitere) cessas ? 

Festus himeelf points out the order of construction to be, gradum 
proferre pedum cessas? nttere. 

v. 188. One of the Paris MSS. has orevow. 

v. 189. My vy wyt adowdas ov Kpyvas, uy0? tare 
OedxOns]. The reader will observe this construction of an accu- 
sative after (ov, and compare Andr. 117. "Q -yuvat, a Qeridos 
damedov Kai avaxtopa Oacces. Bacch. 1046. motnpov tomer 
vatros. The old editions have sm vuv, an universal error; the 
sense requires the enclitic vuy, as Markland observed. Elmsley 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS.. 85 


proposed an for ¢ ov, in order, as I suppose, to avoid the 
change of mood in pyre tov, MnTe Behx Ais. Compare, how- 
ever, v. 900 of this Tragedy, pyre etarye, unre EAOwuev. 

v. 141. Evqyua Oppo.) A similar phrase, evg@nua wver, 
occurs in Iph. T. 687. Herc. F. 1188. and ev pnuos to@¢ Orest. 
1320. Hipp. 721. The same is the force of the Horatian words, 
male ominatis Parcite verbis. 

v. 148. Commonly uy Tt ae AaOy. Markland restored the 
metre and sense by reading wy Ts. 

After v. 146. the Edd. have the following line: 


TIP. éorat. AT. xrAnOpwv 5 efopua. 


Two MSS. give Gora: rade, which has been adopted by the 
later editors. By this means indeed a dimeter is produced, but 
such a dimeter as offends against the anapestic laws, having ‘én 
hiatus at the end. And there are other things which still more 
plainly shew this line to be an interpolation. Such an inter- 
ruption of Agamemnon’s speech is both unnecessary and indecorous. 
And the imperative efopua contributes to prove the forgery, it 
being borrowed from v. 148. according to the custom of the inter- 
polator of this Tragedy, who at the same time misunderstood its 
usage, and gave it a passive instead of an active sense. Her- 
mann has altered the position of this line, printing it after v. 149; 
but even if we read it in that place, the marks of spuriousness 
will remain. 

v. 147. 8. 9. The common reading is 

qv ydp vw momrats avrncas, 
mad eLopuacers TOUS xarsvors, 
emt Kuxrwrwy iets Oumedas. 

It is easy to perceive in these lines that unlucky attempts 
have been made at alteration. avryoas is a corruption for avTrnans, 
which is found in some of the MSS. But the construction of 
the words viv Topmacs avrions has occasioned great difficulty 
to the interpreters: avTqv governs either a genitive or a dative, 
but not an accusative. The fact is that the metrical corrector, 
being resolved to make the line a dimeter, took vey out of v. 149 
where it is required, and inserted it here, where it is needless 
and importunate. He next introduced Tovs in v. 148, believing, 
as it appears, that the middle syllable of xaNivous could be made 
short! waAty efoppa, oeie yadcvous is the admirable emendation ot 


86 NOTES ON THE 


Bishop Blomfield. The restoration is effected by the change of a 
single letter. He cites Soph. Electr. 712. yvias yepoiv eoacav. 
Matthiz objects to this most certain correction, that he has in 
vain sought an instance of cvete yadivous. To this Hermann 
justly replies, “neque vero opus est exemplis ut Grecos quoque 
geiev yaXwous isto significatu dixisse ostendatur. Nam quod 
res ipsa poscit, quavis dici lingua potest: atqui ubicunque terra- 
rum equis utuntur homines, motu eos frenorum ad cursum incitari 
sciunt.” The truth of this reading is confirmed by the forged 
verse in its vicinity; for the interpolator plainly appears to have 
read in his copy efopua. In v. 149 ‘ets has the first short. 
Hec. 338. OOoy-yas leioa, By orepnOnvat Biov. Pheen. 333. 
Suppl. 283. I have therefore corrected the line by the insertion of 
viv, which I have omitted in the line preceding. Musgrave trans- 
lates QuueAas atria ampla et magnifica, in a dissertation on_the 
meaning of this word, in the Electra v. 713; but I conceive him | 
to have been misled by a passage of Pollux, who is speaking of the 
@uuery, or elevated place in the middle of the opynoTpa, where 
the Chorus stood. There were in the ancient temples elevations of 
the same description; and to these the gloss of Hesychius refers. I 
conceive that KuxAwzrwy OumeAa denote the temples, which, as 
well as the walls of Argos and Mycenz, were reported to be the 
work of the Cyclopes. To these temples Hesychius refers in 
the words KuxAwrrwy édos. 

v. 153. Tyvde Matth. and Herm. from two MSS. in which 
however there is interlined THO 5 there seems no reason for 
disturbing the common reading. Hermann observes, ‘‘ Agamemnon 
hec dicens tabulas seni tradit.” 

v. 154. Cycl.17. yAauvxyv adda ‘PoBtoie devKaivovres. 

v. 155. Tp Te TeO pire Tov aehiou | Phen. 1578. 
Ei ra TéOpurma Y es dpuata Aevoowv ‘Acriov. Hel. 350. 
TeOpurma + aeXiov. 

v. 157. Ovyreov & OAPtos ets TéAOS ovdels Ovd evdaiuwv’ 
Ovrw yap edu TEs advros | A sentence of this description is 
very common in the , Lragedians. Euripides says more fully 
Andr. 100. Xpyv 8 ovror etmeny ovcev OA/3ov Bporav, Ilpiv 
av Bavovros TH TeevTaiav ions “Ores Tepacas nuepay 

ate: xatw. Heracl. 865. Elmsley on Soph. CEd. T. 1528 . cites. 
passages of the same complexion. 

v. 163. Instead of orevoropOuov Markland and others have 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 87 


wished to read oTEvoTropoN, on account of the antistrophic v. 185 
fancying that the penultima in veo@aXe: was short: but in fact 
it is the Doric form for veoOyXeu. 

v. 165. All the editions have ayxiakwy voatwv rpodor. 
I have not hesitated to give aryxladov, since there is a manifest 
adoption of the Homeric Epithet of Chalcis: XaAxioa 7 aryyia- 
Aov, Karvdwva re TeTpneaoay. This word, it should be ob- 
served, whenever it is found in Tragedy, is used as the epithet of a 
place; Soph. Aj. 135. ZadXapivos eXov Ba pov ayxidvou. Esch. 
Pers. 889. Some one wrote atyyaAwv upon metrical grounds, that 
the antistrophic v. 186. might respond more exactly ; but in this too 
he was mistaken, since orAo@opous Aavawy OéXovc’ commences 
not with a dactyl, but a tribrach. The verses are Glyconean, a 
species which seldom begins with a dactyl; both in the strophe 
and antistrophe one long syllable is resolved into two short ones. 

v. 167. Aya oTpariay ws kaToolpay | Commonly ws 
dorm’ dv, which is not only a solecism but also destroys the metre. 
Elmsley proposes ws égoimav: but as one MS. has xat Tootm 
av, I have preferred Hermann’s reading katioiuav. 

v. 168. All the copies have Ayawy ve, which I have altered 
into Axawy dé, as in such a repetition dé, not Te, ought always 
to follow the word which is repeated, unless there be a copulative 
in the first as well as the second member of the sentence. Elmsley 
has clearly explained this matter in his note on Soph. Aj. 1050 
(Mus. Crit. I. p. 474) Aoxoovr’ éuol, doxovvta 8 os Kpaiver 
otpatov. Hermann’s reading of apyjwv for Axawyv, which he 
has inserted in the text, is, I think, very unfortunate. I would 
have the reader observe that this and the two following verses 
run on in continuous numbers, and would be more correctly in- 
cluded in the same line, antispastic heptameter catalectic, if it were 
possible for the page to admit one of such enormous length. This 
monster-verse is an antispastic of the purest description, and has 
such a correspondence with its antistrophic, that it is impracti- 
cable to divide them into shorter lines without incisions in the 
middle of words*. | 


* Stroph. v. 168. 


"Axatwoy 6 wiaras vavorwdpous yubéwy, ods éwl Tpolav édaTats xtAtdvavory 
Antistr. v. 189. 


Tév Old\éws, TeAauwvds re yovov, rov Ladauivos orépavov, Ipwrecitady + 


éwi Odxors 


88 NOTES ON THE 


v. 169. Markland conj. 7(0éwv. But qu:Oewy is the reading 
of all the copies, and is defended by Homer II. M. 28. nusOewy 
ryévos avopir, from which passage Euripides seems to have taken 
this word. ovs for ws is the correction of Scaliger. 

v. 170. erxaras Xidrovavaw] So in v. 276, vewy XiNiwv 
apxwv, is applied to Agamemnon. In Orest. 346. Menelaus is ac- 
costed, "Ql xiAtovavy orparov opunaas Eis ryav ‘Aciav Xaip. 
The Tragedians, and after them Virgil and other Latin Poets, 
fix the number of ships in the Trojan expedition at 1000. People 
who are exact remark the number in Homer’s Catalogue to be 
1186. 

v. 172. Edd. everrovc. This as well as the following verse 
is in my arrangement Glyconeus Polyschemaiistus; a species of 
metre frequently occurring in this Tragedy. 

v. 175. amr Evpwra sovaxor popou] There is a similar 
epithet of the Eurotas in Iph. T. 400. tov evudpov kai dovaxo- 
xAcav Nurovres Evpwrav. 


v. 179. “Hpa Havre 7 ep ep Mopoas a: Kuzpis 
exer] Porson here notes, “‘Melius forsan legeretur Epuv expe 
popQas, av Kuzpis éoyev.” This was a juvenile correction of 
the great Critic; and although made for metrical reasons, it would 
in fact i injure the metre: Nipea in the Antistr. v. 201. is a dissyl- 
lable. Epis is repeated in a similar manner in v. 505 of this play, 
and ep in Helen. 256. The measure is a Glyconean followed 
by a Pherecratean; than which there is no mode of terminating 
a Strophe more common or more harmonious. 

Vv. 182. opomeva is a correction of Canter for the common 
reading Opwuévav. 

v. 184. veoBahet Doric for veoOyrAe:. See Hom. Il. &. 347. 
Toot 0 uo xOuv dia gues veoOnrea aoinv. The Scholiast 
explains the epithet by vews Ti Oaddovcap. 

v. 187. trmwy T oxAov wceoOa] The old editions shave 
trrwy Oxdov T idecOat. but most of the MSS. omit 7. It 
seems therefore that Aldus supplied the conjunction, but put it 
in the wrong place. The correction is Heath’s. 

v.-190. Tots Laranuivos oredavoy Ald. This arose from the 
reading of some MSS. Zarauviots. The edition of Brubach gives 
a better reading, 77s, which ought to have been Tas: but I trust 
that my own restoration tov 2. o. is more probable. I must 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 89 


confess that. I do not comprehend Hermann's Tous DSaXapmivos 
erepavoy. 

v. 192. Markland is right in observing that ‘ Souevaiis ig ap- 
plied both to [lpwreciAaov and [ladauyjdea, which are divided 
by the figure called oxnua Adxmavtkoy. He cites Lesbonax 
wept =XMMaT wv p. 179. AAkpavxov’ ws To, Tarow emropeu-. 
Onoav KQi “ApiororeAns. Li iveTat yap dvoiv o Ovoparoty, peratu 
WiTTOVTOS mA Buvtixoy pnuaros. 

"EvOa pev eis "Axepovta [lupipdcryeOwv re péovar 
Kwxutos re (Odyss. K. 513) 


Ei dé x “Apns re Adywor wayys Kai DoiBos “AoAdwr. 

Consult Valckenaer’s note on the Grammarian. Regarding Pa- 
lamedes, to whom the [lecaot, with other more valuable inventions, 
are attributed, see Suidas v. [laAapyons, Navrdiou cat KAquevns, 
“Apryyetos. 

v. 194. Every edition that I have seen has TEKE, although the 
verse requires the augment. 

v. 197. All the copies have noovais diskou Kexapnuevov. I 
ought to have written adovais, Dorice. But the participle «e- 
Xapnuevos, though it may be found in the Homeric Hymn to 
Bacchus, and in the last verse of an Idyll attributed to Theocritus 
(xxvi1), seems to be absolutely abhorrent from the language of 
Tragedy. But even if we suppose that Euripides could have used such 
a word, yet Keyapyuevos would not have been synonymous with 
Teptropevov, and we can have no doubt that there is a reference 
here to the Homeric Aicxowcw tréprovro. If the reader will con- 
sider this passage attentively, he will agree with me in thinking 
KeXapnuevos to be the introduction of some transcriber or corrector, 
as the substitute for a word which was obliterated, or which he 
did not understand. This opinion is strengthened by the ward 
Sovaxorpogou, which concludes the corresponding strophic v. 175, 
and with the metre of which the interpolated word was intended to 
agree ; but the actual discordance of the verse contributes to betray 
the forgery, Sovaxotpodou being a Choriambus with the first syl- 
lable resolved. What was really written by the Poet, is open ta any 
reader to conjecture ; but it certainly was some trissyllable, vun, 
terminating a Glyconeus Polyschematistus. The word kaToxov in 
the margin is not obtruded upon the reader: I merely mean to 
say that Euripides might have used this word, and that it suits 


12 


90 NOTES ON THE 


the sense, ddovais kaToxov expressing Tepxouevor. Thus in Hec. 
1073. ”Apet KaToXov syévos. Soph. Trach. 980. Tov tarvp KaToXov, 

v. 199. Hitherto the reading has been tov ax0 vycaiwy T 
opéwv. I have transposed +, whose proper place after Tov seems} 
to have been changed from a superstitious scruple about the metre 
of the antistrophic v. 178. 67 ext kpyvaiace dpoaas. 

v. 202. Tov tcavenov de wodoiv, Aasnpodpopov ‘Ax:AdEa | 
Commonly icaveuov re. But dé seems to be required, as a new 
description of character is now introduced. 

v. 203. The old reading is AxtAqa contrary both to the dialect 
and the metre. In the following verse I have restored érexev for 


vexe. The line is a Pherecratean, having one long syllable re- 
solved. 


v. 205. All editions give eterovacey. But this is not one of 
that class of verbs, which assume a Doric dress in the choruses. The 
case is different in Pindar and the bucolic Poets. I concur therefore 
with Elmsley in restoring the common form. efemovncer, aluit, 
educavit, as in Theocr. x111. 14. Qs avr@ xara Ouxov o rats 
memovauevos ein. Euripides has his eye on Hom. IL A. 831. 
“Ov Xeipwy edidake, dicaoraros Kevravpwv. Of the article Tov 
used for the relative, see examples taken from the Tragedians in 
Monk’s note on Hipp. 527. 

v. 206. Other editions have 


eldov airytadowt 

wapa Te KpokaAars. 
By joining these two lines, and placing ve after its case, I have 
made an antispastic of the same description as vv. 167. 188. 
Kpoxadar’ \ynpot, Hesych. The preceding gloss in Hesychius is 
Kpoxat’ Vengot rapabadacotot. The same is also found in Pho- 
tius. I think that in both Lexicons we ought to read kpoxaAau: 
Anglice, shingles. 

v.210. éAlcawv for eXtccoueEvos, as EtAicowv Phen. 241. 

v. 211. ‘O de duppyvatas eBoar Evandos Depyriadas, "Or 
KadXiorovs idduay etc.] Commonly Boar’, and in v. 213 eidouayv. 
Both have been corrected by G. Dindorf on account of the metre. 
Here also there is a reference to Homer, Il. B. 763. “Iaaot ev 
per apirrat éoav Dyprriacao, Tas Evmndos éAavve, wroowKxeas 
opuBas ws, “Orpixas, oereas, oraduvdAn eri vwroy éicas, 


Tas ev Mepin Ope apryuporoos ‘AaohAwr, Audw Ondeias, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 91 


oBov “Apnos dopeovcas. It is hence natural to apprehend that 
Euripides wrote cxad\ioras, Oevouevas etc. But it may generally 
be observed that when he borrows from Homer, he deliberately 
introduces some variations in description. These verses, down to 
269. are Glyconei Polyschematisti, either entire, or axepadot. 
The arrangement is Hermann’s. 

v. 214. Vulgo YX pucodatoaA Tous oTopioiat mwAouvs. But the 
verse was, I think, thus written to produce a common Sapphic Hen- 
decasyllable. Four MSS., and perhaps more, give oTomiots. 


v. 218. ceipadopous vulgo. ceipodbopous G. Dindorf and Her- 
mann. This form is as admissible as AoryKopopos &c. Eschylus 
has a different compound cetpacqopos in Agam. 851 and 1649. 
Stanley in his note on the former passage, cites Isidorus Orig. 
xvur. 35. “Quadrigarum vero .currus duplici temone olim erant, 
perpetuoque, et quod omnibus injiceretur, jugo. Primus Clisthenes 
Stcyonius tantum medios jugavit, eisque singulos ex utraque parte 
simplici vinculo applicuit quos Greci cetpagopous, L.atini funarios 
appellant.” wapacetpos in Orest. 1015. has the same signification. 
Our word cetpodopos is distinctly recognized by Suidas. 

v. 219. avrqpes Kapmator Spopwv] Iph. T. 81. Apomous 
Te WodXous e€érAnoa Kaurriuous. Musgrave interprets avtTypecs 
qui in contrarias partes nituntur. Compare Sophocles Electr. 720. 
Ketvos 0 um autyy éecxarny otndny exor, "Expr aet 
aupiyya, cekiov T aveis Lepatov ixmov, eipye Tov mpockel- 
uevov. where Letpacos twos is the same as our cetpopopos. 
See the Scholiast on this passage, whose information is borrowed 
by Suidas and other Grammarians. 

v. 220, mupaorptyas| Every preceding edition has zuppo- 
tTptxas. It is well known that the Tragic writers used zrupacs, not 
auppos. This and the two following verses were first divided into 
dactyls by Heath. 

v. 221, Vulgo moixiANodépuovas, which was corrected by — 
H. Stephens. 

v. 222. Vulgo Ilndeidas cuv SAors. Heath introduced é7Aotct, 
Elmsley [yAcidas. 

V.. 223. Kai ovpiytyas appateious| See Monk on Hippol. 1229. 
A verse of this measure is uncommon in the conclusion of an Epode. 

v. 225. “AmeNOe. Niav decroratct micros ef] Such is the 
reading of the manuscripts: Aldus has Aiav ye. I apprehend that 


92 NOTES ON THE 


the Aldine corrector was not aware that the first syllable of Atay 
is common; accordingly he introduced ‘ye as an expletive. This 
intruder was first ejected by Joshua Barnes. 

v. 226. Kadov rye pot Tovvetcos éEwveidiaas | Kaos followed 
by ‘ye is frequently ironical, as in v. 1064. KaAopv ye veo Kaxns 
yuvackos moGov amoriaat Texva. Med. 514. Kadov ty’ ovetdos 
TW VEWOTI vundiw, a pretty reproach to be sure. 

v. 227. KdAdados ap, et mpaccors a pn mpaccew oe bet] 
Esch. Suppl. 932. KAaors av, et Wavoeas, ov wad -eis paxpav. 
On the use of xAaew, in expressing threats, see Monk on Hippol. 
1089. one MS. Flor. 1. has TpPAcceEls, and in the next line expnv 
for ov Xpnv. 

v. 228. Ov xpnv ae AVoa Oe€ATOV, HV eyo " pepov | epw 
Ald. but all the written copies have the imperfect, which is the tense 
that the verse appears to require. 

v. 229. Oude oe gepew dec mwasw “EXAnow xaxa] Elmsley 
would eject det and read ovde oe déepew vy dmaow “EXAnow 
xaxa. But the common text is, for more reasons than one, pre- 
ferable. 

v. 230. “AA\Aus awtAAwW TaUT, ages Oe TIVO enot | Aldus 
aANwS auikAq, but all the MSS. have auAAw, which Barnes 
hit upon without any authority: GAAos is the emendation of 
Markland, the justice of which cannot be doubted; @dAos and 
€or are opposed, as in Phen. 942. “AXAols mEANOEL TAUT, EuoL 
S eipyoerat. 

Vv. 232. Compare Andr. 589. LKy wr py dé Toe cov xaba- 
patw Kapa. 

y. 238. Hel. 1656. ws apo dearorwy Toto yervaioue dovdAals 
eukNecotatov Baverv. 

v. 238. The common reading, éa° ris dn ev wuAatcr Bopufos, 
kat Norywy axoguia; is opposed to the laws of trochaic verse. 
Barnes properly observed that €a is extra metrum. There have 
been various conjectures proposed for restoring this verse. Mine 
was Tis wor for Tis O77; before I knew that such is actually 
the reading in an old Grammarian in Bekker. Anect. Gr. p. 369. 7. 
This Matthie notices, arid Hermann adopts. I have amended v. 1318. 
in a similar way: Ti wore Too eimas, Téxvov; for Th dnra. 
The use of wore after ris and other interrogatives is too well 
known to require a word of observation. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 93 


‘vy. 239. Ov nos, ovx © ToucE, pv00s KuptwdT Epos herve | All 
the editions, except Hermann’s, prefix to this line the character of 
IIpecBus. But it requires only a little attention to the passage 
to satisfy every one that it belongs not to the old man, but to 
Menelaus. In regard to the construction, we may compare /Esch. 
Eum. 55. Kai xoouos ovre pos Oewy aryadkuata Depew Ot- 
Katos, ovT es avOpwrwy ateéryas. 

v. 244. Eicopw, xai mpwra ravrnv aby amaddakov xepov] 
Reiske’s conjecture ama\\atw is specious; but amaddatov is 
correct. See Hec. 1204. =v & ovdé viv mw ons amaddAakat 
xepos ToAduas. 

v. 245. Ov, mpw av deitw ye Aavacis wast tayye- 
rypaumueva] Such is the distinct reading of the two Paris Manu- 
scripts which I have collated. Aldus omits ‘ye and gives dract. The 
first editor who printed the lines correctly was Dr Gaisford. 


v. 246. Instead of ” yap oic8 Aldus has pH yap 700 , 
which fault was corrected in the edition of Brubach. In v. 265 
Aldus introduces the opposite error, ofa@a for ya8a. 


v. 248. mov oe xadaes vv;] The reader will observe this 
instance of dé interposed between the interrogative and xat, as 
in v. 1087, tls dé kai poo reer at [laidwy o, and will recol- 
lect the note of Porson on this formula, Phen. 1373. An imitation 
of this part of the dialogue (I presume by Ennius) is quoted by 
Cicero, whose words are (Tusc. Quest. 1v. 36.) Ira vero, quamdiu 
perturbat animum, dubitationem insanie non habet; cujus wmpulsu 
existit ettam inter fratres tale jurgium ; _* 

Quis homo te exsuperavit usquam gentium impudentia ? 

Quss autem malitia te? | 

Nosti que sequuntur ;* alternis enim versibus intorquentur znter 
Jfratres gravissime contumelie ; ut facile appareat Atret filtos esse 
&c. In the first of the two verses Bentley has properly changed 
unquam into usquam, but I cannot approve his proposal to read 
qui homo. In the answer of Menelaus, I should prefer Ecquts 
autem malitia te ? 

v. 250. Ennius’s version of this also has been preserved by 
Jul. Rufinianus 11. p. 205: 

Menelaus me objurgat? id mets rebus regimen resittat.. 
‘Where restitat for restat is the emendation of Bentley, Epzst. ad. 
Mill. p. 488. Ed. Lips. 


94 NOTES ON THE 


v. 252. Ovyi Sewa; Tov epov oixeiy oixov ovy eacouat ; | 
Shall I not be suffered to be master of my Own Samily ? Compare 
Andr. 582. Tles; 9 ov Tov _enov oixoy oixyoes pokwy Acup ; 
Respecting this usage of oixe:y olxov, see the note of Professor 
Monk on Hipp. 1014, likewise his observations (Hipp. 1458) on 
the future cacouar, the passive signification of which some anno- 
tators have not comprehended. I should have thought that there 
was not to be found a verse in all the Tragedies less liable to 
suspicion than this; and was therefore not & little startled when I 
perceived that Hermann had altered it into’ ouxt deiv, €t TOY Emor 
OlKeLy olkov ovyx eacouar; which is less spirited, and contains, 
besides, a solecism; the Greeks would have said e wn €acopat. 


v. 254, Aldus and the MSS. exxexouyevoas. wxovnpov yAwoo 
exipOovoy codn, which is plainly corrupt. Ruhnken ad Timai 
Lez. p. 155 restored ev KeKouypevoat. The compound verb €x- 
xouxpevev exists no where else, and ev is requisite for the sense. 
This however is not all. I am persuaded that the poet wrote 
ev xexourpeucat ™ownpa. Thus the meaning of Agamemnon is 
properly expressed, and in a manner agreeable to usage. Compare 
Hec. 1173. Kai my SuvacOa: Tad ev éyew Tore. Hipp. 
507. ee) oe & Hv Deryns Kkadas. Med. 582. _Treson yap 
auxov TadK ev wepicredrctv, Toru mravoupryétv. The order 
of the following words is, yAwooa cody exidPovor, lingua callida 
odiosum est. Hermann’s edition adopts the reading of Musgrave, 
Ev xexourvevoat. movnpov yhtoo ext POovov cody. 


v. 255. I should prefer xov cadns piross. 

v. 256. eFedeyEat bears the same sense in Iph. T. 955. Kayo 
EerervyEae pev Eevous ovx ntiovv. Angl. to expostulate with. 

v. 257. Aldus and the rest give ovro: xaTaww Niav o eye: 
nor do the MSS. differ, except that some omit o. That this 
reading is corrupt, all must agree; but in what way it ought to 
be corrected, we cannot expect a coincidence of opinion. Mat- 
thie prints in the text from conjecture ckavio (for Kal avid) 
Hermann oure kaTaTeve Niav eyw. Blomfield ovr av o 
extevw iav eyw. The suggestion which I have given in the 
margin, OUT av o aAryurw diay evyw, seems to be more pro- 
bable. ve is the apodosis, answering to uyre in the preceding 
line: au, on my part, perfectly suits the sense; and there is no 
term which Euripides was more likely to have used in describing 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 95 


the effect of such an altercation, than aA-yuvew: again, Aiay is 
more properly applied to this verb than to xaTaTeivelv or exTeivet. 
Nor is the reading which is thus thrown out for the reader’s con- 
sideration, any great deviation from that of the manuscripts, if the 
letters be but fairly compared in the old writing. OYTAYCAA- 
rYNQ might, owing to the letters being ill formed, or defaced 
by damp, easily enough have been changed into OYTOICATAINQ. 

v. 258. apy ew Aavaisais | This construction is the same as 
in Andr. 667. “EXAnow dptovo’. The genitive after dpyew is 
more common, as in v. 1285, BapGBapwv 3d “EAAnvas apyew 
eixds, GAN’ ov BapBapous, M NTEPs “EAAnvev. 

v. 260. Vulgo ‘Qs ramewos 7s, araons. dektas mpoaOry- 
yavwv. Markland suggested either 700° araons or yo0a racns. 
These two readings differ but little in appearance, though greatly 
in meaning; waca defta being every hand, dmaca deka the whole 
hand. 3 

v. 263. to gidortmov here and in vv. 21. 306 implies what 
we should call popularity. I have removed the note of interro- 
gation hitherto found at the end of this line. 

v. 266. ow Te Kei pwv omavnos| This exactly agrees with 
the English phrases rarely within doors, seldom at home. Mark- 
land compares Martial Ep. 1.5. Scape domt non es; cum sis quo- 
que, se@pe negaris. Heath and others are mistaken in reading 
efw for éow. 

v. 270. The old reading was Tavra ev Got TpwT emr7r~ 
Qov, tva oe rpwO ep xaxov. Markland restored from the 
Manuscripts oe for got. Reiske evpovs which is unquestionably 
right. iva is in qua re, as v. 382. i muas ovTas evpnoet KaKOUS. 

v. 271. All the editions have ws 5 és AvAw mrGes avbis, 
Xo TlaveAAnvwv oTpaross and avis is rendered postquam. But 
as some MSS. give auvtis, I have ventured to read autos, which 
might easily have been changed into auris: compare v. 386. ToLOU- 
sous ‘yanous Tyueas autos, yworts Eatt cor Pidros. 

v. 272. ovdev 400°} So Iph. T. 115. deidot 0° icity ovdev 
ovdapou. : 

v. 275. eixes ovoua Aldus and the other editors; Markland 
restored from MSS. dumua, vultum, which Reiske had already con- 
jectured. It is to be rendered, How cheerless and distressed a 
countenance you wore. 


96 NOTES ON THE 


v. 276. The common reading is X:Aiwv apy, Ilptauov re 
mWectov eumAnoas dopos, the third foot being a dactyl, in oppo- 
sition to the trochaic law. Besides, they who join apywv, éu~ 
awAnoas Té, will in vain endeavour to give any satisfactory sense 
to this line. The first who read to [lpequov mecsov was Dr 
Elmsley (Edinb. Rev. xix. p. 71) with this translation, because you 
were not able to land your army at Troy, though you had a thou 
sand ships under your command. He is followed by Hermann. 

v. 277. Kayue mapexades, Ti Spacw 5 viva O€ 70 pov ev pws 
aroHev ;| Matthie pronounces this verse to be a violation of the 
metre, and accordingly prints tiva wopov 6. From this and other 
remarks it is clear that this editor does not correctly understand 
the laws of tetrameter trochaics: he approves the preceding line 
in its old corrupt state, and condemns the measure of the present, 
which is faultless. Let it be granted that tiva opov $ ev pw 
aoOev ; would be paullo numerosius: still we may remark that 
in sach cases of a double question, d¢ usually follows the interro- 
gative, without the intervention of any other words, as in v. 433. 
rws; Tis 0 avayKxace oe THY ye onv KTavev; Respecting 
the construction we will give one hint. Menelaus intended to 
say KUME TapeKadels EUpELY TOPOY Twa, WOTE MY CE, oTEepevTa 
apxis, amo\eoat Kadov kXé€os, but in order to fix the charge 
more strongly upon his brother, he repeats the actual words which 
Agamemnon had spoken on the occasion. 

v. 278. The editions before Markland have apyas. The fol- 
lowing are the words of Professor Dobree (Advers. 11. p. 83) “wore 
an orepevtas Musgr. sed male explicat, ut nos pro ego dicat 
Agamemnon. Intelligo ne ego et tu, Menelae, amittamus.” I cannot 
acknowledge the justice of this criticism, being convinced that the 
words refer to Agamemnon alone. Menelaus was not so much bent 
upon the pursuit of glory, as of revenge, and the recovery of his 
consort.. 

v. 284. Kaé’ vmoaT peas AeAn Wat peTaparuv GAdags 
rypagas | Aldus and most other editors give. AeAnoat, which 
they render clam, insciis nobis: but that is the real version not of 
AeAyoat, but of A€AnBas. All the MSS. have AcAWat, which 
has been properly restored to the text by Musgrave: ‘it| means 
deprehensus es, ; - 

v. 285. ‘Qs Qovevs ovxers Ouryatpos ons Ever watiota ye} 
Instead of wadiota ‘ye L. Dindorf edits kaAAicra ye. Hermann 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 07 


madiocra ty’ wv, which he renders cum maxime fuerts. Leaving the 
reader to form his own opinion of these substitutions, I shall only 
observe that the common text seems to me unimpeachable. 

v. 286. QOuros autos eorw aiOyp, os Tad jxovcev oéOev] 
Markland wishes to read ovros avros, and this has been adopted 
by Matthie and Hermann; but there is nothing objectional in 
the ordinary reading: it implies, this is the very air, which heard 
such your declaration. So v. 1261. rovro 6 auto PovdAouae 
EvxXews mpatar. I think however that there has been a dis- 
turbance in the order of the verses, and that this line ought 
precede 284. | 

v. 288. "Exzovove exyouTes | Instead of exovTes, Canter, 
Scaliger, and recently Hermann, give exovres, which sounds very 
weak and flat; while nothing can be more correct than ExXovres, 
scil. ra wparyuata, while in office, in the administration of affairs. 

v. 289—90. Vulgo ryvw mas. This Dorism was condemned by 
Markland. Hermann joins evdikws advvarot ‘yerywres, and ren- 
ders it vere impotentes: to which construction I cannot assent. 

v. 291. ‘EdAados wadior’ Eywye THs TadaiTwpov ater | 
“‘Hune versum respicit Eubulus Comicus ap. Atheneum xu. 38. 
p- 569. A. ‘“EdXados eywrye ris Tadarwpov rep. Drevw.” 
Markland. ‘In Eubuli versu miror Marklandum non vidisse ex- 
pungendum, tum Euripidis auctoritate, tum metri jussu, importu- 
num istud zeépt.” Porson. This suppression of the preposition 
is by no means uncommon: Hee. 1238. maidds ouk anyecv dokeis ; 
Pheen. 1440. kxaxwv awv, Oidirous, Scov orévw. Hom. Il. X. 424. 
Tov ravtwy ov Troocov odvpomat, aYVvUPEVOS mep, Qs e€Vvos. 

Ve 292. Tous ovdevas, scil. Tous oety ovras. This plural is 
found also in Andr. 701. Svtes ovdeves. Compare Soph. Aj. 1114 
ov yap ntiov rovs ‘unoevas. 

v. 294. The reading of the copies is Mnoev av xpeous éxaTt 
mpootarny Geinny x90v0s, Mnd’ dxAwv apyovra. That there 
is some corruption in these lines nobody will dispute; for udev 
av Qciuny is a solecism, the Greek language requiring ovdev 
av Oeiunvy. This Hermann remarks; but his mode of correcting 
the passage I cannot regard as felicitous. He introduces into his 
text ov ypeaus ExaTi, and translates it, sui commodi gratia. In 
the first place os, suus, is very seldom used by our Poet; and 
secondly, I remember no instance of the genitive ypeous. The 

13 


98 - NOTES ON THE 


emendation which I have ventured to introduce, udev oup nye- 
vous éxaTt, is very little removed from the reading of the MSS. 
and has at least this merit; it expresses a sentiment which suits 
the occasion, and was likely to be designed by Euripides. Aga- 
memnon had been raised to his command in consequence of high 
birth and large possessions; and in this as well as other parts of 
the speech, there is an evident reflection upon the practice of the 
Athenians, in selecting their generals and their ministers from the 
distinction of birth and family. 

vv. 297. 8. These verses are in Stobeus Lxxxiv. 3. 

vv. 299. 300. BovAouai o eciwew Kakws av Bpayea, my 
Mav avw Bredapa mpos tavades aryarywv, ara awhpov- 
éarepov, ‘Os adedgor ort] etmety xaxws ev is found in all 
copies both manuscript and printed, as well as in Stobeus xxx1. 
2. Hermann defends it, as signifying male dicere bono quodam 
modo. I cannot however persuade myself that any people in any 
language ever expressed themselves in such terms. I have there- 
fore adopted Markland’s correction av (for ev) which seems almost 
necessary to the sense; this being a reply to the words of Mene- 
laus in v. 256. Povroua dé o ekedreryEat. In the next place, 
Aldus has av w, but the princeps edition of Stobeus has avw. 
In the following verse, Markland places a stop after BAépapa, 
and writes “pos + avaides, et impudenter”; on which note 
Porson comments thus: Pessime Marklandus. Ocyus repone mpos 
Tavatoés, quamvis alterum vulgetur in Stobeo. Finally Ald. 
owpovecres, which most Editors have turned into owppor- 
EaTepos. Stobeus quotes it awhpovesrepws. The Edition of 
H. Stephanus alone has cwPpovearepov, and rightly: that such is 


the true form of the comparative adverb is, I presume, well known 
to all scholars. 


v. 301. avyp ‘yap xpyoros aideicBa dite] We have 
‘ here an undoubted instance of the audacious manner in which the 
text of this play has been treated, by an ignorant corrector, through 
whose hands that copy passed which has descended to modern 
times. The reading of Aldus, and all the MSS. was avyp ‘yap 
aioy pos aiceracO ov dike, with an insufferable elision of a 
diphthong. Fortunately Stobzeus has been the means of recover- 
ing the original: he cites it avyp yap ypyoros ypyorov aidel- 
ofa iret, and Grotius accordingly published it correctly. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. ~ ' 99, 


v. 302. aimarnpov ouua. This is translated in common ver- 

sions, cruenium oculum. It ought to be vultum sanguine perfusum. 

v. 303. Aextpa xpyor epgs AaBeww;] This is a restoration 
by “Heath instead of the common reading AextTp epas ye 
xXpnoTa AaBerv ; ; Iti is surprising that Elmsley should have thought 
of reading XpnsTHs or (Med. 581. note) XpnTTwv. AexTpa xpng- 
7a signifies bonam uxorem, as in Hipp. 632. “H Xpucra. AEKTpa, 
aevOepous 0° avodedeis AaBwyv. 

v. 305. er’ éyw dicyy do oor Kaxov, o wy oareis; | 
This is an emendation of Dawes, Misc. Crit. p. 341. the old lection 
being dixyv dwow xaxwv. Rufinianus has preserved the imitation 
of this passage by Ennius, 

Ego projector, quod tu peccas? tu delinquts, ego arguor ? 

Pro malefactis Helena redeat? virgo pereat innocens ? 

Tua reconctlietur uxor? mea nocetur filta? 


v. 307. To Nehoryispevor, Angl. discretion. The adverb \e- 
Aoryicuevws is found in v. 923. 

v. 309. All editions have Ei 5 éyw syvovs mpocOev ovK ev 
peteteOny euovrAia, Maivoua:; nor am I aware that any editor 
or critic has expressed a suspicion of the passage being corrupt. 
But a Paris MS. which I collated myself, has peréOyv. I infer 
therefore that the person who wished to correct the measure of 
the verse, made a wrong insertion of a syllable, and produced the 
word mereTeOny, when he ought to have restored meTreGe un. 
The other form will in vain be sought for in the Tragic writings, 
nor would it equally well suit the meaning. We must also read 
evBovXiav. The same construction of pereBecBat is found in 
Orest. 248. Taxus de peteQov Avoca, apTiws ppovwy, which 
Porson renders, insaniam sanitate mutasti, observing that the con- 
struction is one familiar to Horace. But even these alterations 
do not entirely remove the faults of this sentence. I think that 
Euripides would not have said Ei 0 éyw ‘yvous apooOev ove 
ev, but ou. ev. It is true that in Orest. 1172. Aldus has Ez 
awoley Gekatos Tapareco owTNpia Kravovow, ov Pavovar: 
but there the Scholiast reads cravovot, uy Oavovor, and so do 
the greater part of the MSS., and so it is printed in recent editions. 
Since therefore the mode of speaking in v. 423. “ANA els pera- 
Boras ndA@ov amo dewwv dorywr, seems to correspond with that 
in the line before us, I have judged that the true reading here 


100 NOTES ON THE 


is, “ANN eye ryvous mpocOev ovx ev, meTeOeuny evfSovAiav’ 
Maivonat ; 

v. 313. 9 0€ ry’ Edis, oluat uév, Geos, Kakerpatev avo etc.] 
Matthie conjectures nye 0 ’EAis. But the common reading is 
in every way preferable, 7v being suppressed: so in Cycl. 316. 
‘O «adovros, avOpwricke, Tois aodots Oeos. Compare Virg. 
/En, 1x. 185. an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido? Then, Aldus has 
efémpatev, but the Paris and Victorian MSS. xakempa€ev. 

v. 315. The common reading, Ovs AaBwv atpateve y oluat 
8 cian pwpig ppevwv, is repugnant both to the metre and the 
sense. Two Paris MSS. omit y- I hope that my emendation has 
restored a corrupt line, with a very small change of one or two 
letters, ovs AaGwv orpareu" Eromot © eict. 

v. 816. This verse has been lost from our copies of Euripides ; 
but it is preserved by Theophilus Antioch. p. 258. and Stobzeus 
XXVIII. p. 123 Grot. cites the passage. 

v. 317. KarTnvarykac pe vous Stobeus; and so Musgr. 

v. 318. kai Td cov pev ev Ilapa dixns éota, Kaxtorys 
evvidos Tiuwpia] Iph. T. 584 To 0 ev padiata ty’ woe yiryverat. 
Esch. Ag. 119. 76 0 ev vixadtw. The old reading wépa dicys 
is inconsistent with the measure: wapa is the correction of Reiske. 
Hermann has edited xov To cov mev ev and Timwpig, both which 
I consider to be changes for the worse. 

v. $20. "Eye S€ cuvrytovar vires nucpac te daxpvas] 
Homer Il. Q. 714. vueras re xai nuara daxpuyxeouca. 

v. 821. Vulgo éryetvanev, vor nihili, Markland restored e-yet- 
vaunv, which is found in some MSS; but he was wrong in affixing 
a note of interrogation to the line. 

v. 323. Eide un Bovre ppoverv ev, Tap eyo Oyow xadras] 
So Ald. and MSS. Markland wished to change ev into ov: but 
although his alteration has met with the approbation of Porson and 
the adoption of Gaisford, I consider the common reading to be correct. 

v. 326. All the editions that I ever saw give Pidous ap ovxi 
KEKTNANV vTaXas. But not to mention the rejection of the augment, 
the pluperfect is here quite out of place. Elmsley’s correction 
(Heracl. 283) idous av ovxi KEKTNMND, does not sound to me 
natural or probable, and I think the sentence requires xexTymat. 
Some editors make this verse interrogative, and I intended to 
have done the same. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 101 


v. 828. cites dé mov pot watpos ex TavToV ryeyus 3] 
Professor Monk illustrates this construction on Alcest. 779. Com- 
pare particularly Med. 548. ‘Ev TOE deitw TpwTa pay aodos 
ryeryus. | 

v. 829. All the copies of our Poet give us instead of this verse, 
a very different one, Zucowdpoverv yap Bovrow adr’ ov cuv- 
vocetv. This elision of the diphthong is of course. not to be 
tolerated. All the efforts of scholars to amend the line would have 
proved unsatisfactory, but by good fortune Plutarch has preserved 
the genuine verse: he quotes (p. 64. C.) cuzawgpovety tyap ovxt 
cuvvocetv eu. It appears then that some corrector of this Tragedy, 
offended by a construction which he did not understand, altered the 
words into others better suited to his comprehension. Porson pointed 
out the passage of Plutarch from which the verse of the Poet is re- 
covered. The same construction is found in Soph. Phil. 88.” Equv 
yap ovdey ex Téxvns mpdocev Kays. Antig. 688. Loi d ov 
mweduxa wavta mpookoreiy, et alibi. 

v. 338. “EdAas dé cuv coi xara Dewy vooet Twa] Oewy 
instead of Qcov is the reading of Porson, who adduces many similar 
passages of the Tragedians, in which they prefer saying Oewy Tes 
rather than Oeos tis. 

v. 334. Ixywrpw vu avyet, cov Kaciryunrov mpodous] avyets 
Ald. A worse corruption was introduced into this line in the second 
edition of Hervagius, vuy, in open opposition to the measure. 
Tyrwhitt rightly suspected that we ought to read aixet, not 
avxets. It may be remarked that the enclitic vuy is very seldom 
used with indicatives, but perpetually with imperatives and opta- 
tives. The translations render gov xagiryyntov mpooovs by prodens 
tuum fratrem; it ought to be tuo fratre deserto. 

v. 837. Hermann truly observes that the hasty entrance of the 
Messenger, interrupting the conversation of Agamemnon and Mene- 
laus, is represented by the commencement of his speech being in the 
middle of a verse. He compares the Philoctetes of Sophocles v. 974. 
where Ulysses appearing on a sudden, begins in the middle of a 
verse, © KaKtoT avopwy, Ti dpas; In Tro. 415. Agamemnon is 
stiled ‘O yap ueyiotos Tov TlaveddAnvey avak, ‘Arpews pidros 
Tas. 

- y. 389. Aldus gives" Hy ‘Iguyéveray wvouacas ror ev Souats, 
a line with an anapest for the fourth foot. I can testify that the 


102 NOTES ON THE 


Paris MSS. have wvouatas (not wvouatais as Markland says) 
omitting aot, and so have the other copies according to Matthie. 
It would appear therefore that wor was the insertion of Aldus. 
Markland properly reads wvopnaces, appellabas, which form is more 
common in such cases than the aorist. Eur. Suppl. 1224 ais 
+ av Aitwrwov portwv Tudews, ov wvopace Atounony warnp. 
Heracl. 87. "Ovoua ti ae, ryépov, Muxnvatos wvouacev Aews ; 
to which the memory of the reader will probably supply many 
additions. 

v. 340. ons Krvraturnot pas dexas] Elmsley proposes o7, 
KAvramvyotpa, danap, and this is adopted by Hermann in his 
text. I should not choose to alter a poetical into a common mode 
of speaking. Compare Orest. 107. Ti 0’ ovxt Ouyarpos ‘Eppsovns 
WEUTELS CEMAS 5 

v. 341. Kai mais ‘Opeorns, ws av reppOeing idwv] ws av 
is my emendation for the common reading wate, which does not 
express the meaning of the speaker. If any zealous supporter of 
the Canons of Dawes should make a difficulty at finding the optative 
tepp0cins following the present omaprel, he may observe that 
the rule is not in fact violated; for though ouapte: only is ex- 
pressed, yet, that word being applied to the child Orestes, we under- 
stand exouicOn, or dwuaTwv eLereupOn, or something of the kind. 
Hermann gives ws Te TepPOeins idwv, which I think rather feeble. 

Vv. 343. ws pakpav eTewov | quum longam carperent viam. Soph. 
Aj. 1040. My retve paxpav, Esch. Agam. 1267. waxpav eT ewas. 
Markland wished to read evppvTov, but Matthie justly remarks 
that p is not doubled after diphthongs. 

v. 345, auvTai Te TwAot yy Aldus; and so commonly. Mark- 
land corrected it to mwAoi T, though he himself thought that 
the true reading was avtai ‘ye mwAots. This was to be sure a 
strange device. I used formerly to consider that we ought to 
adopt avraiat wwAos along with Porson, (who by the way wrote, 
whether intentionally or by mistake I cannot pronounce, the mascu- 
line avroict) agreeably to that well known Atticism, which so many 
scholars have illustrated, and no one so fully as Elmsley on Med. 
160. But whoever considers attentively the instances given in hig 
note, will probably prefer in this passage avtai Te wwol. 7’, an 
Homeric mode of speaking. Odyss. A. 20. avtw Te Kat trmw. 


v. 348. ‘yap for oe MSS. Flor. 1. Vict. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 103 


v. 349. The early edd. have d:jée, which Barnes and others 
fancy to be derived from oujxw. Portus and Markl. restored Oinke : 
but the first editor who pointed the sentence properly was L. Dindorf. 

v. 351. ot 0 evoaluoves "Ev mace xAewwot kat mepi(rerrot 
Bporois |. I will not dispute that Euripides might have written 
Bporois, but I must think it far more likely that he gave what I 
have printed in the margin, Bpora», and that this was afterwards 
altered into the dative by a transcriber on account of ev act. 
I need not observe that o: evdaiuoves Bporwy corresponds with 
the Tragic style of speaking, and is supported by another passage 
of this drama, v. 515. where the sentiment expressed is almost 
identical with the present, Qeoi 0 ot Kpeiaaous ot T oABoPopor 
Tots ov evdoainoct Ovnrav. 

v. 353. One Paris MS. has Tpaccere, the other TpagceTat, 
with € written over it as a various lection. In v. 359. these MSS. 
give orepavoveba. 

v. 356. “Apréuods mporeACovar THv veavisa] Compare v. 627. 
TlporeAea 8 dn mraidos éogagas G64; This custom is explained 
by the Grammarians, Hesychius v. rporéAeia, Photius, Harpo- 
cration, and others, but particularly by Pollux 11. 38. 4 6¢ 7 p0 
ryanwv Ovata Ilporéketa—mporedciabat dé ederyovTo ov povoy 
at vumpat, adrXa Kai oi vuugion Kai TEAOS O ‘yamos EKaAELTO, 
kal TeAELOL OL ‘yEYyaMNKOTES. Cia ToOUTO Kal “Hpa tedela, 4 
Cuyia’ TavTn yap év Tos wporedclors MpovTEehovy Tds Kopas, 
Kal "Apréme, kai Moipats. where one MS. of Pollux instead 
of mporeNcicOa has mporediCecOa, and instead of mpouredovy 
others have mpovre\:Cov. Hence the use of the word in this 
line is sufficiently sanctioned. ° 

v. 357. Tis vv akterat wore;] “Cum ayeoOa uzorem 
ducere significat, ei¢ Souous, vel aliquid ejusmodi plerumque ad- 
dunt Tragici.” Elmsley on Heracl. 808. He observes however 
that in this verse of the Iphigenia, the verb, used simply, implies 
to marry. 

v. 358. “ANN ela, tami rowid etapyov xava] Aldus 
‘has Tami toiot, but cose 6 crept into subsequent editions, 
until it was corrected by Canter. Compare v. 1349. Kava 0 evap-~ 
xEcOw Tis. 

v. 359. Zredavovabe xpara]. There is no necessity for Mark- 
land’s correction oTedavov te kpara. Matthie observes “ Aga- 


104 NOTES ON THE 


memnonis erat evapyerBat Kava, otedavovaBa xpatra aliorum 
etiam.” There is nothing improper in the ‘messenger desiring 
Menelaus to prepare a nuptial song, nor is there any need for 
Hermann’s reading MeveAews + avat. 

v. 363. "Exnves * add otetxe Swuatwv ecw] This is 
somewhat similar to the reply of Medea to the Pedagogus, Med. 
1015. Apacw tad° adda Baive dwparwy ecw. 

v. 364. tovons THs TYxns] Hermann renders this properly, 
fortuna cursum suum persequente. 

v. 365. The reading of the old copies is aptouat ceOev. 
and this corruption has been continued in the editions even to 
our time, though Grotius more than 200 years ago pointed out 
the true reading dptouat mofev; Compare v. 1020. Tiv av 
AaGBowme THY Enov apyny xaxwv; Esch. Choeph. 844. Zev, Zev, 
Ti New; mobev aptwuar ; 

v. 367. umy\Oe has here the same signification as in v. 66. 
‘YanrOev avrovs Tuvddpews wuxvn ppevi. 

v. 870. Kai yap daxpyoa paciws avTots exer] “ aurots, 
scil. dvoryevéot, petendum ex v. dvaryeveta.” Markl. The fol- 
lowing is Ennius’ imitation of this, ap. D. Hieron. in Epith. 
Nepotiani. 
Plebes in hoc regi antestat loco; licet 
Lacrumare plebi, regi honeste non licet. 

v. 871. “Avo\Ba 7 eimeiv’ Te dé yervaiy vow “Aravra 
TavTa’ mpoctaTny Te Tov Biov Tov onpov EXouer, TT oXAP 
dovAevouev. It would be both difficult and unnecessary to name all 
the conjectures by which it has been proposed to correct this passage. 
One of thent, however, demands particular notice; I mean that of 
Musgrave, who suggests that the words dvoABa and amavta 
should change places. Hermann not only adopts this proposal, 
but thinks it absolutely incredible that there should be any body 
who does not recognize its truth the moment it is named to 
him. I certainly am of the number of those who cannot approve 
this discovery; first and mainly, because I see nothing in the 
received text either faulty or inconsistent with our Poet’s manner 
of writing: I might add that the proposed transposition impedes 
the sense. Nothing can be more correct than to couple dak puc.at 
and avoABa eireiv: while awavra TravtTa (sub. €o7Tt) refers to 
what follows, as is usual in the Tragic dialogue. I have made 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. | 105 


no change but that of mpoorarny re instead of mpootarny ‘ye. 
Matthie has done the same. Plutarch, who cites this in his Ni- 
cias, p. 526. C. gives mpooratny dé, and tov oryxov for Top 
djmov, both which readings are adopted by Hermann; the latter 
by Matthie. 

v. 377. Elev’ vi gnow 7 pos ddpapra anv eunv; [les 
déFoual vv qowov ona cuusarw;] elev, hac missa faciamus, 
a frequent exclamation, when the speaker turns to a new subject. 
Markland compares Plautus Asinar. v. 3. Quomodo meam uxorem 
aspiciam contra ocults? several MSS. have the subjunctive oup- 
Badrw; but there seems no necessity for disturbing the common 
reading. 

v. 879. Kai yap m amwreo, emi Kakois, a jor qwapa, 
"EXOovc’ axAnros] This is the reading of Aldus; Markland 
has intoduced wapos for mapa from some MSS. But the common 
reading is unexceptionable; so in Orest. 704. Twy Kkaxwv, @ cot 
qapa. And to say the truth, Markland did not clearly appre- 
hend the meaning of the passage, when he translated it, preter 
mala que habui prius, veniens non vocata. €mwi Kakois is not 
besides the ilis, but amidst the ills. The opinion of Hermann is 
more probable, that wapos was the arguta correctio of some Gram- 
marian. 

v. 381. vuudevcovca for vuudevovca is the correction of 
Markland, on account of cwoovca which follows: in v. 787 the 
same participle is applied to the same person, and to the same 
transaction. 

v. 383. Tyv 8 av tadatvav tapSévov] Commonly tyv0'. 
This was corrected by Matthie. 

v. 384. Alfons uv, ws Eome, puupevoct raxa | This con- 
ceit ‘respecting virgins on the point of death, seems to be a 
great favourite with Tragedians. Euripides in Orest. 1107. Aidny 
wouddioy xextnuévn. Iph. T. 370. Aidns ’AxeddAeus nv ap, 
ovx © TInAews, “Ov sot mpocetrras woow. Sophocles Antig. 
653. pmeOes Tyv maid ev Aidov Tyvde vuudevav tii. See 
also our own Shakespear, Romeo and Juliet. Act 1v. sc. 5. and 
Act v. sc. 3 

v. 385. olua yap vw tKerevoay rade| The reading of 
the copies is txetevoat, which Markland and some other editors 
strive in vain to defend. There. follows in v. 388. avaBoncerat. 

14 


106 NOTES ON THE 


v. 389. Aauvera cuverws| This is my own correction for 
ov cuvera avverws, the lection of Aldus, as well as of all the 
Manuscripts, which I have omitted to mark at the foot of the 
page. The Poet would have said avaBogy aguvera, rather than 
ov cuveTa, as in v. 563. acuveta vup €poupen, even had there been 
no vrymoron: but as this figure is used, I need. not remark how 
much more suitable is aavveros than ov ower os. 

v. 390.1. Al, al’ tov ‘EXeuns ds mw amwrAecev yapov 
Tynas o IIpeauov Tlaps, 6 mw etpryacta vace.]| 5 mw for 
és m is the reading of Markland, which Porson (on Hec. 13.) 
commends. 0, scil. 70 rynua Ha pu. The passage of the Hecuba 
is Newratos 0 nv [ptamdav’ 0 Kai pe ys ‘Yreberenev, 
where Porson interprets, with the Baroccian Scholiast, 3 by TO 
elvat vewrarov. Gaisford and Matthie follow Markland. Hermann 
on the contrary would reject the pronoun, and read os éipryao- 
Tat Tace. The reader will adopt whichever of the two lections 
he prefers. 

v. 398. “H uy perv cot Taro Kapoias caper, Kai Bn 
‘witndes pnoev] Barnes, misled by Scaliger, gives 7 env me 
éperv. Blomfield speaks of this form of adjuration in the Gloe- 
sary to Esch. Theb. 527. “Ouvuor 3 aiyuny nV ExXEt, "H way 
Aamabew a actu Kacpetwy Bia Avs. The signification of emi- 
qtyoes is the same as in Homer. Od. O. 28. Mynornpwv oc 
emit oes apioTnes AoKowow. scil. ex consulto. 

v. 403. Ou eis ce detvos’ elut 0 ovmrep ef av viv] davos 
has this sense also in v. 423. The interpreters render ely: 0° 
ou7rep el ou vuv, vado enim eo sententie ubi tu nunc es, which 
is a total misapprehension of the sense. The meaning is, I well 
place myself in your present situation. 

v. 404. Kai cot rapawe, pyt amoxreivev TEKVOU, Mar 
avbeheaBau Toupov | Elmsley on Med. 323. prefers arrox Teva ° 
Téekva, on account of four other places in this play, vv. 413. 645. 
917. 1065. where Texva is used in a corresponding mode of speech. 
But to say the truth, Euripides loves variety in such matters. 
Schaefer, on Bos. P. 107; understands K€ poos. He Compares Soph. 
El. 251. cai to gov omevdoue dua, Kat TOUMOV QUTHS. 

v. 412. “Adpow, véos Tv nv wpiv' TO mparyua O° erytyuOev 
Zxorwy, €getoov olov nv Krewew téxva] The old reading is 
Ta mpary mara ’. Barnes (in margin) gives TO mTpary ua 3. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 107 


Lenting writes the sentence thus, appuv, veos T nV, Tpw Ta 
mpaypar eéyyu0ev Sxorwy eceicov olov nv K.7. and his con- 
jecture is approved by Matthie, and edited by Hermann. To me 
it seems but the awkward twisting of a very plain sentence. 

v. 414. “A\N\ws Te wm EAEos TIS TadaiTwpou Kopns Evo- 
m0, auryyeverav evvoouuevw] This construction is defended 
by a kindred sentence in the Medea, v. 56. “Qo@ Zuepos rm 
umndOe yn Te Kovpave Aekat, podoven devpo, Mnoeias tTUxas : 
where the Scholiast says TO ayqua codotkopares, dia thy 
€vadAaryny THs mwrwoews. In both places, »’ is an accusative, 
as the diphthong in sot cannot be elided. Since the old Gram- 
marians recognize this figure, and the Comic Poet Philemon, in 
his imitation of the passage of the Medea, has adopted it, I have 
not hesitated to retain epvoovnevw in the text. Porson however 
appears to have judged differently, as in the Medea he printed 
woovcav. Markland compares v. 1260. Ola 0’ eiondOev p’ 
axoucop, MNTEP, Evvooumevny. 

v. 418. orpatia, the reading of Aldus and the MSS., is cor- 
rected by Barnes. 

v. 421. Ei dé te xopns ons Oeaoharwy pererti co, My 
"mol METETTW" Tol VeuW ToU“OYV MEépos] This is given according 
to the old copies, except that I have written 44m ot instead of 
un ot: Hermann has done the same. Markland thought that in 
the first of these lines we ought to read meTeoTi pot, and some 
editors have followed his advice, but without having duly con- 
sidered the meaning of the sentence. I consider Hermann’s explana- 
tion to be right; Vaticinium de jfilia st curas, ego non curo, sed 
meas partes ttbt permitto. 

v. 425. avopos ov kaxov Tporot Totoide] Certain MSS. have 
interlined TpoTat Trotatoe. Matthie remarks, “Qui TpoTai Tot- 
aide scripsit, sermonem adhuc esse de petaforais et TH pEe- 
Temecov credidit.” 

v. 427. Tevvat’ eretas, Tavradw te tw Aros Tpeémovra’ 
a poryovous ou kaTaoxuvets aeOev| Pierson, Verisim. p. 78. pro- 
poses ‘yevvaia Aé~as. Hermann edites mporyovous 6’. The latter 
I do not condemn, though it does not appear to me necessary. 

v. 429. Aww oe, MevedXa |] Aldus MevedAaos. Musgrave 
pointed out the correction MevedAa. Matthie, in compliance with 
Barnes and Heath, has edited MeveAXews. This word is indeed 


108 NOTES ON THE 


a trisyllable in Orest. v. 18, but far more frequently a quadri~ 
syllable, nur is it to be believed that the poet would have used it in 
the contracted form, where the common vocative MeveAae suited 
his verse. We may add, that in the Troades, v. 896, there occurs 
the same hemistich aivw ce, Meveda. 

v. 430. uméOnxes, the error of the old editions, was corrected 
by Barnes. opfovs MS. Par. Musgrave proposed weTeOnxas. In 
every copy of this play the following lines, which I have de- 
graded from the text to the note, are attributed to Menelaus: 

Tapayn yy adekdpwv tis O Epwra ‘yiryverat, 

mreovetiay Te dwuaTwv' arémruca 

To.dvoe ovyyeveray adAnAwY mixpav. 
It was first noticed by Boeckh (De Trag. Grec. p. 288.) that 
the whole is an interpolation ; and Matthie agrees with this opinion. 
Hermann pronounces that the verses are not to be condemned, 
but corrected, and given to Agamemnon. A writer in the Classical 
Journal 3. p. 612. assigns them to the Chorus. Elmsley prdposes 
oar epwra, Markland aAAnAow. But neither these, nor any 
other changes can make it in the least more probable that such 
verses were ever produced by Euripides. Not to mention that 
ye is an evident expletive, neither tapayn nor wAeovetia, as 
Boeckh observes, can be found elsewhere in his writings. I will 
add that I do not believe either of these words is used by any 
other poet. Instead of rapayy the word would have been ra- 
parysos. But I do not believe that in any writer whatever, 
Tapaxn adeA Dewy could have been used for what this interpola- 
tor designed, éprs adekdwv. Neither is wAeovekia dwuaTwy a 
_Greek expression. There are in these three lines several other 
particulars which must offend all who are familiar with the Attic 
Tragedians. And even if there were nothing faulty in the diction 
and metre, yet the allusion made to the quarrel of Atreus and 
Thyestes would be in this scene so unseemly and unnatural as to 
throw suspicion on their genuineness. When these lines are re- 
moved, the dialogue becomes smooth and unembarrassed. 

v. 433. Tlws; ris 0° avayxace ce TH ye onv Krave 5 | 
One Paris MS. has avayxacee, which without dv would be a 
solecism. 

v. 435. Ovx, et vw eis “Apryos yy’ amooreXeis made.) Two 
Paris MSS. 4» vv, which would require azogveiAns. It is sur- 
prising that Markland and Musgrave should have read this pas- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 109 


sige so inattentively as to fancy that by vew was meant, not 
_ Iphigenia, but the Grecian army. 

v. 436. AaOouue tour dv, adr’ éxeiv’ ov Ancouev] The 
common reading was Ayjcgouat, which is obliviscar: Markland re- 
stored from the MSS. Aycopev, i.e. latebo. 


v. 439. Oux, av Oavn rye arpoo Oe" TOUTO & evpapés] Jacobs, 
being shocked at this suggestion, proposed nv pbavns rye apoobe, 
st eum anteverteris ; and this conjecture meets with the approbation of 
Matthie. Hermann justly observes, that if it were adopted, mpoa0e 
would become superfluous. He has himself, however, committed 
a worse error by giving in the text, Ovx, 4v cavn ¥é ™poa Oe. 
For not to mention other objections, I apprehend that the word 
cavy does not exist in the language. The aorist of caivw, which 
is in use, is €onva. Neither cave, nor caveoOa, nor caveioOat 
are to be found. The objection made to the common reading is 
that this suggestion of putting Calchas to death is treacherous and 
inhuman: but this is in truth an argument for not altering the 
words. Let us consider who the person is that utters them. 
Not only throughout this play, but in other places, Euripides has 
invested the character of Menelaus with every degree of perfidy, 
cruelty, and meanness; intending no doubt to represent the Spartan 
king as a specimen of the odious qualities which the national preju- 
dices of the Athenians made them attribute to their enemies. And 
this character is well maintained in the present scene: the actual 
arrival of Iphigenia having convinced him 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 very time most earnestly desirous. I call the attention of the 
reader to this fact, because Markland in his note has made some very 
misplaced remarks on the alteration which takes place in the pur- 
poses both of Agamemnon and Menelaus. I will only further ob- 
serve, that the Poet has attended to the propriety and decorum of 
character, in making Agamemnon abstain from any reply to the ~ 
proposal for the murder of Calchas. e 


v. 441. Kovdev ve Xpnorov ovde Xpnotpov a pa] The 
old reading was ‘YY a@ypnorov and mapov. ‘ye xpnorov is Can- 
ter’s, Tapa ig mine. 


110 NOTES ON THE 


v. 442. "Exetvo 0 ov dédotxas .ovp’ eiaepyerat;] Aldus 
oO » eigepxerar; which is palpably wrong. The MSS. have & Tt 
me elo pyerat, which Barnes edited without knowing any thing 
of the MSS. But I agree with Hermann in thinking that this was 
only a correction for the sake of the metre, and that the indefinite 
éoTts cannot be used for the simple relative. He has properly 
therefore adopted Markland’s emendation ova, though he has 
forgotten to name its author. 


v. 443. “Ov uy ov pales, mas vroAdBorm’ av Aoryov 3] 
This is the correction of Markland for the common reading u7ro- 
Aa Botuev Noryor ; ; Let the reader compare with this passage 
Iph. T. 658. where Orestes says, [vAaédn, memovOas TauTa, mpos 
Oewv, euoi; Pylades replies. Ouvx of0* epwras ov Neryeuv éXovra 
we. These are two instances, among a multitude, of that studied 
or affected simplicity of sentiment in Euripides, which was a con- 
stant topic of censure and ridicule among his rivals and detractors. 


v. 446. [losxidos aei me pune, Tou Y oxhou mera] This 
is the common reading: Reiske’s is Tov T OyAov wéta, which 
Matthie and Hermann have adopted. I consider the common text 
to be more simple. ov Oyou pera is not, as the interpreters 
translate it, apud populum, (for that would be Tw oxy qapa) but 
ubt e vulgt partibus stat. 

v. 448. Ouxouv doxers vv &c.] Aldus ovKouy doxer vow. 
For vuv, Canter edited vv. Musgrave discovered that the true 
reading was coxe:s cum interr. For ovxovv we are indebted to 
Gaisford. I consider that ovxovy, quamobrem, never had any place 
in the writings of the Tragedians; yet it is retained in their text 
by both Matthie and Hermann. 

v. 450. Kara wWevdoua, at the end of a Senarian Iambic, is 
in opposition to the Porsonian canon on the Pause. He himself 
(Suppl. Prof. ad Hee. _ P. XXXI.) cites this, and two other verses, 
Hee. 717. “Hyrets pev ouv E@men, oucde \ravopev. Andr. 346. Devryer 
TO TavTns cwHdpov’ adAa WevoeTa: adding “Et hos tres versus, 
cum eodem morbi genere, si tamen morbus est, laborent, Juniorum 
sagacitati commendo.” Accordingly, many 4 young critic has tried 
his han at amending these verses. But I do not think that Porson 
was speaking seriously, or that he really wished the received read- 
ings to be disturbed; for he adds elsewhere, “Satis ostendi, ut 
opinor, quod promisi, paucissimos Tragicorum esse versus similes 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. lil 


Ionis initio, ("AtAas o YXarKeots VOT OLS ovpavov) sed non ausim 
dicere nullos esse.” It must be observed also that the Professor did 
not alter, or find fault with, the line of the Hecuba in his own 
edition of that play, nor did he make any correction or complaint 
respecting the other two passages, in his Adversaria. 

v. 452. ois Evvapwacas orpatov] vis is the emendation of 
Tyrwhitt for ds. 

v. 455. avapTacovat Kal KatacKka\ouct yiv] avaptacovat 
is Markland’s correction for Evvapmacovot. He properly compares 
Helen. 757. a\Xa@ qodts avnpracOn patyv. The common reading 
Evvapragovo: seems to have proceeded from v. 454: it has how- 
ever found an advocate in Hermann, who wishes to understand 
nuas. Elmsley cites this passage as one instance among many of 
the use of the dative of avros (auras tetxeaty Kuxdwriots) 
in speaking of the destruction of any body, or any thing; but he 
proposes a different reading fvvapwacovra. The promiscuous 
usage by the Tragedians of ‘yj, ywpa and xOwv, for mors, is 
established by Valck. on Pheen. 5. 

v.457. The words Ta vuy rade conclude an Iambic line in Heracl. 
641. Herc. F. 246. This is noticed by Elmsley on the Heraclide. 

v. 460. mp Abby Taio euyv mpoc8m raw] Hec. 368. 
Aten mpooTOeia éuov déuas. Respecting the syntax see Elmsl. 
on Med. 215. ) 

v. 461. After this line there is, in every copy of Euripides, 
the following: vpeis Te ovynv, w Eeva, dudagcere. It seems 
to me surprising that not one of the numerous and acute critics 
on the Play has made the least difficulty about this verse; for 
certainly there is none which in my judgment bears more clear 
marks of spuriousness. Who ever found in the Greek language 
ovyny PvAagcew for cvyav, or auryn kadurrew TacE? Nothing 
can be more unseemly than that a speech of such importance should 
have so lame and impotent a conclusion; and it is opposite to all 
notions of propriety or probability that Agamemnon, who has 
hitherto not once addressed or noticed the women composing the 
chorus, or shewn himself conscious of their presence, should now, at 
the moment of his quitting the scene, deliver to them, in these three 
or four words, an injunction so deeply affecting his happiness. In 
other scenes of our author, when secrecy on the part of the chorus 
is intreated by an actor, every argument is employed to obtain their 
sympathy. See Med. 262. Hipp. 707. | 


112 NOTES ON THE 


v. 465. Tadaveia ypyoauevoe Mawouevwy olarpwr, 60 dn 
Aidup’ “Epws o ypucoxouas Tok” évreiverat xapitev| Aldus 
and MSS. ma:vouey’: this being plainly corrupt, many are the 
corrections hazarded by scholars, which we will pass in silence, 
since Reiske has indisputably pointed out the true reading, ma:vo- 
uevwv, The endeavours made after other changes arose from an 
ignorance of the laws of the verse. Markland proposes evTeiver 
tav Xapirwyv, but a passage of Atheneus (x11. p. 562. E.) cited 
by Markland himself, contains a sufficient defence of evTeiveras. 
Ocodpac ros o ev te "Epwrixp Xatpypova noi rov Tparytkoy 
AEryew, Ws TOV oilvoy TAY ypwHEVWY KepavyvcOa ToLs TPOTOLS, 
ovrws Kat Tov” Epwra, os peTpiaCwy ev cot evXapis, ert 
Tewopevos dé Kai caraparrwy yaderwraros. SiwoTEep O ToT HS 
OUTOS, OV KaKw&s avTOU ras duvapes Scapa, gyot’ Aiduna 
yap rota avrov exreweoOa (leg. evteiv.) yapirwr, TO mev 
ér evaiw TUYa, TO SO emt auyxvoa Boras. I agree with 
those who think that Athenzus, from failure of memory, attributed 
to Cheremon words which belong to Euripides. 

v. 470. avyyvors Biov is similarly used in Andr. 291. 

v. 473. in 0€ pot per pia pev Xapts, Aldus. I have corrected 
it, ein © éuol. It is discussed by Matthie and Hermann, whether 
or not this passage is referred to by Plutarch, p. 132. B. But that is 
a question with which the reader of this play is hardly concerned. 

v. 476. ao\Xav 7 Aldus and MSS. zroAday 6 is the emenda- 
tion of Reiske. 

v. 477. This Antistrophe contains a very large share of the 
obscurity with which Euripides frequently chooses to invest the 
choric parts of his tragedies. The consequence is, that some cor- 
ruptions have been introduced by copyists, who did not perfectly 
understand the words of the poet; and in order to remove those 
corruptions, a number of conjectures have been hazarded, which 
it would be neither instructive nor amusing to detail. Before I 
explain the corrections made in this edition, I will transcribe the 
Antistrophe, as it stands in the Aldine, with which I believe that all 
the MSS. correspond. Aragopa dé duces Bporwy, Acatporot 
de tpomas’ 0 0 opOcs, "EaOAov cages aie. Tpodai 0 ai 
mawwevonevat Meéya épovo’ eis aperav. To re yap atdeicOa 
opig, Tav + efaddAdacovcay Eye Xapw, viro yuwpas ecopqv 


To d€ov, &vOa dofav pépe Kréos arynparov Brordv. Merya 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 113 


vt Onpevew apetav, Tuvaki pev xara Kurpw xpurrav, ev 
avopact 8 av Kéomos évdov 0 uvptomdAnOns peiCw mrodw ab€es. 
In the first place, it is neither possible to join Star porrot TporTrots, 
nor do I believe that the word dvar porrot has any existence ; what 
follows, 0 6 opQos, is equally corrupt. The reading which I have 
given is that of Professor Monk, who printed this strophe and anti- 
strophe in a publication called Cambridge Classical Examinattons 
in the year 1824. (Hopfner had proposed dsa@opor for dua porrot, 
Barnes Tpovot, and Musgrave to © opOas) Hermann edits 
diarporrot de TpoTror what follows he gives rightly, TO 0 op0— 
ws ecOAov cages aei: claiming it as his own emendation, un- 
doubtedly in ignorance that the same had been put forth by Mus- 
grave long before him. In {ph. T. 611. there is found a similar 
error, opOos for opOws. Secondly, I have corrected matcevoue- 
vwv for maicevouevat. The following translation gives the sense 
of the passage, Diversa mortalium ingenta, diverst mores; sed quid 
were bonum sit, semper manifestum. Quin et educatio eorum qut 
liberaliter instituantur, magnopere confert ad virtutem. In the next 
place, all the critics, from Scaliger downwards, agree in reading 
codia instead of the dative; the sense being verecundia est sa- 
pientia. I will candidly avow that I have abstained with some 
difficulty from introducing certain conjectures of my own for the 
reformation of this passage, which I should like to record here:— 
Tpopai 6, ai wadevouevars Meya epovow cis apetav’ To 
Te yap aideroOa codtav [avr efadAagcovcay Eyer Xapww, ve 
ryveug T esopqu To déov. Future critics may possibly approve 
some of the changes at which I have hinted. Instead of doéap, 
Barnes restored dofa, which both metre and sense demand. I have 
further corrected evOev and ioras, the latter appearing rather 
better than Markland’s Giorg. F have already remarked how fond 
Euripides is of attaching the genitive Glov to the end of a moral 
sentence. What remains of the antistrophe is more difficult to 
unravel, on account of the palpable corruption in vv. 490. 491. 
from which nobody can extract sense, without some rather auda- 
cious conjecture. The general meaning of the sentence appears 
tolerably clear; the poet designed to place in contrast the very 
different courses in which reputation is to be obtained by the two 
sexes; while the fair fame of women arises from the virtuous direc- 
tion of their domestic affections, (for such is. the sense of kata 


Kuspw «pumray) among men, on the contrary, honour consists 
15 


114 NOTES ON THE 


in the active discharge of patriotic duties. Markland’s conjecture, 
évev for Evdov, meets with the approbation and applause of Matthie 
and Hermann, in which I am quite unable to , Join. And puptio- 
awAnOns is an epithet suiting TOMS, but not Koopos, to which all 
the editions join it. The proposal of épryov for évdov, given in 
the margin of the text, is a mere guess; but it has, I think, some 
recommendation ; it involves only a small change of letters, and 
such as was likely to arise from quick and indistinct writing; and 
it would afford a plain and appropriate meaning: Epyov, in Te- 
bus gerendis opera, answers accurately to our English usage of the 
word action. meiCw woAuw avéew is, to increase to a still greater 
extent the power of the state. 

v. 492. All the copies have emoAes, w ‘Tdpss, 7 Te aU Ye. 
That the opening of this epode has suffered damage from time is 
quite evident: as the words n Te ov ‘ye are not to be tolerated 
either by the dialect or the sense, they are an evident substitution ; 
and it is further clear that at least one line must have been lost, 
since the construction of what follows is imperfect. In some ancient 
copy, the words of the Poet were obliterated. What should be 
read in the room of 7 TE ov rye, I do not pretend to surmise, 
and must leave the reader to supply the lacuna according to his 
own notion. The sense a is something like what follows: 


EMoAES, W Tldpis, [exAcmesy 

Aapdavov “ya, évOa av dn] 

Bouvxoros apryevvais etpaghys, &c. 
Hermann fancies that he vhas cured the disorder of the text by 
writing # Ilapt, unre ov ye. Being unable either to approve or 
to comprehend his criticism, I will give the reader his own words: 
“ Nemo, opinor, semel monitus dubitabit quin hoc dici debuerit, 
utinam ne venisses tlluc, neve armenta pavisses, ubs judex fuists trium 
dearum. Quare reposui: €MOAESs @ Tape, unre av tye Bouxodos 
apryevvais erpadys "Toatats qwapa MOT XOIS. Id dictum esse pro 
MNTE EMONES, UNTE eTpagys, nou magis opus est exemplis doceri, 
quam sic constituta oratione recte positum esse ov rye.” High as 
is the authority of this great scholar, and confident as he feels on 
this subject, I will candidly confess that no part of the above 
remarks is to my mind satisfactory. I do not believe that the 
sentence is intended to express such a desire, or indeed any wish 
whatever; nor if such a sentiment had been designed, do I think 
that it would be conveyed by Hermann’s words, which cannot 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 115 


surely have the same sense as wopedes unre modetv, NTE Tpa- 
@yvac: finally, I do not agree in thinking that the particle ‘ye 
would be properly applied in a sentence of that description. 


v. 495.. The common reading is BapBapa oupitwy Dpvyiwv 
Avrwv ‘Oduprov xadauos M mjmara wrexwv. Instead of 
aeéxwv the Paris MSS. have rvéwv. Olympus was the name of 
a celebrated musician either of Phrygia or Mysia, the scholar of 
Marsyas: his fame is recorded by many ancient writers, who are 
cited by Brodzus and others: reference is particularly made to 
Plato, p. 144. G. and p. 567. C. Aristoph. Eq. 9. Ovid. Met. 11. 392. 
Speaking of Marsyas, Ovid says, illum ruricole, syluarum numina, 
Fauni,...et tunc quoque clarus Olympus, et Nymphe flerunt. Some 
light is thrown upon this part of the Epode by Telestes, a poet 
quoted in Atheneus xiv. p. 617. B. whose imitation of Euripides 
has been pointed out by Huschke, Epist. Cr. p. 147. The following 
are his verses, partly corrected by Hermann: “H @puya xad- 
Avowy avAwy tepwv Bacidja, Avdov os 4puoce mpwros 
Aaipidos avrimaNov Movons vomov aioNouopor, IIvevparos 
evirrepov avpav Augimdéxwv xadduos. From this imitation 
we have a satisfactory defence of the participle wAekwy. It seems 
also very probable that Euripides wrote Ppuyiwy avhiv ayrti- 
qaNov mvody (as given in the margin) and that piunuara was 
nothing more than an explanation of that expression, which crept 
into the text to the expulsion of the words of the Poet. Hermann 
also is of opinion that puunuara was a mere interpretation: it seems 
strange therefore that he should print in his text pspyAa. In regard 
to this usage of menawy, we may compare Pindar, Ol. vi. 147. 
avd pdtv aiyuataiot wAeKwy qoixidov tuvov. There is an ex- 
pression very similar to the present in the Bacche v. 127. aduoq 
Dovyiwy avrwv wvevuarte. 


v. 498. EvOnAo: 0 erpedovto Boes, “Ore ce wiie &mevev 
Geav]. I suspect that these two lines have been removed from 
their proper place, and that they ought to follow v. 494. ¢vOnXos 
is properly rendered by Barnes mammosus. Bacch. 730. evOndov 
jopw. Hermann has introduced €unve, instead of éuevey, with 
tic I see no reason to quarrel. There then follows a verse, 

o ‘EdAdda zéuret, which I have taken out of the text, as the 
offepring of the interpolator, who wished, as it would appear, 
to connect the preceding lines with those that follow, and ‘was 


116 NOTES ON THE 


not aware that this had been already done by the Poet. The verb 
is to be found in the first line of the Epode: join éuoAdes apoBev 
ée*bavroderwy Oopwv. 

v. 500. Euripides had in his mind Homer's description of the 
House of Menelaus, Od. A. 71. Ppateo, Neoropion, TH! ) 
kexapiopeve Bune, Xadrxouv Te orepomny KadowpaTa nynevTa, 
Xpuood 7, MAEKTpoU Te, Kal apryvpou, no ehepavros. 

v. 501. Os Tas ‘Evévas "Ev avtwroit Predapors ” Epwras 
€owKas, “Epwrs & avros enroaOns | Instead of os Musgrave 
proposes ov, while I should prefer ws. Every edition has " Epwra 
d€dwxas: but as the tense required is €owxas, I have for the 
sake of the verse and sense printed €pwTas, the last letter of which 
might easily be confounded with 6. Compare v. 1117. iAas 
Kapiras Gdwka, KavTedetaunv. Porson on Med. 629. cites thia 
imstance of a dative with the prep. eV, following verbs of giving. 
Med. 424. Ou yap ev auerepa yvwug Aupas wrace Seon 
aovav Poros. See his note. 

_v. 505. €pis éptv, Aldus and some MSS. This is corrected 
m the second Hervagian edition. 

v. 507. Commonly es Tpotas wepyaua. I have inverted the 
order of the words, as suggested by Blomfield, to obtain such a 
metre as could be used at the conclusion of the Chorus. I once 
suspected that something had been lost from the end of this Epode, 
and that the word abpavara, which Hesychius cites from this 
play, had its place here. See the note on v. 54. Certainly nothing 
could be more convenient than Tpoias mepryau aOpave Ta, as 
in Hec. 17. [Ivpryou 7 aOpavorot Tpwixys noav xOovos. 

v. 508. Commonly iw, iw’ but those are interjections of lamenta- 
tion. I have therefore given iv’, tov, exclamations of surprise 
and pleasure, such as appear in Aisch. Agam. 8. and suit the 
present occasion. See H. Steph. Thes. Tom. 1. 1943. 

v. 509. These regular anapestic verses constitute two systems, 
the metres of which correspond like the strophe and antistrophe 
of a chorus. This remark, which was first made, I believe, by 
Seidler De Vers. Dochm. p. 82. is of considerable use in ascertaining 
the right reading in some of the lines. 

v. 511. It is surprising that two learned editors of this Tras 
gedy should have misapprehended the quantity of the name of the 
Heroine herself. Markland believed the first syllable of ‘I@uryeveca 
to be short, and thought that in order to accommodate the anapestic 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 117 


mieasure, it ought to be written “I deryevvecav, both here and in 
ZEsch. Ag. 1504. Ipeyevecav avagia dpacas. After this blunder 
of Markland had been long pointed out, Matthie has run into the - 
very same, and instead of ther has printed eider ‘Iperyeveray, i. e. 
you sav Iphigenia. Bothe and Hermann erase euyv, because the 
Chalcidians could not call her their Queen. But had this line been 

applied to Clytemnestra, whose husband was tay L[laveAAnvev 
 avaé, perhaps no one would cavil at her being styled by these Grecian 
ladies, avagaa eu: and to say the truth, I should be better pleased 
with this passage, if the title were bestowed on the mother instead 
of the daughter, and if the sentence ran thus, Tyy rou Bacirews 
Iqiyeverav, Try Tuvdapew te Kdutatuvyctpav "Id avaccav 
enV. 

v. 512. All the copies have Tuvdapéov Te: but that seems to 
be the Homeric form. The Tragedians always adopt Tuvddpews. 

v. 513. €BAaoTHKao’ vulgo. exPBAacrnxac’ MSS. But why 
should we not have BeBAacryKac’, which the analogy of the lan- 
guage requires? The Tragedians use the similar forms BeBAnuat 
and BeBAnocouat. 

v. 514, Musgrave compares dccov myKeos OAGou cited by 
Plutarch de Exil. in fine, from a Poet, whom Porson notices to be 
Empedocles in Clem. Alex. Strom. rv. p. 569. 

v. 515. Oeoi & ot Kpeiscous of + oABopopor Tots our’ 
evdainoct Ovyrwv] I have given Oeot o instead of the common 
lection Oeoi yy. This is a correction too obvious to require defence. 
Hermann has substituted Qeot tot xpeiscous, very unfortunately, 
for the sentence is impaired by the expulsion of the article: see 
v. 351. Then, the common reading is twv Ovarwyv: Blomfield 
perceived that the language required the erasure of Twv, and 
the observation just made on the correspondence of the metres, of 
which he does not seem to have been aware, confirms his correction. 
Musgrave’s translation gives the sense correctly; Qu opibus et 
potentia excellunt deorum loco a tenutoribus habentur. 

v. 519. Ackapned OK wy aro py opaepos | oxAwy for 
oxXwv. Aldus; the Paris MSS. defcue’ OyAwv. The correction 
of this error is due to Canter. After opadepws the editions have 
ei Tyv yatay, which is proved to be faulty by the violation of 
the law of Synaphaa: accordingly some have erased Tnv, in order 
to make a parcemiac verse. But an attention to the metrical agree- 
ment of the two systems shews that these words are intrusive. 


118 NOTES ON THE 


v. 520. Dr Blomfield would prefer atyavais yepoiv, and itt 
the following line uy TapBnouper. I cannot agree with him in 
either case. 

v. 521. My rapByon TO vewsTi porov Tove xAetvov TEKVOD ° 
Ayapenvonov}] I have given To vewori moXov iti place of the 
common reading vewoTi pot poAov, as I do not concur with 
Markland’s doctrine that vewori may be a dissyllable. roe for 
+0 is the emendation of Blomfield, ‘Aryauepvonoy for ‘A-yapepvovos 
of Markland. | 

v. 523. Commonly py dé OopuBov. Gaisford and Blomfield 
restore the metre by reading uy0 av QopuBov. But I prefer the 
correction of Markland, «7 dy QdpuPov, and Hermann does the 
same. The words, tais Apryeias, which follow, might safely be 
pronounced to be a mere gloss or scholium interlined over eivats, 
even if the metre had not proved the necessity of their rejection. 

v. 525. "Opvi8a mev Tove alovov TotovueBa} Valckenaer on 
Pheen. 865, and on Herod. p. 590. reads roo for Tove, a correc- 
tion which has met with the approbation of Musgrave and Porson, 
and is received into the text by Gaisford. It would have been much 
better not to have disturbed the common reading, at which none 
can justly take offence. It means, J regard this omen as auspictous. 
Compare Orest. 778. OUKOUY OUTOS OLwvoS peryas 3 

v. 530. Barnes is mistaken in reading evAaBovpevat. The 
Queen is now giving her orders, not to the Chalcidian women, but 
to her own servants. 

v. 581. Sv 0, w Téxvov pot, AeElre TMwALKous dxous | 
Matthie and Hermann stop the sentence thus, ov 0 . w TEKVOV, 
pot Nettre 7. o, that ot may belong to Aecze. But the common 
punctuation is preferable, w Téxvov pos being used for w Téxvov 
enov, as in Alcest. 323. Du 0, w TéeKvov mot, Tes KopevOno-ee 
Kadws 5 

v. 582. Helen. 1548. aBpov moda rieic. After v. 562 I 
have ejected two verses, which betray the hand of the Interpolator 
too clearly to admit of their remaining in the text; 


umers Oe veavidaiot aryKanas ém 

défac0e, kai mopevoar e& oxnuaTwn. 
It would be enough to excite suspicion that Clytemnestra should 
first admonish her daughter that in alighting from the carriage she 
must step cautiously, and then immediately desire the young 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 119 


women to lift her in their arms, and place her on the ground ; 
nor is it quite seemly that a young lady on the eve of marriage 
should be lifted in the hands of other damsels, like an infant. But 
-if we proceed to examine the words, the forgery will be easily 
detected. veavidaicw atykaAas is an expression which it is 
hopeless to defend: but two Paris MSS. have veavioeaotv, which 
Musgrave admits into the text, defending it by veavsoos #Bns &e- 
A better reading was proposed by Pierson, Verisim. 1. 6. vues de, 
veavioes, viv aryxadats emt. This is adopted by Hermamn; but 
I know no example of the two first syllables in veavs being con- 
tracted into one, nor can I believe that Euripides would have 
written such a verse as this, when he ‘might as easily have given 
one of unexceptionable rhythm, umes o em aryxadats vw, w 
veamoes. Lastly, it may be observed that the second of the two 
verses is almost entirely made up of words picked out of neigh-— 
bouring lines (viz. 628. 629.) according to a practice of the Inter- 
polator which has been so often noticed. 

v. 534, exAeimw Musgrave, from one MS. 

v. 585. All editions have Azé eis ro a pooOev &c. Dobree 
(Advers.) properly substitutes of 0. Clyteemnestra is ordering her 
grooms, and not the ladies of Chalcis, to stand at the horses’ 
heads, while she alights. 

v. 540. eyetpe is used for eyetpov, the. pronoun being under- 
stood. This is noticed by Porson on Orest. 288. where avaxadurre 
is for avaxadvmrov. He compares kataravoas Hee. 918. Emerrye 
Orest. 789. 

v. 542. The old Editions have Anwet, TO Nupioos qratoos 
ia oQeov ryevos. Milton corrected it to N npews maioos, and is 
followed by Markland and Musgrave. But in four MSS. the word 
qratoos does not appear. Therefore the reading of Portus is pre- 
ferable, to ts N npnoos i. ry. and so I have edited the line, 
along with Matthie and Hermann. Boeckh takes an exception 
against this passage, and thinks that he has caught the Poet napping. 
Clyteemnestra, as he fancies, appears from her subsequent enquiries, 
not to know who was the mother of her promised son-in-law. 
But the mistake is his own. From v. 100. To r atiwna Tavopos 
€xtyaupoupevos, it appears that Agamemnon had taken care to dilate 
on the consequence of this young hero, and was therefore not likely 
to omit the circumstance of his being Goddess-born. And if we 
compare vv: 610. 617. we shall perceive that Clytemnestra had 


120 NOTES ON THE 


been informed of the parentage of. Achilles, though she did not 
yet know the particulars of his ancestry. In all the editions, four 
verses follow, the last of which Porson condemns as spurious. 
Misc. Crit. p. 223. Matthiee justly denounces them all four, as the 
production of a clumsy interpolator. In my edition, they will be 
found printed in small characters under the text of the Tragedian. 
The following are Matthie’s observations upon them, “In his 
versibus plura sunt, que offendant. Primum xaQyoo verum esse 
non potest, quum jam de curru descenderint, et mox Iphigenia 
dicatur wAyciov ctaQeica. Markl. conj. xaBictw, quod probat 
Musgr. Sed tota sententia languet, sive xaQyoo sive xabiaTw 
legas; cur enim Iphigeniam juxta se adstare jubeat, que vix ab 
ea abscesserat? Reliqua non minus mira sunt. Quam impeditus 
est hic verborum ordo: Téxvoy "I guryevaa, devpo arpos anTepa, 
xaQicrw e&ys odds mov (sic constructionem ordinat Markl.)— 
Tum quis unquam dixit paxapiov twa dsdova:? Tota vero sen- 
tentia inepta est: hoccine apparatu opus erat, ut Chalcidicee mu- 
lieres eam ob filie formam matrem beatam preedicarent?” I 
confess that the faults here pointed out by Matthie, joined 
with several others which he omits, appear to me to be such 
strong indications of forgery, as to make it almost incredible 
that any body versed in the language of Tragedy, can imagine 
them to be genuine. The case however is very different. Pro- 
fessor Hermann pronounces these verses to be our Poet's, and to 
require nothing but emendation. Accordingly he changes xaOnoo 
into xaQetca, dé ue into éue, and determines that rexvov is an 
accusative, and that it implies the infant child Orestes. The reader 
will exercise his own judgment on this question. 

v. 543. The forger, whoever he was, not content with inserting 
in this scene so much of his own manufacture, has altered the order 
of the genuine verses of the Tragedian, in such a manner as to 
occasion additional perplexity. The whole, however, has been de- 
‘tected with his characteristic acuteness by Professor Porson. The 
two lines in which Clytemnestra accosts her husband on his first 
appearance were made by the Interpolator to follow those of 
Iphigenia; this being done in order to introduce three more 
precious lines of his own; they are, 


» ‘ oe , 4 A ,.°? > , 
eyu de BovrAoma Ta ca oTepy, w ware, 
viroopauouca, a poo Bade Ova x povou. 
xo0w “yap Ouua oy cov. opryta Ons O€ MH. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 121 


It would be a waste of words to point out the various and gross 
faults of these verses, since I am not aware that they have yet 
found any body to defend their purity. To say the truth, they 
consist In a great degree of words picked out of the few following 
lines ; but besides exhibiting a specimen of stupid and bungling 
tautology, their numbers are not merely exposed to suspicion, but 
are grossly faulty, and unlike those of Euripides. 

v. 544. Med. 923. Apacw TAO, OVTOL Gos AMIETHTW Aovyars. 

v. 545. *Q MNTED, viroopawovcad o (opyia Ons dé un) TI pos 
STépva Tatpos otepva Taua mpocBako}] Commonly vzo- 
dpapovca ty’, where ‘ye is out of place, and the pronoun is wanting. 
Reiske is the author of the emendation. The common reading is 
weptBadw; interrogatively. But the adoption of zpocBadrev by 
the interpolator proves that mpoof3adw was the word found in 
the older copies of Euripides ; this likewise was observed by Porson. 
If the sentence were interrogative, we ought to read not the future, 
but the aorist subjunctive rpooPadw ; 

v. $47. ‘AA’, w Teéxvon, xpn’ giroTaTwp 8 aei ror et 
MaXicra raidwy, ted daous eryw “Texov] The same hand 
that has dealt so liberally with the rest of this dialogue, absurdly 
gave these two lines to Agamemnon; Porson restored them to 
Clytemnestra. pv, it is right, instead of the Aldine reading ype, 
is found in most if not all the MSS. Next, all the copies have 
matowy Tavo, a fault which it is surprising that I should be the 
first to remove: in place of TOYO, a very slight correction gives 
+0, which is both an easier and more probable emendation than 
that of Elmsley, qraiowy Tovo. Compare v. 1112. TO cwua Tov- 
Mov, OTEp ETIKTEV Hoe aot. 

v. 551. So Med. 472. ev 0 ewoincas modwy. 

v. 558, Commonly ‘Os ov Brees uw’ evKnAoOY, Aopevos M dav. 
Matthie erases the first «, and gives the following note, “‘ Brézrecs 
we evxndov Ald. rell. « omittunt Parr. A. B. Flor. 1.2. (rere 
euxndov est placido vuitu esse, ut meppovtixos BdAerew Alc. 785. 
dptuo BaAewew ap. Aristoph. Vid. Bergler. ad Arist. Ach. 565. 
Plut. 328. Brunck. ad Arist. Av. 1169. Schaefer ad Lamb. Bos. p. 63. 
placide aliquem adspicere esset evxnrws BAerew eis Twa.” See 
Monk on Alc. (789). Blomfield (Gloss. Esch. Theb. 224.) would 
have us read éxyAov: but evxydos is explained by Hesych. HOVXOS, 
apaos. and so Hom. Od. =. 479. Evsov 8 edinXor. 

16 


122 NOTES ON THE 


v. 555. Aldus [Ipos enov yevou vuy, Kat my mi dpovricas 
tpéwov. But all the MSS. have wap émot, and this is adopted 
by the editors since Markland. Barnes ejected «ai as being 
destructive of the metre. 

v. 556. a@AX elu MS. Vict. The Flor. 1. has ov« without the 
conjunction: both these variations are for the worse. 

v. 558. ‘Ido’, syéynOa o ws yéyn opwrv, texvov] The 
old editions have ido, yen Ews ryerynDa o opwy, which is 
palpably corrupt. The correction adopted by me is Musgrave's ; 
Matthie and Hermann have the same. Gaisford’s reading, ‘[dov. 
yeynd ores yeynfa a eicopwr, Téxvov, is further removed 
from the common text; and in this mode of speaking ws is pre- 
ferable to O@ws- Schaefer (on Soph. CEd. C. 273. viv & ovde’ Eidus 
ikouny wv iKounv) says, “Sic solent Greci, quando de rebus in- 
jucundis brevi precidunt.” Elmsley adds, “ Euripides Med. 1011. 
H-yryetAas of nryyetAas. Iph. T. 575. Tro. 626. AwAev we OAwAe. 
El. 289. exupoev ws exupoe. Ibid. 1122. dedorxa yap vey ws OeooK 
ey. Ubi consulendus omnino Seidlerus.” 

v. 561. The common reading is Oux of0 o tt ns, oun oida, 
itrar enol xarep, nor is there found any variation in the written 
copies. We have here a verse with an anapest for the second, and 
another for the fifth foot. To remove these unlicensed intruders, 
Heath proposed 0 @ys for & te ys, and Markland w for emoi. 
Both these corrections met with the approbation of Porson, and 
are adopted into the text by Gaisford: but there does not seem 
to.me the least likelihood that either could have been written by 
the Poet. 6 ri is required after oux olda, and piAtat w warep 
could not be used instead of gidrare watep. There does not 
appear any doubt that this verse has undergone reformation at the 
hand of an ancient but ignorant corrector, who knew not that the 
Tragic measure repudiates many licences which are familiar to 
Comedy. In regard to the meaning of the line there is no difficulty. 
The verse printed in my margin is only one of many suggestions 
which might be made, for a probable restoration of the words of 
the Tragedian. Besides the metrical enormities of the common 
reading, I have grave objections to the language. First, the repeti- 
tion of such words as ovx olda is highly suspicious; secondly, 
though ovx old 6 +e dys be a correct mode of speaking, as 
onuav & tt ys in v. 126. yet it hardly seems to reach the 
meaning of Iphigenia, who would rather have said ovx old & Ti 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 123 


Nerves, I don’t understand what you are talking about—i.e.. what 
you mean. But let us suppose that some annotator had written in 
the margin of his copy the anapestic dipodia ovx old 6 ri ors, 
as a parallel expression which he remembered in some other 
Tragedy, and a transcriber of that copy taking this to be the 
beginning of the verse, produced such a line as the following, 
ou old o te ys, oux olda, Pirrad’ [6 re A€ryers ov] pot, waTep. 
The person who undertook to reduce the line into what he con- 
ceived to be legitimate measure, would be very likely to cut out 
the words inclosed in brackets, and hence might be produced 
such a verse as that which holds its place in Euripides. In a 
case like the present, where there are no data for restoring the 
genuine text, I wish to be understood as speaking without the 
least confidence in my conjecture; it is merely intended to shew 
in what way the corruption of the text might have been occasioned. 
Hermann, on the contrary, fancies that he has reduced the verse 
into such a form as defies all exception on the score of correct 
diction or poetical usage. His text has it, 

ov olda a 0 Tt ys, PidtaT ovK old, w Tarep. 
But alas! this amended line is no more faultless than that which 
it supersedes. I admit that the Greeks frequently say oldo ve 
Sorts el, daTis HKets, Sorts A\Eeyers, &c.: but I am not yet 
satisfied that they could say olda ce 5 tt gys instead of olda 
5 Tt ov ns. In the next place, @ wdvep situated at the end 
of the verse after a long syllable, violates the practice of the 
Tragedians. See Elmsley's note on the Medea v. 326. 

v. 5638. ‘Acuvera vuy epovuev] This is found in most of the 
MSS. Aldus acuvera wéev y. Hermann aovvera vuv. But I 
doubt whether the enclitic yyy can properly be joined with a 
future verb. I have sometimes suspected that we ought to read 
ont instead of vuv. 

v. 564. “Hec verba, mama, TO ovyqv ov oOévw, aversus 
a filia dicit. Non enim eam audire vult.” Hermann. Instances 
of the article being used with an infinitive in cases like the present, 
where it is not required by the sense, are not unfrequent. Soph. 
Phil. 1241. ds ce xwAvce To dpgv. Ant. 1106. To dpav avarynn. 
El. 1080. Maxpos ro xpivat tavTa xw otros xpovos. 

v. 566. Oedw’ ro dé Oedew oux xen, adyuvona] The 
common reading is 9eAw ‘ye, To dé Oédewv, in which the particle 


124 NOTES ON THE 


‘ye seems to be used for ev, contrary to its nature, The reading 
which I have admitted into the text is that of Duport, or rather 
of Scaliger, except that he has vo © eOedev. Hermann gives 
Oérwv ye, TO Oedew ovKn exw aAryUvomat. 

v. 568. The reading of the editions was “AdXous oder ™poaev, 
d pe c1rod\ecavr exer. Porson’s emendation is mpoc0' ape, 
which I have admitted for two reasons: it restores the numbers 
of the verse, and gives its proper emphasis to the pronoun, which 
stands in opposition to adXous. Hermann thinks differently, and 
gives ex ingenio ad)ous oder moa, 1 ia me dtohécavt’ € EXEL. 

v. 571. [lov rovs pias Aeyovow wxicOa, watep;| The 
copies have wxyjoat. Porson reads wxiocOat, and adduces v. 615. 
and Hec.2. There seems to be no sufficient reason for Elmsley’s 
proposal, zrov vis. 

v. 572. Ov unmor otkerv wen oO [prdpou Hapes.] I can- 
not help suspecting that the Poet might have given it, ov uymoT 
wen’ o [piapou puvac Haprs. 

v. 5738. Maxpav y araipas, wo warep, \uwv ene. | This 
line is commonly read interrogatively, and without +. But most 
of the MSS. have paxpav yy’. Elmsley remarks that it is not a 
question. 

v. 574, Eis tavrov, w Ouyarep, ov 0 Hes om rarpi.] 
Such is the reading of all the copies; but it is palpably corrupt, 
and openly offends against the laws of the metre. Porson, in treating 
of his canon respecting the fifth foot of the Senarius, marshals 
this amongst the rebellious instances to be found in the Tragedians, 
and proposes to substitute for it the following line, ‘Q Ouryarep, 
yikes Kal ov Y els TAUTOV mwatpt, which Gaisford has admitted 
into the text. But the most devoted admirers of our great Critic 
must allow his alteration to be violent: I think it may easily be 
demonstrated to be erroneous. Wherever the phrase eis TavToV 
4xw occurs, those words will, I believe, be found to adhere closely 
together, and not to allow the interposition of any others ; see 
v. 1254. AArAa pry ets TavToV nee. Hec. 736. Orest. 1274. Electr. 
787. Secondly, ye is an unmeaning expletive. Thirdly, the force 
of the sentence is impaired by the omission of oq. However, the 
efforts of his rival Hermann have met with no better success. He 
produces Eis. ravrov qyets col, av 0 Axes op watTpi: which 
does not sound like a verse of ancient Tragedy, and will not bear 
examination. One thing only seems to be clear: the words of 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 125 


Euripides have been so roughly handled by copiers or correctors, 
who altered them to suit their own notions of the meaning and 
syntax of the verse, that it is impossible to recover them with 
certainty. I have suggested in the margin such a line as I think 
might have been found in the ancient copies: but I desire that it 
may not be considered as an emendation, to be introduced (as those 
of Porson and Hermann have been) into the text of the Poet. I 
make no pretence of having corrected the corrupt reading. The 
verse which I propound claims nothing more than this: It gives 
the sense of the passage, without offending against correct metre 
or diction, and without any violation of the practice of our Poet. 
I shall merely add that the words ov oy TwatTpi, which compose 
the two last feet, occupy a similar place in Hipp. 1162. 

v. 575. EO’ qv xadov epot cot 7, ayev Evurdou ene.] 
Instead of the common reading xaAcv pos I have written kadov 
€uot, which is indispensably required on account of got r with 
which it is coupled, as in v. 1340. Mev, ws euoi te cot Te 
kaAAcvy Tooe. The verse in Hermann’s text is, E70’ nv xadov 
pot gol yy ayew ovumAouy eué: which I am afraid that I do 
not perfectly comprehend. 

v. 576. “Er Eore kai cot rAovs, wa punoes Tar pos. | ‘This 
is a felicitous emendation by Porson (Suppl. Pref. Hee. p. 87.) 
for the common reading Atrets Ti; Kai coti—He compares Med. 
367. "Er eta’ arywves tots vewoTi vumdios. Hermann gives 
ANN ott Kai cot mAovs, which would be eligible, were not the 
correction of Porson much nearer to the letters found in the old 
copies, and therefore more likely to be the genuine reading. 

v. 577. Suv pntpi qwAevcac 5 7 LoOvy Topevcouat 3 Elmsley 
wishes to put a note of interrogation after wAevoag ; for which 
I see no reason: mwevoaca signifies having set sail. 

v. 579. “Haov pw’ és adda dwuar oiKiCets, TATED; ] ‘De 
owuara, &Xot Sopot, and the like, are terms frequently used in 
expressing the altered condition of a bride. Thus in v. 598. 
oTav GdAors donors [latéas mapadide woAXNa pox Picas Tarép. 
Instead of 77r0v most MSS, have ov zrov, and this is embraced by 
Hermann ; but that pie editor states a reason why he had better 
have chosen the other: “6 arou est expectantis affirmationem, ov Tov 
metuentis.” It may be observed that though Iphigenia, from feel- 
ings of virgin modesty, would not mentidn the word marriage, 
she was not quite ignorant of the cause for which her mother had 


126 NOTES ON. THE 


brought her to Aulis. This is clear from a comparison of wv. 527. 
528. Respecting 7 7ov Elmsley (on Heracl. 56.) observes, “ Inter- 
rogative, necne, accipiantur particule 7 ov parum aut nihil refert. 
Anglice verto, I suppose.” He cites many passages of our author 
in which they occur, not forgetting the present. 

v. 580. The common text follows the Aldine, éa ye 7° ov 
xp? Tot Tad eitdevat kopas. but in the majority of MSS. 7 
is omitted. It is very difficult for an Editor to correct the faults 
of this verse in such a manner as to satisfy himself. Euripides 
might have written either €a or €agov, either Trotade or Tade. 
My correction I give, not without hesitation, as that which upon 
the whole appears the best, Eacov’ ovo: xpn Tad eidevar Kdpas. 
€agov is proposed by Blomfield, ov Tor xen by myself. Matthie has 
a ye TavT ov xpH Tad ci. x. Hermann, €a ye T° ov x7 
Toad et. x. but ‘ye thus used with the imperative would be a 
mere expletive, and ‘ye Te are never joined in Attic Greek. 

v. 588. ‘Adda Evy iepois xn To ry’ evceBes oxove.v| The 
editions have 700 evo. One Paris MS. has To y. The meaning 
of Iphigenia appears to be, tn re divina haruspices, non me, consulas. 

v. 584. Vulgo earntn. (cornte Par. A.) Elmsley suggests 
that the proper reading is eoryjes, and he is unquestionably right. 
cence is the form of the future of the verb ¢aTxw, in Aristoph. 
Lys. 634. 

v. 586. Zydw oe pwadrrov 4 ‘we TOU pnoev dpoveww| The 
game syntax is found in Soph. El. ZyAw ce tov vov. Sophocles 
expresses a similar sentiment more fully in Aj. 552. Kai rar ce 
Kai voy TOUTO ‘ye Cndouv EX, “O08 ovvex’ ovdeyv Tavd erat- 
cOave Kakwv. 

v. 587. Xwper de ueadOpwv evros, oPOjvat kopas}] Brodseus 
explains this by adding, “non, ut hic, a viris et exercitu.” 

v. 588. mixpov dirnua covca dektav te pot| Vulgo dektav 
+ «uot, which Matthie corrects. In v. 586. most editions have 
the opposite error, Cn oe, and 7 mE, although Aldus is correct 
in giving 7 Me. : 

v. 590. "Q oreépva, xai mapnoes, w EavOat xoua] The old 
editions have wapnices, which Barnes corrected. 

v. 591. ‘Os ayOos nuiv eyeved 4 Dpvyav wort] Instead of 
nyty Musgrave wished to read U{LiVs i. ee oTepva Kat Taphoes 
kai xouat. I should not have thought of mentioning this conceit, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 127 


had it not met with the applause of Hermann, and been by him 
introduced into the text. 

v. 594. o¢ oe mapatTouuat tace, Anoas ryeveOrov, et 
katwxticOny ayav] Suidas explains wapatreicOa by cuyyvo- 
unv aitecvy. Markland entertained a notion of placing a comma after 
wap. and making the order of the words, et xaTwxtioOnv Tadc. 
This appears to be a most awkward inversion of the sentence: it 
has however found an approver and follower in Hermann. I can 
see no objection to the construction of wapa:rovua ae Trace, 
i,e. an accusative of the person and an accusative of the thing. 

_v. 600. Commonly zreicec@as dé we. The correction is Mat- 
thie’s. In the following line, Kavrnv doxec rad, (@ore un oe 
vovJerecv) all editions have ay ce. I consider that some emphasis 
on this pronoun is necessary. 

v. 608. ‘AAX’ o vopos avTa Te Xpove Eunoyaver] Aldus 
cuvicxavet. The MSS. cuvavicyerat. Musgrave gives cuvioyva- 
vet. Gaisford restored the Aldine. But Matthie is correct in 
writing ouvoyxavet. Porson (on Orest. 292.) expresses his belief 
that the form icyaivw was preferred by the Attics, as being more 
agreeable to the ear than toxvaivw. Hermann however agrees with 
the Quarterly Reviewer Vol. 111. p. 393. in preferring guvayvaver, 

vy. 604. Tovvoua uev ovv mato old oTw KaTnvecas | Porson 
(on Orest. 1090) is of opinion that the verb xaraweiv is used 
only in speaking of the father or guardian of the bride, who was 
termed o xuptos, alleging the present verse, and comparing v. 612 
of this Play, Zeus nyyunoe, Kat dtows 0 KUptos. 

v. 605. Vévous dé roiov, xwrrober, waQery Oédw] Porson 
writes ‘yévous 0 omoiov. If any change were to be made, I should 
prefer cai zroQev: but it is not necessary. 

v. 606. Atywa Ouyarnp eyéver ‘Acwro maTpos| Aldus 
eryetvar, which Canter corrects. 

v. 607. Commonly eCeuke Tits; but it evidently should be 
ecevte vis; and thus, according to the statement of Matthie, it was 
corrected by Lenting. 

v. 608. Brodeus and subsequent commentators refer to Schol. 
ad Hom. Il. B. 562. Ot + Exov Atywav, vycov mpo Tis Atria’ 
exaXetTo o¢ 1 poTepov Oivevn, dorepov de Alywa, azo Avryivys, 
wns ‘Acwrov mev Ovyatpos, Aiaxov de “NT pos. ‘See Pindar 
Isthm. v. 44. ‘AA ev Owwve meryaAnTopes opryai Aiaxov 
mwaiowy Te. 


126 NOTES ON. THE. 


brought her to Aulis. This is clear from a comparison of vv. 527. 
528. Respecting 4 tov Elmsley (on Heracl. 56.) observes, “ Inter- 
rogative, necne, accipiantur particule 9 Tov parum aut nihil refert. 
Anglice verto, I suppose.” He cites many passages of our author 
in which they occur, not forgetting the present. 

v. 580. The common text follows the Aldine, ea ye 7° ov 
xXpN Tot Tad eidevat Kopas. but in the majority of MSS. + 
is omitted. It is very difficult for an Editor to correct the faults 
of this verse in such a manner as to satisfy himself. Euripides 
might have written either €a or €agov, either Toace or Tade. 
My correction I give, not without hesitation, as that which upon 
the whole appears the best, éagov’ ovrot ypy Tad eidevar Kopas. 
€acov is proposed by Blomfield, ovra xen by myself. Matthiz has 
€a ye TavT* ov xpH Tad éi. x. Hermann, a ye T° ov xp7 
rotad et. Kk. but ‘ye thus used with the imperative would be a 
mere expletive, and ‘ye te are never joined in Attic Greek. 

v. 588. ‘AdAa Evy iepois yp7 TO ry’ evceBes cxoweiv] The 
editions have 700 eva. One Paris MS. has Td y- The meaning 
of Iphigenia appears to be, tn re divina haruspices, non me, consulas. 

v. 584. Vulgo earntn. (ecornte Par. A.) Elmsley suggests 
that the proper reading is eoryfess, and he is unquestionably right. 
omnes is the form of the future of the verb eoTxw, in Aristoph. 
Lys. 634. 

vy. 586. ZndA\w oé paddrAov m7 ME TOV fnodev Ppovewv] The 
same syntax is found in Soph. El. ZyAw ce tov vov. Sophocles 
expresses a similar sentiment more fully in Aj. 552. Kai ro: oe 
Kal voy TovTo ye Cydouv exw, “OO obvex’ ovdev Tavd érat- 
cOaves Kak. 

v. 587. Xwpee d€ eAGOpwy evros, oPOjvat kopats] Brodeus 
explains this by adding, “non, ut hic, a viris et exercitu.” 

v. 588. mixpov Pidnua dovca sektay re por] Vulgo dekeav 
+ e@uot, which Matthie corrects. In v. 586. most editions have 
the opposite error, Cndo ce, and 7 ME, although Aldus is correct 
in giving 7 Me. 

v. 590. ‘Q orépva, kai mapydes, © EavOai xouat] The old 
editions have wapnices, which Barnes corrected. 

v. 591. ‘Os ayOos nuiv eyeve’ 4 Dpvyav rods] Instead of 
nuiv Musgrave wished to read vuiv; i. e. oTEpva Kal Taphoes 
cat xouat. I should not have thought of mentioning this conceit, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 127 


had it not met with the applause of Hermann, and been by him 
introduced into the text. 

v. 594. oe oe waparrovuuat race, Anoas ryeveOrXor, et 
Katw@xricOny ayav] Suidas explains wapartercOat by ouyyve- 
unv aitecv. Markland entertained a notion of placing a comma after 
wap. and making the order of the words, et xatwkticOnv Tads. 
This appears to be a most awkward inversion of the sentence: it 
has however found an approver and follower in Hermann. I can 
see no objection to the construction of waparrovmat o€ TAC, 
i.e. an accusative of the person and an accusative of the thing. 

_yv. 600. Commonly zeicec@ar dé ye. The correction is Mat- 
thie’s. In the following line, Kavryv doxee tad, (@rre un oe 
vovGereiv) all editions have a7 ce. I consider that some emphasis 
on this pronoun is necessary. 

v. 603. ‘AAN’ O vouos avTa TH Ypovw Evnoyaver}] Aldus 
ouvir xavet. The MSS. cuvavioxerat. Musgrave gives ounoyva- 
vet. Gaisford restored the Aldine. But Matthie is correct in 
writing ouvoyxaver. Porson (on Orest. 292.) expresses his belief 
that the form toyaivw was preferred by the Attics, as being more 
agreeable to the ear than toxvaivw. Hermann however agrees with 
the Quarterly Reviewer Vol. 111. p. 393. in preferring ouvisXvaver. 

v. 604. Tovvoua pév ov raid of0 orp Katnvecas] Porson 
(on Orest. 1090) is of opinion that the verb xaTawveiv is used 
only in speaking of the father or guardian of the bride, who was 
termed o xuptos, alleging the present verse, and comparing v. 612 
of this Play, Zeus nryyunoe, xai didwo’ 0 KUptos. 

v. 605. Tévous dé oiov, xwro0ev, waberv OédAw] Porson 
writes ‘yevous 0 omoiov. If any change were to be made, I should 
prefer xai 7roev: but it is not necessary. 

v. 606. Alyiwa Ouyarnp eyéever ‘Acwiroi Tar pos | Aldus 
eryetvat , which Canter corrects. 

v. 607. Commonly eCevéé tis; but it evidently should be 
eCeute vis; and thus, according to the statement of Matthie, it was 
corrected by Lenting. 

v. 608. Brodeus and subsequent commentators refer to Schol. 
ad Hom. Il. B. 562. Ot + Exov Aiywav, vycov apo ris ‘Arrins® 
exaXerro oe qr poTepov Oivwvn, JoTepov e Alywa, azo Avyivys, 
vis ‘Acwrov pev Ovyarpes, Aiaxov dé pytpos. See Pindar 
Isthm. v. 44. ‘AN’ ev Owe meryaAnTopes opryat Alaxov 
maiowy Te. 


128 NOTES ON THE 


v. 609. Tov od Ataxot wats Tis KaTéoxe dwuara;| Elmsley 
tells us that we ought to write ra 0 Aiaxov, and Matthie approves 
the injunction. With all deference to such authority, I hold the 
received text to be right. Eacus, being now named for the second — 
time, is as much entitled to have his article, as his son Peleus is in 
the next line, [ImAevs’ o [Indevs 3 eave Napews Kopp. 

v. 611. OQeov ddovros, 7 Bia Oewv AaBwv;] In these words 
there is no variation among the ancient copies; but to modern 
scholars Dewy has given great offence. Markland wishes to substi- 
tute for it, Qeov. Porson writes the following note in his copy of 
Markland: Qeov legendum. Qewv est absurdum, Oeov tautologum. 
Both these great scholars have here spoken hastily ; nor is Elmsley 
more successful when he proposes, Tivos cuovTos; No alteration 
is necessary, the sense of the line being Dediine pater Deus? an 
Diis invitis homo duxit deam? The reader may, if he pleases, 
place a mark of interrogation after StOovTos 3 

v.613. Taper dé mov wv; 4 kar oldua movriov;] It is 
commonly read 7 kat oidua wovtTiov; whence Elmsley reads 
qov ‘yns; see his note on Soph. CEd. Col. 66. and 1623. Barnes 
properly gives 7, but without apprising the reader of the change, 
and he is followed by recent editors. ‘Gravior questio est, et 
mirantis si factum est quod non credibile videatur.” Hermann. 

v.614. Aldus IlyAetov, which is corrected by Canter. 


v.615. ««ioOa is the emendation of Porson, in place of the 
common lection, oime:oOar. See v. 571. 

v. 616. &daicav ryapous. The same phrase occurs in vv. 122. 
629. of this Tragedy. 

v. 618. Xelpwv, wv 740n un pabor xaxav Bpotov| Vulgo 
uaOn. Musgrave properly gives ~aQo:, on account of the past 
tense EOpevev. 

v. 619. Dev. codos O o Operas, yw diors copwrepos | 
chev, extra metrum, is here an expression of admiration and applause, 
as in v.879. I have written coos 0’, instead of the common reading 
aodes yy. The latter particle can have no force in this line. 

v. 624. Vulgo Keivp pernoet tavta, Tio KexTnuevy. Her- 
mann gives, as an emendation, xeivyv, and is perhaps right in so 
doing. 

v. 625. Ald. evtuyelryy. The error was corrected by Portus. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 129 


v. 627. Tporedea & non wares eadatas Gea; } Respecting 
mporedela, see the note on v. 856, and compare v. 1008. @ed is 
Diana, not, as Barnes rmagines, Juno. 

v. 628. Meéddw, ‘xi ravTn Kat kabeorapev Toxn] This 
is a correction by Heath, for ‘pedro y emt TavTn. We are 
indebted to the Aldine for the intrusive -y, which is not found 
in the manuscripts. 

v. 630. All the copies present Qucas ye Oupal’ amep wu 
eXpnv Oucat Oeois. This line being obviously faulty, Porson 
proposed as corrections, either ape Xpnv, or ‘ame Xp%- The first 
of these is adopted in the text by Gaisford and approved by 
Elmsley on Bacch. 824. As far as the rejection of wep, I agree 
with those great authorities ; it was inserted by some one who found 
in the copy @ ae xXpnv, and thought that the verse might be scanned 
by the admission of an anapest. Still I do not think that the Por- 
sonian reading can be the true one; nor yet that of Matthie, who 
rejects the pronoun altogether and writes rep expyv. In fact, 
neither the emphatic pronoun ¢ué, nor the imperfect expyy or 
xXpnv suits the sense of the line. The latter point was, I think, 
perceived by Porson, when he proposed his second emendation 
‘ame xpn. But the sense requires dpe XPn and. nothing more. 
My own idea therefore is this: xen and xpewy (sub. eart) are 
used indifferently, and the change of ypewv into yoy in the old 
copies, is one of easy occurrence. I have therefore restored 
Qucas ye OBuual’, a me xpewy Ovoa Oeois., Another mode of 
correction occurred to Faehse, @ucas ‘ye 05° Smep, and this is 
‘adopted by Hermann, who forgets to mention that Faehse has the 
priority in this emendation. 

v. 638. Kadros ¥y, avayKxaiws Te ouveveryKat o ops | 
Aldus xadws 0, but two Paris and two Flor. MSS. omit the particle. 
Some agree with Heath in correcting xaxws for xadws. But 
xaXos with ‘ye frequently serves to express irony. I have there- 
fore preferred kadws ‘ye. ‘This answer expresses the mind of 
Clytemnestra. Markland renders cuvevéryxat 0 Suws, prosit tamen. 
The words of Agamemnon which follow make me suspect the 
true reading to be ouverery Kai. 

v. 634. Olo® ovv 6 dpacov, w& -yuvar;] Examples of this 
Atticism are collected by Elmsley on Soph. CEd. T. 543. to which 
I think we may add Iph. T. 766. ‘ANA’ olo6’ o- dpdow; read 

17 


2 


130 NOTES ON THE 


dpdcov,; and see Bentley on Menand. p. 107. Koen on Greg. 
Cor. p. 7. Porson on Hec. 225. Hermann on Viger. n. 1438. Koen 
compares the words of Plautus, Tange, sed scin’ quomodo ? 

v. 635. Ti xpnua; weibecOa yap eiOiopac céQev|] So 
Aldus and the other editors. Four or more of the MSS. have 
e(Oic% ex oeOev, which Markland has adopted. But since a diph- 
thong cannot be cut off, Porson pronounces the true reading to be 
etOtcar ‘x oé@ev, and compares Soph. El. 409. 'Ex tov pirtwy 
mewoMeroa; but I doubt whether such a crasis or ecthlipsis was 
admissible in Tragedy: besides, it does not seem clear that this 
would be a proper answer to the words of Agamemnon, mOov dé 
pot. I cannot therefore acquiesce in the reading of Porson. Mat- 
thie in Gram. Gr. 840 contends that meiOecOai twos may be used 
for weiQec@ai +i, and Hermann agrees with him; but. this has 
not been proved by examples from Attic writers. It seems to me 
that this line is so corrupted, that it is hopeless to recover with any 
certainty the words of Euripides. To say the truth, I believe that 
aweiOecOa yap ¢t@icuat was an interlineal interpretation, which 
happened by accident to square with the metre, and was thence 
admitted into the text, from which it expelled the words of the 
poet. About the meaning there is no doubt; but what were the 
exact words, in which Clytemnestra expressed her mind, the reader 
must be left to surmise. Let us, for instance, suppose that there 
was found in the ancient copies such a verse as that which I have 
interlined, Ti Xp 3 erelaoOnv xat 1apos Aoryors ceOev: an in- 
terpreter might have written over them, as an explanation, m:Oéa0a 
yap el@:cpat, which being taken as a various reading, would, with 
a very slight change, have formed the verse in the text. 

v. 637. Mrrpos Ti ywpis dpaceO’, wv pe dpqv Xpewv ;} 
Commonly. wytpos t+: I have edited ti with Matthie and Her- 
mann. Then, Aldus and other Editors give ‘ay we. But av cannot 
possibly be tolerated in this sentence. Markland pronounced that 
we ought to read ape, and he has been followed by recent 
Editors. I think however that the true reading is that of Reiske, 
wy pe Spay Xpewy i ; It happens frequently that ‘dv has crept in 
instead of wv, in similar cases, owing to this construction not having 
been understood. 

- vy. 639. “Hpas de zou xen TNVIKAUTA Turyxavew 5] Here 
we have a clear and indisputable instance of Tuyyavw used without 
wy, or any other participle, simply for elvat, which Porson (on Hee, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 131 


782) maintains not to have been allowable. We know however 
on the authority of Dobree (Aristoph. Addend. p. 144.) that he 
afterwards changed his opinion as far as the Tragedians were 
concerned. Compare Hec. 957. "Ev TOE OTHE TUyXavouT', 
tv’ eit vuv. Soph. Aj. 9. ” Evdoy yap ‘avip aprt Tuyxavet, 
xapa =raCwy ipwre. El. 318. viv 0 aypooe tuyxaver. 

v. 641. Tis 0 avacyncer proya ;| This castom is touched 
upon by our writer, Pheen. 354. eyo d ovre cot Tupes avn\a 
dws Nopimov ev yauors, ‘Qs m permet par pt maxapig. Med. 
1022. lpi Aer pa Kal yuvatka Kal ryaundtous Evvas arynAat, 
Raptracas 7 avacxe0ewv. 


v. 643. The common reading was, Ovx 6 vomos ovTos, Kat 
av o€ aun nyn rade. But, in the first place, an anapest 
cannot be borne in the fourth foot, and, secondly, kai o¢ cannot 
be properly used in such sequence. Heath and Valckenaer (on 
Phoen. 346) read xai ov pair, and Matthie follows them, but 
I fear contrary to the meaning of the writer. Musgrave’s emenda- 
tion is better, xav ov pair nyn Tace. But two Paris and two 
Florence MSS. omit «ai. Elmsley conjectures av de Ti avr 

nyet Tade; The reading of my text is that which has been 

already published by Hermann, and seems more suitable to the 
sense, 4 av par nryet race; Num tu existimas hac levia esse 
et nullius momenti? 

v. 645. Kadov rexovcav raya ry’ excovvas Trexva] Mark- 
land’s correction, Tana for Tana Y » is not only useless but in- 
jurious. The force of Tapa yy is, my own children at any rate. 


v. 649. The old editions have "EXOwv de rakw mpacae, Tav 
domots 0 ery, “A xpn japetvat vunioce mapBevas. For ehOwv 
dé Markland-reads EOwv ov, while most of the MSS. have e\Owv 
ye. Since ye and ov are frequently found to change places, I 
have adopted the latter, which has met with the approbation of 
Matthie and Hermann. The line which follows, (a XPNs &e.) I 
have expunged from the text, as being the production, not of the 
Poet, but the interpolator; and I venture to anticipate that. my 
so doing will be sanctioned by the concurrence of scholars versed 
in the Tragic dialogue. The interpolator, besides his general pro~ 
pensity to explain and dilate, seems to have thought the departure 
of Clytemnestra from the stage too abrupt. But this was the very 
thing which Euripides designed. It is surprising that the Editors 


132 NOTES ON THE 


should have patiently endured the expression vyudiowws rapOevais, 
as it is quite certain that the Poet could not have used that term 
to express virginibus nubentibus. The fact is, that it was borrowed 
(agreeably to the practice of this forger of verses) from v. 642. 
There, however, vuudiots properly expresses sponso et sponse. 
Hermann has a notion of reading vuudioor wapOevev, and ex- 
plaining it nuptits virginum. But neither would this be Euripi- 
dean. If any such sentence had been required, the verb in the pre- 
ceding line ought to have been evtpemie, aut tale aliquid, rather 
than 7pacoe. As soon as this verse is cut out, the mind and 
spirit of the queen are perfectly expressed, Go you, and attend to 
matters abroad, while I pursue the domestic duties of a wife. 

v. 650. The translations of this play continue to render natn 
nt » frustra vent; although Barnes declared, nearly a century and 
a half ago, that nea was the aorist from algow, conor, aggredior. 
After v. 654, I have expunged three more lines, for doing which. I 
think the lovers of Euripides will feel obliged to me. Although the 
editors are generally silent respecting them, yet I apprehend that 
hardly any reader of the Tragedy can have failed to be offended 
at their intrusion. Not to dwell upon their being both flat and 
useless, it seems improbable that Agamemnon should introduce 
such matters, at the moment when his mind was occupied with 
his own miscarriage, and the unmanageable temper of his wife. 
Hermann has taken in shand the second of these lines, and corrected 

it thus, To rijs cos pev Pidrov, enol 8’ ovk eUTUXES- But this 
leaves an expression which seems very bad Greek, to ts Qeov 
dirov, the pleasure of the goddess. eftactopyowy eluc is translated 
deprecaturus eo; but, it would be interrogaturus tbo. I do not re- 
member to have met with that future in any other place. 

v. 654. Xpr oe Sopouswy avdpa Tov codoy tpedew 
Tuvaixa ypnornv xaryaOyv, 7 pn tpepew] Hermann pro- 
nounces this remark to be absurd; but thinks that all would be 
right, if it were written in an inverted order, y MN Tpedew 
eyuvaika, ) xpnoTynv KaryaOny Tpeew. This stricture contains 
more subtlety than truth; it comes to the same thing in effect, 
whichever of the two conditions has the precedence. Neither is 
there any occasion for his alteration, 1 &y ‘yape.v, since the same 
thing is implied by 7 uy tpedew -yuvaixa. 

: v..657. Ion. 95. Tas ‘Kacradtas apryupoedets Batvere 
tvas. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 133 


v. 658. “Aryupis ‘EAAdvww orparias] Fhis line corresponds 
with the antistrophic, Tpwes, dray yadxaoms “Apys, although 
it begins with a short syllable. This is perfectly consistent with 
the laws of the Glyconeus Polysch. and there is no necessity for 
Markland’s inversion of the words, or for Gaisford’s writing 
dyupis with the article. There is the same licence in the verse 
following, a8 well as in all the regular choruses of this Tragedy. 

v. 659. vavowv vulgo; but most MSS. have vauol. 


v. 662. av Kaccavopav. Matthie’ wishes tav to be ex- 
punged for the sake of the measure, while in fact it is necessary for 
the measure. He has also rejected the preposition in v. 673, which 
one MS. omits by accident. All the editions had Kaocavepay, 
till Gaisford gave it with a single o, it being so written in one or 
two MSS. and that being the ordinary way of spelling the name 
in the editions of the Tragedies. But I cannot perceive any reason 
why the orthography found in Homer and other Poets should be 
changed, and therefore agree with Hermann that Kacodvdpav 
ought to be restored. 

v. 663. Elmsley (on Heracl. 149.) places a comma after pir- 
Tew, that it may stand for plarreww EauTny, as in Cycl. 165. Pear 
T és adunyv. But the construction of pirrew EavOovs moKapous 
seems to me more natural, and more suitable te this passage. Com- 
pare Bacch. 150. Tpugepov mdoxapov ets aidepa pirrov. | 

v. 666. Instead of savrocuvot, the old editions have wavTo- — 
cuvot, but this seems to have originated with the Aldine compo- 
sitor: the MSS. have it not. 


v. 670. evTropoict mAaras Aldus. But all the MSS. evrpw- 
pots or evmrpwpoiot, which Musgrave restored to the text, quoting 
v. 632. GUT PUMVOLT LW “Apryeiov TrATUIS. 

v. 672. Orest. 799. Tlapa 2cuouvriors OXETOLS. 


v. 673. Tav rev ev aibep dicawv Atooxovpwv “EXevav] The 
reader will here notice the rather uncommon ellipsis of aceAgyy- 
See Wesseling on Diod. 1. p. 312. He ‘cites Act. Apost. 1. 13. 
"laxwGos ‘AXgaiov, and Alciphron ii. 2. Tiuoxpatys o Myrpo- 
dwpov, in both which places we must understand aded os. 

v: 678. Tlepryapov dé, Ppuywv woAw] I hope that no reader 
will be offended at my having ventured to place €puua in the neigh- 
bourhood of the text. This line, to say the least, sounds strangely, 


134 NOTES ON THE 


and one would have expected “Idsov dé, Dpyvywv wodw, rather 
than Ilépyapuov, the citadel of Troy.. There must be something 
wrong in the passage, unless we can feel satisfied with finding 
KuxAwoas moAw and qépoas mow so close together. On the 
other hand Dpuywv Epuyua might be used with the greatest 
propriety, as pupa Avoias in Bacch. 55, or é puna Tpwwr, Soph. 
Aj. 467. I will frankly acknowledge that the appearance of the word 
pupa in all the copies in v. 698. where it is an unmeaning in- 
truder, has made me wish that it could change its position to the 
first line. I think that the reader of Euripides would rejoice if 
some old copy were discovered, in which the lines of the chorus 
were found written xtovyoov, in columns, (a common practice in 
MSS.) so that the two lines 678 and 693 met together in the fol- 
lowing manner, 7 

Tlépyapnov Sé Ppuyav Epuma daxpuvcey Tavvcas rarpicos 
In this case, a transcriber might by mistake attach the last word 
of one line to the beginning of the other. If we imagine such an 
accident as this to have happened, there can hardly be a doubt 
but that a subsequent corrector of the text would fill up the chasm 
in the first line so as to produce a common Glyconean, and thus 
we may account for the word 7roAw, which we should be glad to 
discard: there are instances of Glyconeans having the last syllable 
resolved in vv. 176. 498. 693. 955. 

_v. 680. All the copies give xuxAwaas "Ape: dowiw. Various 
are the attempts which have been made at emendation: but as “Ape 
is palpably corrupt (since no writer could say “Apys xuxAwoas “Apet) 
I have adopted the correction of Hermann, dopi, which is rendered 
extremely probable by the Ionic form of dotviw, which seems to 
prove that the preceding word must have consisted of two short syl- 
lables. The reader will notice in this passage an instance of partici- 
ples following one another without a conjunction, cuxAwoas, oracas, 
Tépoas, a mode of construction frequent in the Greek writers. 
See vv. 79.707. These participles all refer to “Apys in v. 669. 


v- 681. Aatuorouous xePadas amacas| The old editions have 
Aaiunrouous. It is corrected by Markland from the MSS. How- 
ever, Hermann has brought back the other, which I do not remember 
to be elsewhere used by the Tragedians. a:morouos has a passive 
sense in Hec. 207. Ion. 1054. There exists a different form, Aatpo- 
THNHTOS, in Pheen. 465. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 135 


v. 682. All the editions and MSS. have woAtoua Tpoias Teép- 
gas katakpas woXw. I have expunged woApa Tpoias, as being 
an interpretation of what follows, which has crept into the text. 
wepOew or aipety mow KaTakpas means, urbem et ipsam acro- 
polin vastare. 

v. 683. Instead of mroA\vxAauTous the MSS. have zroAuKAau- 
otous, which Markland has adopted. In the following verse, the 
insertion of tav is demanded on account of the measure. The 
three verses which follow have displeased almost all the critics ; but 
I am surprised that none of them have hitherto perceived that they 
are a forgery; ‘A de Acos ‘EXeva Kopa rodvkAavtos éoeira 
Tloow 1 poATouca. The motive of the Interpolator for intruding 
them, seems to have been, that the allusion to Helen which ensues 
might not be too abrupt. But it is absurdly opposed to the sense of 
the passage that the Chorus should express pity for Helen; and the 
stiling her Acos xopa is a proof of the forgery, since in this 
very epode they intimate incredulity with regard to her fabled 
parentage. These three lines cannot by any contrivance be reduced 
to the metre which prevails in the rest of the chorus. Besides, the 
word zroAvkAauTos is borrowed by the Interpolator, according to 
his practice, from a neighbouring line ; and evetrat for Eorat is 
an open violation of the dialect. 

v. 687. eAmis, expectation, is here taken tn malam partem, as is 
frequently the case with éAmi{w. Ion. 348. Onpas ode tov dvc- 
Tnvov edmriCet KTQVELV. 

v. 688. at wodvypucot Avéai kai Ppuywv adoxor] Hec. 490. 
Twv ToAvypvcwy Douvywv. Nicolaus Comicus Stob. xiv. p. 149. 
6 Avddv trav wodvypvcwy avak. This is cited by Elmsley on 
Bacch. 18. 

v. 690. For ornoovet, the reading of all the copies, Tyrwhitt 
proposes ox7oovc1, an unfortunate conjecture. Musgrave com- 
pares Soph. CEd. T. 699. unvuiv — ornoas eXels. I have intro- 
‘duced the Doric form oTagovot. 

v. 691. Mu@evcat: rad es adAndas| For puOevoa, Mat- 
thie has given uuvQevovca. I concur with Hermann in thinking 
that the common reading is to be retained, as being an Jonic form, 
like vuvevoa, Med. 423. avtrevy, Hipp. 167. It comes from 
the verb uvOéw, which is acknowledged by Photius in v. uv0y- 
cas* eixwv. It is also more agreeable to the metre than uuvOev- 
ovat. 


136 NOTES ON THE 


v. 692. The editions give the next three lines as follows, 

Tis apa i evTrAOKamous Kopas 

é pupa daxpucevT axovoas 

Tat ptoos ovAomevas amro\wTtel. 
It would be tedious to narrate all the conjectures to which this 
passage has given rise. But in the second line, which is palpably 
corrupt, some copies have daxpvoevt avucas, and two Paris MSS. 
have distinctly dak puoev Tavucas: there can therefore be little or 
no doubt that this is the reading to be adopted: but then we en- 
counter great difficulty in explaining pupa. I have in a preceding 
verse, 678, declared my opinion that the word has no business in 
this line. As soon as it is taken out, the sentence will be un- 
ravelled. Hermann’s substitution of puua, tractus, does not remove, 
but merely changes the difficilty. daxpvoev seems to be used ad- 
verbially, inter lacrymas, as in Hom. Il. Z. 484. daxpuoev syeAa- 
caca. The expression azoAwTe: may be compared with the Sup- 
plices of our Poet, 491. KatrodwT tCat veous. Instead of ovAomevas, 
which is the Homeric form, I have written oAouevas, and I think 
that the same should be done in Iph. T. 1108. rupywv ovAouevewy 
Matthie and Hermann adopt oAAvuevas from Erfurdt. 

v. 695. Ara oe, Tdv Kvkvou dodtyavxevos Exyovov;] All the 
editions and MSS. have ‘yovoy, but I do not recollect any place 
in which ‘yovos is used for a daughter, except Orest. 1036, where 
Electra says, Du vu mw, ade ge, pn TIS " Apryetwv Krav, 
"Y Bpiopa Oeuevos Tov ‘A-yauemvovos ryovor : and there the Scho- 
liast has preserved a various lection, douov, which Porson and other 
editors have neglected to mention. Nor indeed would ‘yovoy suit 
the metre in our verse: I have therefore written éxyovov. The line 
is asynartete, consisting of a Trochaic dipodia and three dactyls. I 
have placed a note of interrogation after this line, though perhaps 
it might with more propriety be reserved for the end of the Epode: 
but the sentence runs into so many different topics, that before 
we have reached the end, its interrogative character is apt to be 
forgotten. It is commonly written dra ce. 

v. 696. Aldus, and other old Editors have, 

et O7 gars ETULOS, 

ws ETUYXeE Ano opuO inraperw, 
Atos bt addayOn dSéuas, 

eit ev ceATOUS Iliepion, «. 7. X. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 137 


Nor do the MSS. differ, except that the two Parisian have Eruyev 
Anoa. Markland observes that we ought to read opuiO TTAapevy. 
Porson (on Med. 1) says that irrayuae in the present was unknown 
to the Attics. In other points the critics have not been successful. 
For ws eTUYE Musgrave wished to read woo eTeKEe, in which 
Elmsley and Hermann concur. But it could hardly be said that Leda 
was reported to have given birth to Helen at the ttme when Jupiter 
was transformed into a swan. In the next place, the last vowel of 
Anoa can neither be cut off, nor can it be left open before opviOe. 
In order to remedy the defect, Scaliger (on Catull. p. 51. ed. 1607.) 
proposed to insert putyeio’ Opy., and Porson mixQeia. I do not 
like either of these words; but still there is an evident hiatus in the 
verse, and something seems to be required to suit the sense. Be- 
sides, one of the Paris MSS. which I have collated, presents the 
passage thus, érvyev Anda opud’ imranevy, leaving an 
interval suited to a word of two syllables. It seems therefore not 
improbable that the participle AaQeto once stood in the text. It 
occurs in a similar usage in Andr. 25. [INaeio’ ‘AytdAews mrasdi, 
deomorn © eEutp, as well as elsewhere in our Author. In what fol- 
lows, I have restored the augment of mr\axOn, and have given 
d€X Tots! Iltepicww on account of the metre. Hermann writes 
éTHTUMOS for ETUu“OS, and expunges the word Anéa altogether. 
He says that the former is required by the metre; but on this head 
I must be allowed to differ from him: the verse et 07 paris 
€rupos ws, which may be called Glyconeus acephalus, occurs not - 
unfrequently in this play and in other parts of Euripides. 

v. 702. a@Adws is applied in a similar way in Hipp. 197. Mu- 
Gos 0° aAAwS epouecba. Hec. 487. 

v. 703. Ilov rev Axaiwy evOaod o oTpatnvaTns 3] The 
common arrangement of the words would be Twv evOace Axatov. 


v. 706. Ov é&& tcov yap mévonevy Evpizov méAas| médas 
is an emendation in the margin of Barnes’ text, for wvAas. This 
is a very simple and, I think, satisfactory way of removing an un- 
questionable fault. The meaning is, We, who compose the army 
now halting near the Euripus, are not all under the same circum- 
stances. Achilles then proceeds to explain what is the dissimilarity 
to which he alludes. Professor Hermann however, has taken a very 
different view of the passage. He observes that v. 715, as it stands 
in the manuscripts, concludes with Evpimov avoais, and accord- 

18 


138 - NOTES ON THE 


ingly propounds the following hypothesis: that the Poet gave at the 
end of 706, Evpiaov mvoas; and at the end of 715, Evupizou 
avAas: but that a transcriber, suffering his eye to wander from 
the final word of one of these lines to that of the other, reversed 
the places of the substantives; and at the same time committed a 
secondary error by writing auAas and mvoais instead of wuAais 
and mvoas. Acting upon this theory, Hermann prints the line thus, 
Our ef icou rydp pevomev Evptzrov avoas; For are we not all 
tn the same condtiton, matting for the winds which are to carry us out 
of the Euripus? This conjecture is truly ingenious and acute: but 
whether it be entitled to any degree of confidence, the reader must 
determine. I confess that to my mind it does not carry conviction, 
but rather seems a needless attempt to tamper with a plain and un- 
suspected passage. 

v.709. Oacaovo em axtais' o: 0 exovTes evuioas Kai 
qaicas| The copies have éw axrds, which Markland alters to 
€7 axtats, tn littore, as in Hec. 36. where the same words 
0. ¢.a. occur. Then, xai matcas is the reading of Musgrave 
for the common one @zraides. Both these corrections seem to be 
indispensable ; they are adopted by Hermann, but not by Matthie. 

v. 710. obTw dewos eumemtwx eépws Tyode orpareias 
‘EAAad’, ov avev Oewv] All the authorities have ‘EAAdo&: y 
with an anapeest in the fourth foot. Porson (Suppl. Pref. Hec. p. 22.) 
corrects it by the erasure of the -y, adding, “ Neque de elisione in 
"EAA ads, quanquam paullo rartor est, timendum.” The same emend- 
ation had been made by Scaliger. Elmsley however questions the 
legitimacy of an elision in the dative singular, and alters nine lines 
of the Tragedies in which it occurs. Had the entire plays of 
Eschylus, Sophocles and Euripides survived, he would, perhaps, 
have had ten times as many instances of the same elision, on which 
to exercise his emendatory skill. His first idea had been that 
‘EAAad was an accusative: (See Addenda ad Heracl. 698) but as 
eumtarrev in all other places but one (and that doubtful) governs 
a dative, he formed a different opinion when editing the Medea, 
and suggested (Note on v. 93) to omit ‘EAAdo altogether, and to 
supply the verse by reading ova avev Oewv tTivos. This suggestion, 
though given without confidence, Hermann not only approves, but 
-admits into his text. Matthie retains “EA\dd ty’ and the anapeest. 
The particle y was the universal panacea of ancient metrical 
correctors, when they wanted to prevent a hiatus. There seems 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 139 


no need of conjectures in this matter. The elision of the ¢ is de- 
fended by Monk on Alcest. 1187. Kai unv mpoteww, T opryov' 
ws KapaTouy. 

v. 714. [nv yap Arrow Papcadoy, noe IIydéa] Such was 
the reading of Aldus and all other editions, until Markland in- 
troduced the adjective Papsarxop, from some MSS.; and as the 
second syllable is long, he thought that we ought to pronounce 
the word Papoadyov, a sort of contraction unknown to Attic 
Greek. Porson (Pref. Hec. p. 22.) points out this error. 

v. 715. Meévw ‘ai Nerrais tactd Evpizov poats] The com- 
mon reading is Taiadé ty Evpimov mvoais. Markland suggests 
poats, with these observations: “He Aewrail Evpizrov poal vo- 
cantur Aewros Evpizrov xAvowv apud Strabon. I. p. 102. ex Ione 
Chio. Credo Euripidem scripsisse poais, alterum esse ab interpo- 
latore qui meminerat wvoas a Greecis hoc tempore expectari.” I 
have adopted this emendation, which is strongly confirmed by the 
passage cited from the Tragedian Ion, and Bacch. 784. map Aow- 
qov poais. Hermann’s ingenious substitution of mvAats has been 
already mentioned. acid for Taicce ty is the correction of 
Blomfield. The copiers seem to have been very averse to this 
dative, which they continually alter into TAGE ys considering 
ye to be a mere expletive. I cannot concur with Hermann in 
thinking that :ye would have any force in this sentence ; ‘he says, 
“« fEgre moram ferentis hoc ryé est.” | 

v. 716. Vulgo Mupuisovas loxywv" of mae T poo Kelmevor 
Aeyouo. Porson (Phen. 1230) expresses his opinion, though 
doubtfully, that Aeryouci we is here used for Aeryouct wot. This 
is a doctrine to which, however high the authority, I am slow to 
subscribe, and should prefer Markland’s suggestion of of tT. But 
my own reading, oz é, appears so certain, that although I am the 
first to propound it, I shall be surprised if readers accustomed to 
the scenic dialogue, do not at once recognise its truth. ot de, illi autem. 
It is needless to cite instances of so common an usage: the reader 
may, however, if he pleases, compare vv. 76. .335. of this Tra- 
gedy. 

v. 717. qrocov Xpovor "Er expeTpyoat xen pos ”Trrov 
aroXov;] rocov is my correction for motov ypovov, which it 
seems surprising that so many learned men should have tolerated. 
The reading of the editions, pos "IAsov aroAov, the expedition to 


140 NOTES ON . THE 


Troy, is so plain, and so consistent with expressions used elsewhere, 
such as 7 pos "[\tov vooros v. 867. that I can discover no good 
reason for making any difficulty. However some MSS. exhibit 
"IXtov either by a casual error or a mistake of the construction: 
Markland conjectures apos ”I\:ov oroAov ; and Hermann receives 
it into the text. 

v.719. Apa ry’, ef tt dpaces, 4 “ray oixace oTparov] 
Thus stands the line in all editions: the two Paris MSS. which I 
collated omit Y though Musgrave does not state that fact ; and so 
do the Florentine MSS. on the authority of Matthie: which added 
to the unfrequent usage of this particle with imperatives, leads to a 
suspicion that the reading was formerly different. I once thought 
that it might have been épar’, él TI dpacer , as if spoken to all the 
leaders. That might have been properly followed by the singular 
7) Gmarye, as applying to Achilles alone: a similar change of number 
has been remarked on v. 358. And nothing is more likely than 
that an old transcriber should alter such a reading to dpa and dpa- 
ces. But I do not think that there is sufficient ground for dis- 
turbing dpa ty —which may have this force, At any rate be acting, 
if you mean to do any thing. | 

v. 720. meAnuatra Ald. peAAnuata is the emendation of 
Portus, confirmed by MSS. 

v. 726. Kareides’ awa 0 67t céBeas To awdpovery | This is 
the common reading. The words are so unexceptionable, and the 
sentiment so natural when addressed by a matron to her expected 
son-in-law, that this verse might have been suffered to escape un- 
touched. But some of the MSS. instead of ceGers, have a pooe Sans 
av, and although the two Flor. MSS. by substituting these words 
for kareides, prove them to be nothing more than an interlined 
explanation of the meaning, yet Hermann extracts from them a new 
reading, which he substitutes in his text, aw mpooceBew to 
owpoverv. 

v.727. Tis ef; rid ndOes, &c.] Commonly ris 3 7; 

v. 730. moow oé€ povotiv ‘Ayaneuver avat | Vulgo jos 
‘oTiv, but ov is the Attic crasis of o: and e. See Elmsley on 
Med. 801. I believe Matthie to be the first editor who has printed 
MouvcT iv. 

v. 733. Meivov' ri heures; dektav ry’ enn xepi Zvvayov] 
This line used to begin with detvov, an evident error, corrected by 
Valckenaer on Pheen. 904. Hermann gives dekiay 7’, considering 


IPHIGENIA- IN AULIS. 141 


ti devryers to be spoken cia wécov. But this appears to be one 
of the cases in which ‘ye may properly be joined with an impera- 
tive, as it preserves its due force ; at least joen your hand mus mine. 
v.735. aidoimel’ av ‘Aryauéuvor’, et Wavoruev wv my pot 
Bews] The reading of the editions before Markland’s is, atdouned’ 
av, a solecism. He restored the optative from MSS. Then, 
four MSS. have avorsev av, whence Matthie has printed 
Wravous av, but seems in his note to repent of having so done. 


v. 739. Tlotovs -yapous dis ; adacia vm exe, yuva| The 
common reading is, ened : Barnes altered it to ns 3 > observing, 
miror autem nemini id (Epyo6’) prius displicuisse. Barnes’ qualifi- 
cations as a critic were so poor that better scholars seem disposed 
to reject all that comes from him, even where he is unquestionably 
right. Thus Markland and Musgrave prefer aovov -yapov eyo ; 
an emendation every way worse than his; and Hermann devises a 
new one, omitting the verb altogether, substituting for it ws, 
and thereby destroying the spirit of the speech. 


v. 740. mapavoouca, delirious, out of your senses. H. Stephens, 
in Thes. understands the word in this line to mean only perperam 
intelligens ; and Markland, rather than suffer the young Prince to 
make so ungallant a speech to the Queen, proposes to alter the word, 
and read mepivoovca. I fear however that we must tolerate the 
word of the text in its proper signification. The only way in which 
Achilles could account for this extraordinary address was, that the 
speaker was beside herself. 


v. 742. meuvnuevors Ald. MSS. This continued i in the editions 
for some time; certainly as late as Canter. mepvnuevous was first 
introduced into the Commelin edition. (So at least Hermann says, 
for I have not the copy by me). I presume therefore that it was 
a correction by Amilius Portus. At all events it has been preferred 
to the dative by most of the later editors. It appears to me that 
either reading is justifiable ; I have therefore preferred that which 
has all ancient authority in its favour. 

v. 746. Oavual » euot yap Oavyar ecri Ta Tapa cov} 
This is one of the lines of the Tragedians which have a tribrach 
for the fifth foot, and are theréfore noted as deficient in harmony, 
by Hermann, Pref. ad Hec. p. xxxviu1. For.this reason I conclude 
it was that Dobree corrected Ta wapa cov into Taro cov. But 
the instances of the same formation of the Trimeter are too numerous 


142 NOTES ON THE’ 


to admit that circumstance as a ground for ‘alteration. There. are 
two others in this play, v. 1142. Nal, apos ‘yevelou a avrouecOa 
dvo Pidw. vy. 1297. .Ei un ce cwow Aavatdaa dia paxns. 

v. 748. , The common reading is, Apngw yap ov WevdoneBa TOS 
Noryors igws, which Hermann defends and explains, nam ambo Sor- 
tasse non mentimur dictis, ‘It is probable that we do not both intend 
to deceive each other.’ I have however adopted the correction of 
Markland évpevdoueba, as better suiting the sense of the passage 
—For perhaps we have been mutually deceiving and deceived, i. e. 
have been talking at cross purposes. The imperfect tense seems here 
correctly used; eWevouecOa would have had a different sense. I 
should however prefer the common reading to Matthie’s augw yap 
ovv, of which Hermann observes, “in quo mihi pugnare inter se 
videntur ‘yap ovv, quod affirmantis est, et tows.” 

v. 749. ‘AAN 9 werovOa dewa; pvnoreva yauous Ovx 
ovras, ws eiEacw| aX’ 7 for add’ # is the correction of Barnes, 
and the interrogation after dewa; was introduced by Heath. The 
same expression is in Alcest. 832. ‘ANN 7 meérovOa dew ume 
Eevwv euwv; The interrogative formula arr 7 is illustrated: by 
Monk on Hipp. 936. and Elmsley on Heracl. 426. The vowel con- 
tinuing short in dewa with uvyorevw at the beginning of the 
following word, has been already mentioned on v. 67. et€act is the 
Attic form for éoikaot, Barnes remarks that the same is found in 
two passages of Aristophanes (Nub. 340. Av. 94.) but does not 
notice that it is again used by our Author in Helen. 804. 

v. 752. Kal pavrws gépe | Brodeus renders @avAws leniter 
et modeste. Its real meaning is, with indifference and contempt, as in 
v. 799. TO 0 enor ou pavrws epw. 

v. 753. Xap. ov yap opQors Oumaciv o 6T eigopw| Por- 
son compares this line with Hec. 958. Kov« av duvaluny ™poo- 
Brérew o opOais .xopats. see his note upon that line of the 
Hecuba. | 

v.755. Kat cot Tod éotw e€ euov] Matthie first placed 
the accent on gol. ode, scilicet Xatpe. 

v. 757. The personage who now speaks was termed in the 
editions Oeparrwv. Markland observed: that in one of the. Paris 
MSS. he is designated by the abbreviation of IlpecBurns, and so 
It ought to have been corrected, had there been no MS. authority 
at all, since it is plainly the same old servant who appears at the 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 148 


opening of the Play and again at v. 224. w, o€ Tot Aeyw ‘is Mark- 
land’s emendation for ws oé Tot AEryw. 

v.759. Tis o xadwv, wvAas wapoitas;] Musgrave renders 
wap. paullulum aperiens. One Paris MS. has avoiéas ; but with 
sap superscribed. 

v. 760. Commonly Aovdvs’ ovy aGpuvvopat ted" 4 TUX 
yap oux ég. One Paris MS. has 4 Tuvxn ‘yap OUK €@, 
omitting ~, and so Elmsley would read, in order to obtain an 
Iambus instead of a Spondee. The same might be done by sub- 
stituting ov w eq. It is not quite clear that the ears of the Tra- 
gedians repudiated a measure of that description. See Elmsley on 
Med. 703. and in Auctario. But in the verse of the Alcest. 1083. 
which he compares with ours, aAd E pws vis efaryet, there are 
somewhat stronger metrical objections to retaining the w. The 
reader may see by his note on Méd. 326. to what a much. greater 
extent he is disposed to carry Porson’s Canon respecting the fifth 
foot of a Senarius, than was contemplated by its author. Generally 
speaking, I think that any alterations of the text, made without 
authority to follow out such views, would be unwarrantable. In 
the present case however I am justified in omitting the pronoun, 
as is done in one manuscript copy. 

v. 762. Tyode ris mapoOev oikwy, Tuvddpew SovTos Tat pos | 
The editions before Musgrave’s have Twvoe Tay mapoev otxew. 
But the MSS. preserve the true reading tyade Tis 1. 0. (of her 
who ts standing here in front of the house) it really is to be regretted 
that the learning and subtlety. of so great a scholar as Hermann 
should be. abused for the purpose of disturbing a text so clear and 
unexceptionable.- He contends that oixes and oixor are not used 
indifferently to signify a house, like dopos and Oopot, dwua and 
dwmara, weAa pov and uéedaOpa, but that while oixos may be 
used for the whole house, the plural implies.the interior apartments 
of the house. A person no sooner hears such a doctrine laid down, 
than a multitude of passages crowd upon his recollection, in which 
dixos and olxot are used in precisely the same way, as it suits the 
metre or the fancy of the author. Even in this play instances 
occur—as -v. 708. o%Kous Epypous exA tov res, v. 898. MEVETO Kar 
etKous, -v. 999. e&nrOov olxwv. But in regard to the first instance 
and all others of the same class, it will be said that when olxos im- 
plies family or home, the law of restriction does not apply, but the 
plural may be used indiscriminately with the singular. And as to 


144 NOTES ON THE 


the other two lines cited, Hermann admits that eis oikous, ev olKots; 
e£ otxwy and the like are legitimate, because a person who enters: a 
house, or is in a house, or leaves a house, may be said to enter, to 
reside in, or to leave the apartments of that house. But not so those 
who stand in front of the building; they stand before the whole 
house. Therefore mpoaGev or aapoOev otxwy is to be condemned. 
But even this distinction, however fine, will not prove sufficient : 
for there are many places in which occur the expressions eryryuOev 
OlKwY, andoev OiKwy, oTEtyew 7 pos oikous, aw ockwv. It will 
therefore be necessary either to alter those passages, or to invent 
a new line of discrimination, which may admit such forms, but 
exclude wapo:Qev vixwv. Having entered my protest against such 
super-astute distinctions, I must observe that if any valid objection 
could be established against wapo:Qev otxwy, it would surely be 
a safer mode of emendation to substitute ofxov, which suits the 
verse quite as well, than to introduce into the text, as Hermann 
has done, Ty00e, Tav mapoWev oixwv, hujus, ex priore domo, a 
mode of speech which, to say the least, is awkward as well as un- 
necessary. 
v. 764. “H povw qaporTe OnTa Taco epeorator muhaus 3] 
This line is printed by Aldus with several corruptions, 7 move 
wapoWev ora maid (the last word I have omitted to mention at 
the bottom of the text). In the later editions the other faults have 
been set right on the authority of the MSS. and aapo:Qe has-been 
substituted, metri gratia. But that word is at: any rate super- 
fluous, and the fact of its being written with the final v tends to’ 
prove that it was taken from the verse two lines above. Dobree 
observes: (Advers. ii. p. 84) ‘‘ waporre legendum, et nescio an sic’ 
Porsonus. In ae quod ex 860 (762) fluxit, acquiescit ‘Elms- 
leius ad Heracl. 583.” From Hermann’s note I learn that wapovre 
has also been proposed by Bothe, and by Lenting. To which of 
the four critics priority belongs, I am. not aware; but it is pro- 
bable that the same emendation has occurred to above'a hundred 
other scholars; I am sure that it did-so to myself long ago;:and I- 
think that there are few restorations.in the text of this Tragedy: 
more clear and certain. Hermann does not say what fault-he 
has to find with it, but substitutes an emendation: of his own, 
4 povw yap olde OnTa Taco epeoraroy muAats ; 
v. 765. ‘Os movow rEvyos av’ ctw 3 EdAOE Bacrreiwv dopwy} 
wovoww is “Markland’s emendation for novos. As the inquiry refers’ 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 145 


so. particularly to the two individuals, an answer would hardly be 
satisfactory without the use of the dual; and by its adoption we are 
relieved from the ouotoréAcuTov in povots Aeryors. Both Matthiee 
and Hermann substitute in the text BactAicwy for Bacrdreiwy, 
without authority, and without alleging any reason for the change. 
If such liberties are to be taken to procure a short syllable instead 
of a long one in this part of the verse, a multitude of other lines 
must sustain similar violence. In Med. 956 the same adjective 
appears in the corresponding place of a Senarius, Aoxets oaviCauy 
dwua PBacireov wéwAwv; and these Trochaics are subject to 
similar laws, consisting of a Cretic (resolved or unresolved) prefixed 
to a Senarius. Matthie properly observes that this verse belongs 
to Achilles, not Clyteemnestra, to whom it is commonly assigned. 


v. 766. *Q TUX, qpovotd 0 4 ‘un, cwcov ous eva Géerw] 
Of the two Paris MSS. collated by myself, one has 9 uy cw- 
govo', the other 4 uy awoad ous éryw Dero. 


v. 767. ‘O doryos eis weANOvTAa gwae ypovov’ Exe O SryKov 
twa] Aldus and the MSS. have eis méAXovT av won, a senseless 
corruption. Many have been the attempts to restore the true 
reading: Scaliger conjectured eis uéAXNovT av ein: Reiske eis 
méAAovTa Aevocet, Markland es peAAovT avoice (which 
Matthie adopts), Musgrave avowréos, Boeckh ovycet, Her- 
mann eis méANovr av ws oy yxpovoy. Of all these guesses, 
Boeckh’s is the only one which has any semblance of probability. 
I have ventured to give a place in the text to my own emendation, 
o Aoryos eis meANOVTA Gwoet Xpovov, which, it will be observed, 
differs from the old reading by only one letter, and might easily 
be changed by a person who did not understand a rather uncommon 
construction. Achilles, in ridicule of the old man’s self-important 
speech, a povod 6 4 'uy cacov ous erya Bédw, and of his delay 
in declaring his meaning, says, Your speech mill postpone thetr pre- 
sérvation to a distant time, i.e. will be a long time before tt preserves 
them. The construction awoe: eis weAAovTa Xpovoy is the same 
as we have remarked in v. 121. ets aAAas wpas Saigopev vpe- 
vaious, and v. 629. daicers Tovs ryauous es orepov. Hermann 
next pronounces OryKov Twa to be prarsus ineptum, and substitutes 
Oxvoy Tia, aliquid timoris. Tome this sounds very flat, while I 
can discover nothing absurd or inappropriate in the common reading, 
" the sense being, but it contains no little swell,-or arrogance. d-yxos 
19 


146 NOTES ON THE 


is similarly applied in various _ Places. See Soph. Cid. C. 1162. 
Bpayuy Tw aitet uvOov, oun oryKou mAéwv. 


v. 768. Aekids éxats uy med’, ef Te por xpnCas Arye] 
re, ucr Ald. This was corrected to uéAX the reading of the 
MSS. as early as the ed. of H. Stephens. There has been much 
discussion about the interpretation of de€tas éxatt, which the com- 
mon version renders per dextram te oro. Markland is shocked at 
the notion of such an impropriety as the Queen of Argos, wife 
of the Captain-General of Greece, condescending to implore one of 
her own servants in the form and language of humility. He there- 
fore supposes that an action is going on upon the stage, to which 
these words relate; that the old man approaches his Queen in the 
style of obeisance, and endeavours to kiss her hand: and that she 
means by this speech, Don’t waste time about kissing hands!! Mat- 
thie approves this notion. I fear that all such courtly considerations 
are inapplicable to this scene; that the common version is the true 
one; and that Clytemnestra, by using a strong form of adjuration 
and entreaty, expresses not her condescension, but only her impatience. 

v. 769. OlcOa doyra pw doris dv col Kal Téxvots evvous 
éduv;] Such is the correction of Porson for olc@a dyra x’. 
Gaisford was the first editor who adopted it:. Porson says, “ Lege 
olaQa dyra w Sores wy, notior phrasis quam ut illustratione egeat. 
Vide tamen Kuster. ad Aristophan. Plut. 55.” 


v. 771. Xwre pw ev rais oaioe hepvais EdaBev Avyaneuver 
avat;| This is the reading of several MSS. In all editions be- 
fore Markland we have XOTE on pe Tals cals epvais, in open 
violation of metre. See v. 45. 


v. 774 ‘Exxadurre viv ro8 nuiv, ovorwas déryas Aoryous | 
Hermann reads exxadurre vuy enclitice. I prefer the common 
reading viv 700’, nunc tandem, but do not speak with confidence. 


v. 775. méAdNet kravew| Elmsley would read xrevecy both 
here and in v. 782. But Porson (on Orest. 929) observes that the 
aorist kTave.v is correctly used with “weAAW, as in vv. 286. 1594. 
of that play, and other passages which he cites. Elmsley (on Heracl. 
710) admits that the aorist infinitive after ueddAw is good Greek, 
and adduces many more instances of that syntax, but still declares 
his opinion that it is better to alter it whenever that can be done 
by a slight change. From this judgment I must altogether dissent. 
A construction like the present, perfectly unobjectionable and not 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 147 


unfrequent, ought not to be altered by any critic without autho- 
rity. It is right to add that uéAAee xravery and péAAEe Krevery 
have not precisely the same force, the latter being a double future. 

v. 777. THS Tadarmwpou depyy] +nv Aldus. Markland cor- 
rected it from the Paris MSS. 

v. 779. Aptidpwy, wAnY cls o€ ral anv waioa’ ToOvTO O 
ov ppover] Compare Orest. 534. pakaptos..... wAnv ets Ourya- 
TEpas’ TOUTO & ove evoatmove. 

v. 785. exets, intelligis ; as in Orest. 739. TOVTO wave exw 
wader. Phen. 967. Ta nev wap Nuwv TavT exers. 

v. 786. ‘O de rydauos tly elye mpoacty, és a exomicev 
ex Gomer 5] In Aldus the verse stands thus, o 0€ ‘yauos tiv 
elye TV mpopacw, 4 me exouo ex Oomwy;-a reading which 
shows that the old scholars had a loose and incorrect notion of the 
Trochaic metre. Heath first pointed out the necessary correction, 
by erasing env and writing exoyicev: and upon collating the 
MSS. v7» was not found in them. The pronoun 7 still remained 
a matter of offence: Musgrave proposed to substitute #, Bothe 1: 
the latter is adopted by Hermann. Musgrave’ s may possibly be right, 
but my reading ds m exomtcev ex omy seems preferable ; a 
transcriber was more likely to think that os, when following apo- 
ao, ought to be altered into 7, than to substitute the latter 
had the original pescg been @. 


v. 787. “Iv aryaryors Xaipove Axudnet maioa vuudevoovca 
anv] Commonly aryaryns and vundevovca. The first was cor- 
rected by Blomfield, the other by Barnes. 

-v. 788. "Q Buyarep, yKels Er oheO pp Kai av Kat untnp ceben | 
Both the measure and construction of this verse are unexception- 
able; but though it has escaped ill-treatment from antiquity, some 
modern editors have handled it roughly, because it did not square 
with their notions of Trochaic rhythm. Barnes printed w Ovyarnp, | 
Matthie Ouyarep, qKes ex oAcOpp a@- Upon the latter read- 
ing Hermann remarks, “ Illud valde miror quod quum optima esset _ 
vulgata scriptura, istorum codicum (sci. Florr.) vitiis adductus 
est ut ederet Ouyatep, 4 yKelts, &c. quomodo non scripsisse Euri- | 
pidem vel illud monstrat, quod hic non recte diceretur Ouryarep 
sine @.” I agree with him in thinking that Matthie’s line is on 
every account worse than that of the common text; but am not 
prepared to go along with him in pronouncing that Euripides could 


148 NOTES ON THE 


not -have here written Ov-yarep, without the interjection. 0 Ox- 
ryarep is certainly more agreeable to usage, particularly in -the 
beginning of a speech, and the invocation of an absent person: still 
there are various passages which make me hesitate in declaring the 
other illegitimate. Both the Paris MSS. omit the first xai, so do 
the Florentine; but the latter give on instead of cv. Markland 
prefers ym uytnp ceOev, but without good reason. Compare 
Hipp. 658. cai av wai ceorrowa on. 

v. 790. Otyouat tadawa* ddixpuov Oumar oUKEeTL oTeryer} 
The editions before Barnes have SaxpuovT : he printed daxpuov +, 
but proposed two various lections, daxpu Tv and ddx pua T. Mat- 
thie, believing, like Barnes, that dak puov T was contra metrum, 
omits the +. I agree with him in his emendation, though not 
in his reason. The sentence gains in spirit, and the verge in har- 
mony, by the absence of the Copula. 

v. 791. Eimep adyewov ro rexvwy oteponevyy daxpup- 
poeivy| Understand ov waoyes adyewd. 

v. ‘798. Compare note on v. 316. 

v. 796. Kara was depwv ye dedrov ovx enuoi didws Aa- 
Betv;] Porson has this note: “Omni venere caret particula. Lege 
KqTa WS pépwv av deATov.” This change Gaisford adopts, and 
Elmsley quotes with approbation, because it takes away one instance 
opposed to his canon, that ‘ye is not used im interrogative sentences. 
But the truth is that the particle has here no share in the question 
itself, but gives a very considerable force to the word which it 
follows: Qépwv rye deA Tov means carrying, as you say, a tablet. 
Matthie and Hermann properly retain it. : 

v. 797. Meverews ageiie? nuas, OS Kakwy THY aiTtes | 
Med. 338. Zev, un AaOot ce TwVO Os aiTtos Kaxw@v: on the: strength 
of which quotation Porson proposed to alter the order of the can- 
cluding words in this verse of the Iphigenia to ravo os alrios 
xaxev. But there seems no sufficient cause for so doing. : In the 
line of the Medea, the metre requires this latter order ;.n ours, 
the sense makes it natural that os should precede. the other 
words. ; | 

vy. 801. Meudoua xayw rose om, Kovxy arhos out hepw | 
The latter words are rendered in the translation, zeque ita. leviter 
fero. . But orw means something more, and seems to imply, 
as. Agamemnon expects.: Compare Heracl..375, ovx abt ws & doxeis 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 149 


Kupnoes, where Elmsley terms it, exqutsita locutio, and cites Alc. 
682. ov Badwv ov Tws aret. 
vy. 802, 3. Ou éradesOncopat ye mpoomecety To cov 
ryovu, Ovntos ex Geas yeryora’ Ti yap eye ceuvivonat ; | 
The common reading is ovx emaweaOncouat rye. The present 
is the first edition (as far as I know) which has admitted Markland’s 
emendation €ra:decOycopat ” Yes though it seems to be confirmed 
bya similar passage in v. 1281, ‘Eumrodav yevnoopat yw Ovyros 
ovoa. 77 Qew ; I cannot recognise the validity of the objection 
stated by Hermann to this reading, that had eyw been written in 
this place, it would not be found in the next line, Tt yap eyo 
oeuvuvouet; it seems to be demanded on account of Ovyros which 
follows. He has printed a conjecture of his own, Oux émrasdeaO- 
conecba, citing in its defence Herc. F. 858. “Hrtov paprupo- 
pecOa Spwa a dpgv ov BovAopat. The reader of the Tragedians 
requires not to be told how incessantly the plural number is applied 
to the speaker, and how quick the transition is from singular to 
plural. But the verse cited from the Hercules Furens contains rather 
an extreme case of this enallage, and is therefore not to be made 
the example on which an emendation may. be grounded. The 


Paris MSS. have os written over yeyara by some one who 
deemed the genitive more grammatical; but the accusative is de- 
fended by the following instances quoted by Elmsley, (Quarterly 
Review, Vol. vit. p. 458.) ZEsch. Prom. 144. Aevaow, Tlpouy- 
Bev" poBepa & ’Euocow oocors omixra Tlpoonte TAH ONS bax 
pico Lov demas ciotdoveg. Soph. Ant. 1001. Ayvor axouw 
POoryryou opvidww, Kany KyaQovras olor py xat BeBapBape- 
pevp, Kai omwvras €y XnAaow adAnAovs Revels: 

v. 804. "Ent rim orovdacréov mot wadXov, 7) Téxvou wept | 
- Eommonly emt vivos, which does not express the sense. Porson 
substitutes 4 for emt, in order that Tivos may be governed by 
wept: and this Gaisford adopts. But I entirely concur with - Her- 
mann that the true reading i is emt tiv. Compare Med..1099. ei 
ért Praupots, elt emi ypnoras woxOovor. 

v. 806. I have at the suggestion of Dr Blomfield placed a full 
stop at the end of this line. The words mary pev, GAN dues may, 
#f the reader prefers it, be carried on to the next sentence; but I 
think them better applied to.AeyQeion, particularly as it is a 
well-known. instance of mannerism in Euripides to conclude a 


150 NOTES ON THE 


sentence with aA duws, for which he was ridiculed by the Co. 
medians. See Aristoph. Acharn. 402. 408. 

v. 811. In Aldus’ and the following editions this line is written, 
to the entire overthrow of rhythm, pos ryeveraoos, qpos ons 
dekias, mpos Te antepos. I have adopted Markland’s correction. 
That of Musgrave differs a little, retaining wpos ons dektas, instead 
of xpos oe dektas. Matthie and Hermann follow Musgrave’s ; 
Markland’s has the sanction of Gaisford, and I prefer it to the 
other for two reasons: first, as the Queen adjures Achilles by three 
things, ryeveracos, dektas, and MNTEPOS, a pronoun affixed to 
the middle, instead of the first or third word, would be unusual, 
if not inadmissible. In the second place, apos oe dektas was likely 
to have been changed into apes avs 0. by some one who did not. 
comprehend the construction, or did not know that in the formula 
of adjuration, the preposition is frequently placed between zpos 
and the genitive. See Monk’s note on Hipp. 603. 

v. 814. Aldus and the MSS. exhibit Oude @idos ovdeis yerg 
mot: the change of -yeAq to wéAas is due to Markland. 

v. 815. ‘Qua, cal wavro\p | The latter epithet may have 
been suggested by the passage of sechylus, (Agam. 214.) where, 
in‘reference to this resolution of Agamemnon to sacrifice Iphigenia, 
the poet uses Td wavToToAMoY. 

v. 816. See asimilar account given in Hec. 604. of the state 
of discipline in a naval armament; €v Tos mupip oTpaTevpare 
‘AxoAagros OYAos, vavTiKy T avapxia Kpeicowv mupos’ Kaxos 
0,0 My TE dpwv KQKOV. 

v. 817.8. Every edition before the present has nv de ToAMN- 
ons ov pou Xeip vrepreivat, ceawapueO’’ et dé. 49, ov verw- 
oueOa. I consider the syntax to require either ei dé ToAugoets 
in the first, or 7 O¢ uy in the second line. I have preferred the 
latter. js, ov form a crasis, although a comma intervenes, as in 
Andr. 242. 254. 

v. 819.20. Aewov ro tixrav, kat épe Pirtpoy peéya* 
Tlaoiy re xowov eo6’ vrepxauve réxvwv] Hitherto the second 
of these lines has been edited with a comma after xowwov, and then 
wo8 vrepkauvew Téxvwv, presenting an embarrassed sentence. 
eo9 for wo is the plain suggestion of Reiske, to which the 
editors have hitherto paid no attention. Compare the ‘similar senti- 
ment ofthe Chorus in Phen. 366: Aewov yuvatlv at do: weivey © 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 151 


ryoval, Kai prrorenvov Tws Wav ‘yuvatcetov ‘yevos. The usage 
of dewvov is the same in Esch. Prom. 39. To guryryeves ToL OeLvory, 
7 @ optNia. Andr. 985. In v. 819 some MSS. have pepe. 


v. 821. Yypnropper mot Ouucs aiperat mpoow] For 
apoow Hermann gives Tpoowy, which, I confess, appears to me 
lamentably flat. Matthie observes on this and the two next lines 
“unroppwr aiperar mpocw, i.e. vYyydogpwv ecri. In sqq. 
peTpiws et ad acyadqy et ad yalpew spectare videtur. Magni 
enim animi est, adversa fortiter, secunda moderate ferre.” Mus- 
grave observes that our Poet is here imitating Archilochus (Stob. 
xx.) aA\a Xaprovoww Te Yalpe, kal Kaxoiow acxyada My Ainv. 
He wishes to read eric rama ‘for ewiorarat. 

v. 824. 5. Aedoryiopevor yap ot ToLold etoiy Bporey, ‘Op- 
Bas diaGnv Tov Biov, -yvwuns pera.| These two verses are com- 
monly assigned to the Chorus, but they unquestionably form part 
of the speech of Achilles: this was first noticed by a writer in the 
Classical Journal (Vol. 1. p. 112.) whom I apprehend to be Mr 
Burges. In the explanation of these lines, there have been some 
great failures, and not the least is that of Matthie, who removes 
the comma after Bporwy, and joins NeAoryiomevor Eice Satay, 
calculis quasi subductis constituerunt vivere. Nedotyicuevos is used 
here as an adjective, and means discreet; see v. 307. and v. 923. 

ala is an instance of an infinitive disjoined from the construc- 
tion, which is by no means unfrequent. 

v. 826. Stiblinus compares Soph. Aj. 554. Ev te dpoveww 
yap undev Aot0Tos Bios. 

v. 831. leone’, Stray dé uy Kadws, ov weicouat] The 
last word of this line in Aldus and following editions is retaoueQa. 
Barnes edited veicouat, as Scaliger had suggested; and such is 
’ the actual reading of the MSS. 
 v. 833. Aldus “Ape: rp car euée. This error was corrected 
by Brodzus, who perceived that it ought to be “Apa TO Kav €ué. 
= of the Paris MSS. which I have inspected, has “Ap, the other 
"A pet. Gaisford is, I believe, the only editor who has printed 
“Apny, the proper form of the accusative. See Porson Phen. 134, 
In ZEschyl. Theb. 45. metrum postulat ” Apnv. 

v. 834. Barnes prints the line thus; Le 0, w maQouca oxe- 
Tua mw. 7. d. an emendation which, though perhaps unnecessary, 
is not to be despised. He takes no notice of the change in his notes, 


152 NOTES ON THE 


and Matthie fancies it proceeded from the opera. If so, the com- 
positors of the University Press in his days must have had a very 
good perception of the Tragic rhythm. Compare Asch. Eum. 100. 
[lafovca 0° obtw dewa mpos Twy dirtarov. 

v. 886. Tocovrov olkrov mweptBadtwv karacreA®| Hermann 
gives TocovTo + and in the next line ovmore. He properly ex- 
plains katactedw, componam: Angl. I will set you right. 

v. 838. ‘“Euy daricOeic' | I once thought that it ought to be 
enol. gariCey has a dative in v. 134. 

v. 840. Respecting the aorist npauny, see Elmsley on Heracl. 
986. It ought to be written without the subscript «. Its optative 
aparo occurs in Orest. 3. 

v. 844. All the editions have a comma after arapOevos, and 
then Qavpacrd 8 ws a vake 4Tyacuevn. I consider that this 
line begins a new sentence: and have, not without confidence, 
given nTiuacuea for nTiuacuevy. It was himself to whom 
Achilles considered that the indignity was offered, not Iphigenia ; 
her usage he had already described in different and more appro~ 
priate language. The verse is thus properly connected with what 
follows. Elmsley (Mus. Crit. 1. p. 481.) would read 47tumpevn, 
from Helen. 462. "Q daiuov, ws avake nrinwmeba. 

v. 846.7. "Eyw xaxtoros nv ap ‘Apryetwy avyp, "Eye ro 
pnoev, (Meverews 3 ev avépacw)] Markland gives nv av, but 
the meaning is, it seems then that I was considered the vilest man 
in the army. Instances of ro jndev used in speaking of persons, 
are given by Monk on Hipp. 634, and of the phrase elvac ev 
avopactv, on Alcest. 748. but this line is not cited in either note. 
See also Elmsley on Heracl. 169. where he proposes as an emend- 
ation of the next line, ‘Eryyw ovy! [IjAews: this is, to say the least, 
unnecessary. 

v. 849. Eimep dovever roumov dvoua o@ roca] The copies 
fluctuate in the reading of the first word of this line between 
clmep, womep, Somep, and Sep. But the common reading, 
etme, is correct, and there is no need of any of the conjectures 
hazarded on this verse: the meaning is, [f my name acts the mur- 
derer for your husband; i.e. serves him for an executioner. 

v. 853, Oud eis axpav yep, wore mpocBarew werXors] 
There is no reason for disturbing the text of this line; and so 
Markland seems to have discovered: for, after an unhappy con- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 153 


jecture, he proceeds to say “Si recte se habet vulgata, intellige 
ove eis axpav Xetp neque quod ad digitum attinet, quod est Te- 
rentii, uno digito tangere, Nostri axpq Oryerv yepi. Helen. 1480.” 
Porson also ventured on two juvenile emendations of this verse, 
which his maturer judgment would have been sure to repudiate. 

v. 854, “H isvdos €orat rors, (Sproma BapBaper, “Obev 
mepuxac oi oTparndara ‘yéevos) PBia de Toupov T oVvdaLOU 
kexAnaerat | I have printed 7 for 4 the common reading. The 
meaning of these lines is, Why, if I submit to such treatment, Stpylus, 
(a fortress of barbarians whence has sprung the family of the Aire), 
will be deemed a city, while Pthia and my race will be no where 
named. There is a parallel place in the Andromache (v. 208) which 
serves to explain that before us, but which Markland (Suppl. 1035) 
used as the foundation of a very unhappy attempt at alteration: 
4 Adxawa wéev mods Mey’ éorl, trav dé Sxipov ovdapod 
riOnys. My reading, 7 for #, is defended by Herc. F. 841. 9 Qeoi 
uev ovoauov, Ta Ovnra 3 écra péyada, un dovtos Six. 
Musgrave reads mwoXvus for woAts, and he is followed by Gaisford, 
but I think incautiously: would it not rather have been woAAy? 
qwoNts is defended by Soph. ‘Cd. C. 879. tTavd ap OUKETL VEULw 
mpAtv. In the last line tovsov is commonly read without 7’, but 
Tounov 7 is found in all the MSS. and seems liable to no excep- 
tion or suspicion; so that I wonder at Matthie and Hermann 
adopting the conjecture of Zimmerman, although certainly an inge- 
nious one, @@ias dé Tovvop’. 


v. 857. evapterar is the correction of Musgrave for avaterat. 
His note is, “ Reponenda vox in sacris ferendis solennis, evap- 
Eerar. Sic Kava 0 évapyecOw tis v. 1471 (1349.) Nec abludit 
efapyou kava v. 435. (356).” 

_ Vv. 858. In this and the two following lines I have not altered 
a letter ; but I trust that by more correct punctuation, I have disem- 
barrassed and made clear a passage which has hitherto been very 
perplexed, and has given rise to various interpretations, The first 
cause of misunderstanding seems to have been that in every edition 
there is a full stop after Kadxas o pavtts. The fact is that os 
refers to him, and to him only; and the words, vis Oe payTes cor. 
aunp ; are a parenthesis, and imply that no man living is a prophet. 
This sentiment is expressed in Electr. 400. Bporwy O€ mavrTixny 
xaipew ¢w. The old editions, down to Canter’s, have only a comma 


20 


154 NOTES ON THE 


after avyp, afterwards a note of interrogation was placed at the end 
of the line; Markland puts it after €or ; and Hermann after 
Stotyera:; The reader will observe that the words woA\a de 
evs are spoken d:a mégou, in a different tone, and that TuXev 
applies to os OXiry adnOy Aéyer, who speaks a few things which 
turn out true, when he has made a fortunate hit. 

v. 861. In Aldus these lines are, *H ray yauouvrwy éxatt 
pupiat Kopar Onpwor Tovmov AEKTpov. eipyrat rooe. Canter 
corrected the first line as it is now prmted. The monstrous error, 
yaunouvrwy, proceeding from ignorance of the quantity of ExaTt, 
is removed in Barnes’, but unaccountably restored in Musgrave's 
text. Then, some editions place an interrogation after AexTpov 5 
Markland would read 7 ov: Hermann prints ov instead of 7: 
of course all of them must give different interpretations to the 
passage. For my own part, I understand it thus, why, with regard 
to the pretended wedding, a number of maidens seek my alliance: PU 
say no more of this: a declaration which seems plainly borrowed 
from Homer’s Achilles, I. I. 395. TloAAai Axatides ciciy ay 
"EdAada re, POinv te, Kovpat apiornwv, of re wrodieOpa 
pyovra’ Tawy jv « eBedouue Pidrnv romjcou axorrw. It 
may be remarked that éxar« here bears the meaning which 4s 
more frequently expressed by ovvexa. Each. Pers. 343. [A7- 
Bous nev av cad icf exar: BapBapovs Navow xparqjcat. 
where I should prefer to read mew ou. 


v. 865. 4 KAuvramyyorpa 0 euol Madtor eeicOn Ouya- 
Tép exdovvat woce] Plain as these words sound, there has been 
a strange inclination to misunderstand them. The common version 
renders madior emeicOn facillime persuasa fuisset; Matthie 
unites in construction eweicOn wocet, adducta est a marito; and 
finally Hermann objects to the article being used with K)ur-. 
as this speech, he says, is addressed to herself; he prints et 
KAvtamvnorpa 3, and connecting these words with the fol- 
lowing lines, he renders them, si Clytemnestra propter me mazxime 
adducenda fuisset, ut marito daret fiiam. His objection to n 
KXvratuvyorpa would probably have been removed, had he 
observed that this sentence is spoken aside, and not addressed 
to the Queen; the declaration which it contains, owka Tay 
“EXAnow, was not suited for her ears. The use of the article 
is therefore strictly correct. The real meaning I consider to be, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS, 155 


Mihi potissimum adducta est Clytemnestra ut filtam marito daret. sc. 
in matrimonium daret. The sense is illustrated by v. 100, and 
various other passages of the Tragedy. All the editions which | 
have seen, except Hermann’s, give 7 KA. O€ jot, though the 
pronoun is very emphatic. 

v. 867. “Edwxa rav “EdAnow] Aldus and the MSS. (cer- 
tainly those which I have seen) have éowké T Gv. €0wka T av 
was introduced by the second Hervagian Ed. and as the 7 was 
presumed to be Te, Barnes thought that he consulted the metre by 
printing 7 ay yy “EAA. Gaisford was the first who gave the 
crasis T ay, sc. Tot ay. 

v. 869. Every edition has €oTparevomnr. But the tragic 
usage prefers the active form oTparevew. I have therefore not 
hesitated to give €oTparevouev, which was very likely, I had 
almost said certain, to be changed by the transcribers into the 
singular eaTpaTevounp. | 

v. 870.1. Nov 0° ovdev cimt, Tapa ye Tots oTpaTnAaTas, 
"Ep eupapet dé dpqy TE KQi MH pay cadws| In the second of 
these lines I have given Blomfield’s reading evpapet dé instead of 
€vuapet Te, as being better, though I confess not necessary. There 
are several versions of this line, and all of them far removed from 
the sense. It means merely this, And it is with them a matter of 
indifference, whether I benefit them or not. Compare Hel. 1243. ’Ev 
euuaper you anv Kacryynrny Oavetv. Hermann gives a new 
character to the passage, thus, Nuv 0’ ovoey ext’ Tapa oe Tots 
otpatnAaras ‘Ev evpaper ro dpqv re xai my Spay Kadas. 

v. 872. 3. 4. Tay’ eicerat cidnpos, (ov, mpiv eis Dpvryas 
"Ed@cty qovov, kyAicw aiuaros xpavw) Et ris we tTHv ony 
Ouryarep eaipnoera] The common reading of the second of 
these verses is EX@etv Qovouv xnAtow aipatt xpavw, in which 
both the metre and the syntax are indefensible. The correction 
which I have given is from Professor Porson (Tracts, p. 224), and 
though the change is slight, Qovov and aiuatos, I regard it as 
one of the best emendations for which we are indebted to that 
illustrious critic. It restores to Euripides a very spirited passage, 
containing a happy reference to the Homeric mention of the Spear 
of Achilles, which serves as a complete illustration of the meaning: 
I, TW. 143. [Inddda perinv, ryv carpi piry wope Xeipwy 
IlnAtou éx kopupis, Povov eupevas npweoow. Matthie entirely 


156 NOTES ON THE 


approves this restoration; Hermann adopts aiuatos, but retains 
govov. elaetat, shall witness. So Phoen. 1691. "lorw aidnpos 
Opxiov T éEuoi Eishos. 260. av “Apys tay eloerac. 

v. 875. Oeos éyw mena got Meyioros, ovk wv’ adr 
Spws ryevnoou.at | Markland styles these words stulttssima. But 
‘we must regard them as an instance of that simplicity of sentiment 
and language, which seems sometimes to be affected by Euripides. 
The following is Hermann’s observation, ‘“ Vellem ego quidem 
aliam hic legeremus perorationi aptam sententiam: sed tamen, 
quum omissis his versibus deesse justus finis orationi videatur, 
recte, ut arbitror, Matthiz in his quoque Euripidis argutias cap- 
tandi studium agnoscit. Volebat poeta, nisi fallor, magnitudinem 
periculi indicare, si Agamemno, si universus exercitus, et diis qui- 
dem secundum Calchantis vaticinia auctoribus, sacrificium virginis 
expeterent. Non dissimilis peroratio est v. 908. 909.” 

v. 879. ev, an expression of admiration, is extra versum here 
as in 619. 

v. 880. Myr evoews, mT amodeoatue THY Xap 3] All 
the MSS. have unt evdews, un TOVO aTroAécamue THY Kap s 
from which Markland gives évdejs tov, Hermann évdews Tove . 
It is not possible to speak with confidence in this matter: but 
as the reading of Aldus and the old editions seems liable to no 
objection in point of sense, I have deemed it the safer way to 
adhere to it; more particularly as the word rovd in the MSS. 
from which the emendations are drawn, is not unlikely to have 
been inserted as an explanation. 

v. 881.2. Aivoumevoe yap a'yaboit tporov twa Mugovor 
Tovs aivouvtas, qv aivwo ayav| Commonly o:ryaOoi and qv. 
Stobzeus Tit. x11. cites these lines, and the edition of Trincavellus 
has ayaQol and av. Porson wrote ayaQoi, according to the 
well known rule, that the crasis of the article with a always pro- 
duces a long a. Barnes cites the same sentiment from Orest. 
1159. wavcouae 3d aiwav o, emel Bapos Tt Kav Teo éoTiv, 
aivetoBat Niav.. We may add Heracl. 203. xat yap ovv émi- 
@Oovoy Aiav ewawetv eatt. Toddans dé dy Kavtos BapuvOeis 
old, ayav atvoupevos. : 

v. 883. Aicxuvoua: dé rapadepova’ oixrpovs Adryous] The 
common word would have been mpooQepouc' , as in v. 96, wavra 
mpospepwv dorvyov:. Elmsley (on Soph. Cé&d. Col. 1675) observes 
that rapadepovca is here used for mpoopepovoa, _ 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 157 


v. 884. Some of the MSS. have xaxwy . euwv. The ex- 
pression avocos xaxcov may be compared with ametrdos papewr, 
Pheen. 334. ayadKos acriswv Soph. CEd. Tyr. 191. 


v. 885. 6. "AAN’ ovp exer TL oXNUA, Kav amwbev 1, ‘Avnp 
o XpnorTos cvaruxoivras wperev] Both the Paris MSS. which 
I collated have Exe Tot cxyyua, and the same is found in other 
MSS. But ovy rou are not, I think, used in conjunction. If any 
change were desirable, I should prefer adr ouy exer ye oXHUA, 
as ‘ye is very frequently used after aA\’ ovv, with the interposition 
of a word. Needless difficulties have been made about the explana- 
tion of these lines. Canter proposes to read wperov. Portus and 
Matthie would join in construction Xpuores wee. Hermann 
unites Kav arwbey 7 7 ‘Avyp o O Xpnaros, and translates, etiamst re- 
motior sit vir probus. ‘The simple and obvious interpretation is the 
true one: But in fact the good man has some grounds, even though he 
be unconnected with them, for assisting the unfortunate. Hermann 
suspects that the real reading might have been mpooxqua. 


v. 888. The promiscuous usage of the singular and plural 
numbers, which pervades the whole play, is here instanced in a 
remarkable degree, the relativ ey following nuas and qeTrov- 
Oauev. I have accented oé, which requires its full emphasis. 


v. 889. e€itTa col Taxa “Opus YyEVOLT QV, GoIS TE meh- 
Aovotv yauors, Gavove eun mais} All the copies have Toros 
péAXovow yauos. I have adopted the emendation of Markland 
gos Te pwéAAovow ‘yauots, not only because it expresses the 
obvious sense of the passage much better and without intricacy, 
‘but because I have doubts whether the common reading will bear 
the meaning assigned to it. Admitting that the construction of 
got Totot meAAovow ryauors may be justified, yet 1 apprehend 
that those words will not imply ¢o your future: marriage, but that 
the article would limit the reference toa particular and announced 
wedding; as in v. 1241. Ty €unv uéAXoucay evvyy wy KTAavEt. 
The reading which I have adopted is agreeable to the common 
usage of our Author. . The sense is, perhaps ihe deqth of my 
daughter will be ominous to you and. your future wife. 

v. 894. ixeriv Portus for. ixernv, the reading of Aldus, which 
should have been noted under the aad it is confirmed by some MSS. 


vy. 896. “H&e & atdovs, oup exous’ erevBepov] Porson 
altered the line thus, €feow, aidovs dup Exove eAevOepov. 


158 NOTES ON THE - 


This was a juvenile correction, which deserves the praise of in- 
genuity, but will not bear examination. aidovs eAevfepov does not 
properly express free from shame, and it would have been no com- 
pliment to the maiden, that she was ready to come into the presence 
of Achilles with an unblushing cheek. But the use of dca and a 
genitive, particularly after verbs of wiotion, is so common in the 
Tragedians, and is in fact a form of which they are so remarkably 
fond, that every scholar will remember a number of instances to 
confirm the common reading; it implies, Aderit cum verecundia 
vultum habens ingenuum. Brunck (on Bacch. 441. Karyw ot 
aidovs elvov) explains this form thus, ‘“ Nomina cum prepo- 
sitione dia constructa, cognatorum adverbiorum vicem plurima 
sustinent, et in ea resolvi debent.” Elmsley there cites Bacch. 
ales evOevs ™ pos otkous de dia amrovdns wepa. Soph. CEd. 
T. 807. [Jatw dt’ opyijs. Nevertheless he approves Porson’s con- 
jecture, but I think without due consideration. Hermann adopts a 
construction borrowed from Barnes, Ee a comma after #&et. 


v. 897. "H wy rapovons, ravTa revtoua ceBev;] ravra 
Aldus, TavTa eadem Markl. The note of interrogation is from 
Heath. Elmsley (Heracl. 44.) proposes an entire reformation of 
this passage, and gives the next line, not to Achilles but, to Cly- 
teemnestra, reading, Ei 3 1 wapovca ravrd TevEouat oéGev, 
Meverw kat olkous. ceuva yap ceuvuvera. Opov 0, dcov 
rye Suvatov, aideiaOar ypewv. I could propose an emendation 
more to my mind; but I leave this line untouched, except as 
above stated, because I have suspicions, and no trifling ones, of 
its integrity. In the first place it is absolutely useless, and con- 
tributes nothing to the appeal of the Queen; while the reply of 
Achilles, neverw nat otkovs, would come with more propriety 
after the preceding line. Therefore, even if this verse were pure 
and faultless, still the dialogue would be a gainer by its absence. 
But the language is not free from exception. I doubt whether 
Euripides would have used py wapovons independent of the 
genitive with which it agrees. In cases of a genitive absolute, I 
think that the noun or pronoun should be expressed, since it must 
almost always be emphatic; the sentence therefore requires 
Kelyns ay wapovaons. Nevertheless the Greek of this verse is 
so much better than those which I have ejected, that I cannot 
attribute it to the same interpolator whose heavy hand has: in- 
flicted so much dreary dullness upon this beautiful Tragedy. I 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 159 


dismiss the line therefore, only noticing, that instead of 4 4M, 
most MSS. have either idov or idovs: on which variation those 
who desire to correct the verse, must found their conjectures. 

v. 899. ‘* Recte Bremius intellexit sensum hunc esse: sed tamen 
non ultra quam res patitur verecundum esse oportet.” Hermann. 

v. 902. apryos wy tov otxoBev] There is a similar construc- 
tion of apryos in Esch. Th. 407. Aioxpwv yap apyos, By 
kaxds & elvat Oedet. 

v- 904. All the authorities give «i T av. ns. I have altered ys 
to 7v; and consider avixérevros to be a passive verbal, like adw- 
pntos Hee. 42. ovd aowpnTos pirwy” Eora apos avopwr. This 
seems greatly preferable to Hermann’s yo@', or Vossius’s nv T 7. 

v. 907. ‘Qs év y' axovaac’ tO wn Wevdas pw epetv] Elmsley 
(on Med. 580) illustrates this construction by similar instances: the 
more ordinary syntax would be Yo0: my \evdws m épovvra. 
Among other quotations are, Tro. 916. & o olda dia Aor-yww ovr’ 
éuot Karnryopycew. Soph. Electr. 616. Ev vey erictw rived 
mw aicxuvny yew. 

v. 908. Weudy Aéryww pev, Kat parnv éyeptouwv| All the 
copies have Wevdy Neryw dé: I have substituted Aéywv ev, as 
the sentence seems to require the opposition of sev and dé. Mat- 
thie however, mentions yap as the emendation of Hermann, who 
does not introduce or allude to it in his own edition. If the reader 
prefers the latter particle, I interpose no objection. 

v. 910. “Ovato, suvexws dvaTuxouvras whedov] Hermann 
prints cuverws, which sounds feeble ; and no fault is alleged against 
the common reading cuveyus. 

v. 911. Commonly dxove 64 viv. Barnes gives 67 vuv, which 
is unquestionably right. axove 67 vuy occurs in v. 1042, and else- 
where. On the subject of the enclitic vuy, and its various usages, 
there is a full and discriminating discussion in an article of the 
Philological Museum, Vol. 1. p. 227. a paper of uncommon learning 
and judgment, which I have heard attributed to Mr John Words- 
worth: the following note applies to the present combination of 
particles: ‘Our younger readers must be careful to distinguish 
between 67 vuy with an imperative and 67 viv or vov on with an 
indicative. Dr Elmsley has confounded the uses of these adverbs 
in his note on Soph. Aj. v. 994. ‘Odos 0° ode racav unacaca 
69 Madtcra tovmov orAayyxvov, nv on viv EBnv. In o4 vuv 


160 NOTES ON THE 


after an imperative, vuy is always enclitic; in vuy oy or On vuv 
with an indicative, it always bears the meaning of time. See Dr 
Monk, Hippolyt. 233. viv oy pev Ogos Bao’ ext Oypas | ToBov 
€aoréAXov. Heindorf. on Plat. Charmid. p- 66. a on. vov eyo 
éAXeryov, and on Gorg. p. 7. Kat yap oy vuv avta ravTa 
emnyyeAAouny. As a general rule we may remark, that vu», 
when it is placed after the verb, is almost always an enclitic.” 

v.913. Aldus and the other old Edd. have IleQwueO’ avris 
marépa Bedtiov ppovetv. Scaliger and Reiske proposed 7eiOw- 
mev: this is confirmed by the MSS. which vary between 7reiOwuer, 
aweiBouev, and zeiOoueO with weiOwuev interlined. avuris re- 
mained in the text, I believe, till Matthie altered it to avOts. 
But that word would at all events be useless to the sentence. I 
have by the change of a letter given avtys, which seems almost 
necessary: Achilles could hardly apply to Agamemnon the word 
marTepa, except in a sentence where some mention or allusion was 
made to his daughter. 

v. 915. All editions have AAA’ ot Adryou rye MivacaNdovaty | 
Aoryous. Although no difficulty has hitherto been started about 
the article used with Aoyor, yet it appears to me not only unne- 
cessary, but destructive of the sense. As Achilles means to express a 
proverbial truth, I have not hesitated to alter ot into uy, which is 
ali appropriate particle: and the use of ‘ye after aAX’ ouv, another 
word being interposed, is habitual with the Tragedians. 

_v. 916. Commonly Ti oe xpa ME pay, in violation of the 
metre. Reiske and Markland, 5 wt de xpn. Scaliger xpew for 
xpn- Hermann ypewv, which I have adopted. 


v.918. “Av 0’ avriBaivn vulgo. Markland prefers 4v 0 avr. 
propler sonum, cujus in his rebus magna habenda est ratio. A 
better reason might be urged in favour of the change, that av is 
not used by Attic writers simply for ea. 


v. 919. Aldus and other editors give Ex yap TO ay 
emiOer , which is evidently corrupt. The MSS. however have 
‘distinctly ein yap, thereby showing the origin of the corruption : 
the Aldine appears to have changed ety into ei on account of the 
metre. I conceive therefore that the original reading was xat on, 
for let us suppose, and that ety yap, being superscribed as the 
interpretation, was in process of time taken into the text in place 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 16] 


of the true words. Kai dy is commonly used in this sense; Med. 
387. Kai dy reOvace ris we dé€erat rods; Hipp. 1011. Kai 
Sy TO wppov Tovpov ov TeiOet o icws. I have further changed 
emiOer into émOev, the sense being, For suppose that your en- 
treaties have persuaded him. Different alterations have been pro- 
posed, which seem much more violent; as wetoer Hermann, ro 
Xpnorov meiceT Blomfield. . 

v. 921. Karyw r aucivwy rpos pidov yevycoua] Needless 
changes have been made in this line: auetvwy mpos idov, better 
conducted towards a Friend, as Alcest. 445. Ovo auelvov ets eu. 

v. 922. Ta Tpayuara, publica negotia, as in v. 287. 

After v. 923. I have ejected a line, which, while it mars the 
construction of the sentence, exhibits as much as any that can be 
found, marks of the Interpolator’s handy-work, Kadws oe Kpav- 
Oevrwy, qpos yoovny didots. It was inserted from a notion that 
the period ended, or ought to end, with o@ever. The words 
kadws xpavOevraw are translated rebus bene perfectis; but I do 
“not believe they could be so used; see note on v. 897. Nor even 
if Tov mpayuatwv or Twvde were expressed, am I sure that 
they would bear such a sense. Perhaps the reader will feel 
what those words really imply, if I quote two lines of our author, 
Heracl. 605. ‘Os ovre rovrots yoouat, Tem pary MEVOLs, Kpyopov 
Te py xpavOevros, ou Biwornov. Moreover, I do not admit that 
pos noovny gidos would have been used by a Tragedian to 
signify graia amicis. In regard to the versification, the line is 
destitute of all harmony, and violates a rule which is observed, 
by Euripides at least, with very few exceptions: it is divided into 
two equal parts, without the quast-cesura, and the second half 
begins with a word not attached to the preceding, but which 
might commence a sentence. See this matter explained and illustrated. 
by Elmsley on Suppl. 303. (Class. Journ.) The text of this play. 
contains but one instance of such a formation (v. 227) and that line. 
is not so inharmonious as the present. | 

v.926. *Hv 3 av te wn rpaccwpev wv ery) Gero | The 
editions have #v 0 aura and ‘dv eyw Oedw. As av is plainly. 
out of place, Hermann gives ws e. 0, I have some confidence 
in my own émendation, av +t and wv e. 0. This construction, 
though common, has been often misapprehended by the transcribers 
of manuscripts, and thus ‘dv or av has been substituted for wv. This, 


21 


162 NOTES ON THE 


happened, as already noticed, in v. 637. The arrangement of the 
words is one familiar to the Tragedians. Compare Phen. 770. 
€dv Ti THS TUXNS eyo ohare. Iph. T. 513. “Ap aw te 
noe hpaceas wv eyo Oérw ; 

v. 929. guratonev is Markland’s emendation for uAracconev. 
I had intended to place a comma at the end of this line, and a 
larger stop after OyAov in v. 931. 

v. 934. éarat for éotiv Markland. 

v.935.6. Ei © eiot Oeoi, dixasos wy avnp av rye "EaOdav 
Kupyoes* ei 0€ un, Ti det roverv;] ecOAwv. scil. Pear. The 
translations are erroneous in rendering ec. kup. bona consequeris. 
Compare Ion. 1269. "EcOAov 3 Exupoa daipovus. 

v. 937—940. Tis ap vmeévaios dia Awrov AiBvos, Mera 
ve ditoxopov xBapas, Lupiyywv O bro xadapoecoay eatacev 
iaxyav] Markland calls this chorus, omnium in Euripide, mea 
quidem opinione, pulcherrimum et suavissimum, and laments that the 
opening lines should be so defaced by corruptions; one, however, 
he produces himself, by writing viv for tis. The fact is that 
he has taken a wrong view of the passage, thinking vuevatos to 
be Deus Hymenaeus. ZEmilius Portus had better comprehended it: 
he perceived that we must either read tiv’ vuevatov...... és Tacap, 
or Tis umevatos ...... éatacev iayav; What was that nuptial song 
that raised its strains? Markland properly proposed iaxyav for 
tayay, on account of the metre, as well as kaNauoecoayv for kaXa- 
foccoay. Matthie retains the latter word; but the reader will 
observe that, as the two other instruments, the flute and the lyre, 
which were the accompaniments of this song, have their respective 
epithets, the ptpes also are entitled to theirs; and his defence of 
KaAaucecoa iaxxa fails, since taxxa applies not to the syrinx 
only, but to the whole band. The first line is the only Choriambic 
which I recollect in this play: it is however a measure somewhat 
akin to the Glyconeus Polysch. which abounds im this as well as the 
three other chorusses, and which always ends with a Choriambus. 

v. 943. Every edition has Theepides ev dari Oewy, in violation 
of the measure. I have changed it into émi da:ri, at the feast, 
which is distinguished from éi daira, to the feast, in v. 961. 
The line thus becomes Glyc. Polysch. like the antistrophic v. 965. 

v. 947. For meAqooi Elmsley (Heracl. 752) proposes weAwoais, 
to which I make no other objection but that all authority is in fa- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 163 


vour of the nominative, and that the word is generally, if not always, 
applied to persons. He properly reads axyuact for iaynuact. 
The verse, which is commonly divided into two, is an antispastic 
of the class noticed in v. 168. 

v. 948. Aldus ev Opect KAvoucat. I have adopted av Opeat 
from a Paris MS. Matthize does the same, observing that this is 
exquisitius: one of the Paris MSS. which I collated has xAvovaat, 
the other «A¢iovoa, which was first introduced by Brodeus. I 
have printed «kA€ovoat, the emendation of Monk (on Alcest. 459. 
€v T adAupots KA€ovTes Yuvots) Hermann adopts the same; he 
also gives opos, on account of ava: but that preposition frequently 
governs a dative in poetry, as we may see in v. 659. and 959. 

v. 955. Instead of Aevxodhayn, another word Aevxodavy was 
introduced, I believe by Portus, and held its place in some editions. 


v. 956. Eiiscoocouevas xvxAw] «xvKd@ is Heath’s emendation 
for‘xuxAca. It suits the verse rather better than xuxAra, and seems 
to be on other accounts more probable. | 

v. 957. Llevraxovra xopac Nypews yapous exopevcar] 
Nupéws for Nypijos is the emendation of Seidler (De Vers. Dochm. 
p- 261) He adopts however Heath’s arrangement of the verses, 
which is very erroneous. The Strophe concludes with a Glyco- 
nean and Pherecratean. N»ypyos seems to have been put in by 
a transcriber, who remembered the passage of Hesiod which our 
Poet had in his eye, Theog. 263. Aura pev Npyos GLU ovoS 
efeyevovro Kovpat revryxovta, auumova py etoviat. See Iph. 
T. 427. also Andr. 1268. 

v. 959. ‘Ava d éXaTact, orepavwcet TE xA0g ] The trans- 
lation is Cum abiegnis vero telis et gramineis coronis turba venit 
equestris Centaurorum. It may be doubted whether Euripides in- 
tended in this play to countenance the vulgar fable of the monstrous 
nature of the Centaurs; he rather represents them as a tribe of 
rude horsemen. In v. 828. he distinctly calls Chiron, one of their 
number, avnp evoeBeoTaros. See his account of this race in 
Here. F. 364 Tav 7 cpewopov aypiwy Kevtavpwv more yévvav 
"Erpwoev Tokots Qoviots .-.... Tlevcatow 0ev yépas [lAnpovv- 
TES x9ova Oecocarwv lareias edapaCov. In that play, however, 
the epithet rerpackedns is twice applied to them v. 181, 1272. 

v. 961. The credit of discovering that the actual terms of 
the supposed Epithalamium are contained in the following lines, 


164 NOTES ON THE 


belongs to Tyrwhitt, who communicated this remark in conversa~ 
tion to Musgrave, and pointed out the very words sung by the 
Thessalian maids, as they are marked with a dotted line in my 
text. Hermann tries, but I think tries In vain, to unsettle this 
opinion of the passage, which has been held by scholars for the last 
sixty years. He makes the words, uavtts 0 Doi3os, 0 Movoay 
T eidws ryervacers Xeipwv é€ovouatev, part of the recited nup- 
tial song; and renders Moucav eidws ryevvaces, a Musis gene- 
rationes edoctus. I doubt however whether he will find the noun 
ryevynots in any poet whatever; certainly not in a Tragedian. 

v. 965. It used to be written wacces at OeacadAai, the article 
having been inserted by some one who thought he could thereby 
make an agreement of measure with the Antistrophe. It was 
properly erased by Heath. 

v. 966. All the editions give Mavis 0 ®Po:Bos, the MSS. 
pavrTis 0. I have inverted the words, and written ®Po:3os o 
pavris, the order generally adopted in such a form ;—as Kadyas 
o pavtes v. 88 and 858. [lapts o Bouvxodos v.176. ‘O DorBos 
6 o partis Iph. T. 1128. Markland next alters sovcay to 
Mozpap, but without good cause. 0 uovoay evows is not a Musis 
edoctus, but literarum sciens, as in Hipp. 454. Eiaiv é€v povoats 
aei. cyevvares signifies paries. 

v. 968. Vulgo eE€wvonacev. I have followed Markland in 
writing efovouaccev, propter metrum, though that word involves 
a double licence. But I should have done better had I given 
eLovopacen, as I conceive that the Poet has a direct view to the 
expression so frequent in Homer, émos T epar ex T ovonacev. 
L. Dindorf, e£ovounvev. Hermann, efovouatev. I do not be- 
lieve that either of those forms was used by the Tragedians. 

v. 970. In order to clear the construction, a comma may be 
placed after I pranoro, or, if the reader prefers, after xNewvav. 
yaiav for qoAw, as in v. 455. Avapragovat kat kaTaoxa\pouct 
-ynv. Respecting the use by the Tragedians of Ionic genitives 
in oto, see Professor Monk’s note on Alcest. 126, I do not think 
him right however in giving A%dao in that line, and I prefer Her- 
mann’s reading Avda re wuAwvas. 

v. 972. Instead of wept owuatt Canter corj. TepiCwuart. 
But Markland observes that Euripides had a reference to Homer, 
Aurap émei p écauvto rept ypot vwpowa yad«oy. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 165 


v. 978. “Ordwv ‘Agawcrorovwy KexopuOuevos GvouT eK 
Geas sat pos dwonuar exo] As the Homeric participle here 
adopted, kexopvOuévos, is always used in Homer with a dative, 
Schaefer (on Bos p. 467) suggests doubtfully, that the preposi- 
tion uvzro is understood before OmAwy, si tamen hic aliquid sub- 
audiendum. However plain the meaning, it cannot be denied 
that there is some ambiguity in the construction of this sentence. 
Whenever xexop. is applied by Homer to a person, it is in 
the phrase xexopvOuevos alfort yadke, helmeted with bright 
brass; and évoura. (or rather evduTa) the covering, ought, according 
to the usage of our Author, to be joined with 67Awv. See Elms- 
ley on Bacch. 745. It would seem then that the order of the 
words in construction is, EXwov evourTa Xpucewy omrAwy ‘Hoar 
atorovev (dwpyuara éx Deas uatpos Oé€ridos) KexopvOuevoy 
scil. xopv0 ‘Hoacrorovp. All difficulty will cease if, instead 
of kexopvOmeévos, we suppose Kal xopv0os to be read in the context; 
for the participle seems to be the representative of those two words. 

v. 978. Instead of -yauov Hermann gives ryauwv, 

v. 979. Commonly N npnioos. Herm. Nupndds +r. I have 
adopted Nupydwv, the emendation of Heath. “Pro N npnioos 
conjicerem cum Heathio Nupndwr, ut daixova rpwrov paxapwy, 
Bacch. 377. et AxeAdea WT pwrov ‘E\Aados Andr. 1237. Primis 
urbis, Horat. Epist. 1. 20. 23.” Markland. 

v. 981. Xe 0 en Kapa Zrévpouct kadAcconavy TlAoxamov 
‘Apryecot] Markiand writes, “Sequitur é¢ 0 emi capa &c. quasi 
dixisset, tales erant Thetidis nupite: Tu vero, O Iphigenia, coro- 
naberts, non ut sponsa, sed ut victima. Hic est sensus satis pla- 
nus: sed constructionem et versionem non prestabo istorum, 
emi Kapa oreyovct kaAAtKouav wAoKauov. There is not the 
least difficulty in either ‘construction’ or ‘version.’ oreyouat 
has after it two accusatives, o¢ and mAcKauov, a syntax of the 
commonest nature both in Greek and Latin. The reader may 
however be surprised at the abruptness of the transition by 
which Iphigenia is now addressed. I suspect that something has 
been lost from the beginning of this Epode, and that the first 
words have been rubbed off, or destroyed by damp: a sus- 
picion ‘corroborated by the metre of v. 981. cé 0 emi Kapa, 
which sounds like the latter half of a Glyconean, as if it had 
been written w dvotnve, cé 6 em Kapa, or ® Tadava—, 


166 NOTES ON THE 


though it must be confessed that such an order of words is 
unusual, and that we should rather expect, cé 0, w wapOev, 
or cé 0, w TAGHOY, ap emt xdpa. Potter seems to have 
thought that the line ought to be supplied in some such manner, 
for he translates it, But thee, unhappy maid, thy head With flowery 
garlands Greece shall crown. 


v. 983. After Apyetot, the MSS. and old editions proceed 
thus, Y ahsay WATE MWETPAiwy am avrpwv eNOovcay opewy 
moa xov axyparov. Instead of yy adtav, which is a glaring 
corruption, Scaliger ‘discovered the true word to be Barz», 
and joined it with uooxov. Several editors have adopted this 
suggestion, | rendering it, maculosam juvencam. I have inserted 
the word €Aadov in the text, for several concurring reasons. 
1. Badia is a common epithet of Edagos, but not so of pocyos. 
Hec. 88. Eldov yap Badsav edadov AUKou aiuou ‘xara. 
Hipp. 218. Bandzats ehadors ey Xptumronevy 2. If all the 
words cited be referred to moaxor, the sentence is overloaded 
and embarrassed. 3. It is most likely that the Chorus, when 
comparing the treatment of Iphigenia to that of an ordinary vic- 
tim, would not forget that animal which, as the fable says, the 
goddess herself supplied as the most appropriate substitute on 
her altar. 4. The metres, as they stand in all the editions, are 
not reconcileable with those of the rest of this chorus, or with 
any others used by our author ; ; whereas, by the insertion of 
édXadov, and of 4 before Oo XOV; the verses become at once 
assimilated to the prevailing measure of the chorusses of this play. 
Professor Hermann holds quite a different opinion, and thinks 
that es has set all right by giving Tav aXiav, and construing 
thus : Emoreyyouse ae, inguit, Tap aXiav éBoicar, WOTE 
fee aknpatov amo WET Paiwy avT pwr opetwy. Although 
I entertain many objections to this proposition, I shall mention 
only one: aAia may be a good epithet for a sea-goddess, but 
Iphigenia had not come from the sea, nor had the Chorus reason 
to suppose that she had ever been on that element in her life. 


v. 985. I have given opetav for opéwv, a word for which it 
might be easily mistaken, and have inserted ” for the reasons 
already stated. Both sense and metre repudiate opewy: Her- 
mann changes it to opetwy: the reader must decide. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 167 


v. 987. Bporeroy aiuaccovres Natnov) This line cannot be 
reconciled to any metre with which I am acquainted; it also 
seems unnecessary and intrusive. I do not insinuate that it is 
the offspring of the interpolator, for the words are not likely to 
be his; but I do think it very probable that they were taken 
from some passage of our author, now lost. The reader will observe 
that the part. pres. aiuacaovres does not suit the context*. 

v. 988. All editions have ov cupiyy: Tpadeican’ ovo év 
porBonoer Bovxodwy, and it is rendered non ad fistulae sonum nu- 
trifam, neque ad cantum pastorum. Whereas poi onats denotes not 
the songs of the herdsmen, but the lowing of the herds: I have 
therefore given Bovxodwy, which restores both sense and verse. 
Apollon. Rh. 1. 627. Bovxodia: te Bowv, armenta boum. 


v. 990. Aldus and the Edd. qwapa dé pnrept vuoxopov 
"Tvaxidais ryapov, the two last words being rendered uzorem 
alicut Argivorum. Markland seems to have perceived that vuugo- 
komoS was a proper epithet not of the bride, but of the mother ; 
the word is in fact synonymous with vuAdaywyos, which Cly- 
temnestra applies to herself in v. 528. I have therefore given 
rT. 0. par pi vuupoKone, and have placed marks of hiatus in the 
following line. Without the insertion of a word of two syllables 
the metre cannot stand, and such an epithet as xAewvov, or Kedvor, 
would raise the spirit of the sentence, while it restored its harmony. 
"Tvaxidacs ryauov, as Hec. 352. BactAevoe vung. 

v. 992. In all the copies the following lines appear, 

wov TO Tas aicous, 
[7 ro ras aperas dvvacw eye 
. ceva Tt tpocwror] 
OwoTe TO Mev AGEN TOV, &e. 
What is placed between brackets seems the production of the 
interpolator ; nevertheless, I have retained mpoow7ov, from my un- 
willingness to eject any word which might by possibility belong to 
our Poet. The interpolator has not given himself the trouble 
of looking beyond the next two lines for the other words of his 
addition to the chorus; and consequently he is, if possible, more 


* Possibly such a sentence as the following might have existed in a lost 
Tragedy, or in the lost speech of Diana at the conclusion of the Iphigenia: 
Bpéreov aludooorres dudyxer Eider 
Aasudr. 


168 NOTES ON THE 


offensive and more flat than usual. The repetition of words is by 
no means the whole, or the worst part of the impeachment to 
which these two lines are exposed : could the language bear 
Ovvaciv or civauy & exet oOevew Ti? 


v. 993. To adoerron, sci. ace Bera. 
e ° ° Ul 
v. 994. There is no necessity for the final vy in xatomeOev. 


v. 997. Kat xowos aywr Bporois My ris Oewv POovos 
EXOn 3] The common interpretation of this line is correct, Et 
commune periculum mortalibus impendet, ne qua Deorum invidta 
veniat. Respecting OJewv POovos, see the note of Monk on Alcest. 
1154, where this line is cited with é\Oor for €dOn, probably by 
mistake. Matthie and Hermann are resolved to find meanings 
for this sentence never thought of by the Poet. The former ex- 
plains it, “ homines communiter in eo elaborant, ne dii, nimize 
hominis excellentiz invidentes, eam evertant.” The latter reads 
kal jn Kxowos, &c. ef non commune certamen hominibus est, ne 
deorum accedat indignatio. atywv here implies risk or danger ; it 
is needless to quote instances of a signification so common. 

v. 999. 1000. I have taken out of the text five verses inter- 
vening between these two; the reader will find them at the bottom 
of the page, and when he has perused them, he will immediately 
acknowledge that the speech of Clytemnestra is much improved 
by their absence. I believe, indeed, that few people ever read 
this Tragedy without feeling that those flat and useless lines con- 
stitute a poor exordium of this highly interesting scene: but I 
am the first writer who has ever hinted a suspicion of their 
being an interpolation ; while the latest editor, Hermann, exerts 
all his ingenuity and subtilty to extract sense out of the most 
desperate of them. They seem to have been intruded in order to 
introduce Iphigenia, who, according to Euripides’ intention, does 
not come upon the stage till v. 1016. But it is not merely the 
insipidity and unfitness of the verses upon which I ground my 
objections: their language betrays their origin. The translators 
have, it is true, endeavoured to give a sense in Latin which 
might be suitable to the occasion; but on examination the Greek 
words will not be found to bear the meaning with which their in- 
dulgent interpreters have invested them. Thus, woAAas teica meta- 
BoXas ooupmaTwv is rendered emittens multas variationes gemituum ; 
but where could they find any thing like peraoXat oovpua- 
Twv in such a sense? Oavarov axovcac ov TaTnp Bovdeverar 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 169 


is translated postquam audivit de morte, quam pater molitur; but 
in Greek this sense would require dbovov and Bovdever. Then 
penunv 0 ap’ elyov mAnoiov BeBnxoros ‘Ary. Tous is made 
to assume this meaning, Feci autem mentionem prope accedentis 
Agamemnonis hujus; but exeu vnunv does not mean facere 
meniionem ; it bears a far different sense, memoriam servare, as in 
v. 1126. Matthie hints at this last difficulty; he says, “Clytem- 
nestra haud dubie dicere voluit, sentire mihi videor venientem Agam. 
Quomodo pro hoc dici potest uynunv elyov (s. éeuvnaOnv) ‘Ary. 
wAnaotoy BeBnxoros ?” Hermann thinks to remove the scruple 
thus, “ Non videtur (Matthie) ad apa attendisse. Exierat Cly- 
teemnestra ut opperiretur Agamemnonem. Jam eum conspiciens, 
vidensque se bene meminisse quo tempore ille redire debuerit, 
atque ergo, inquit, commemineram eum prope huc adventare.” An 
interpreter, who can make his way through such a difficulty as 
this, will scarcely find anything in language to arrest hig course. 
All such ingenuity however, is here misplaced: Clyteemnestra had 
no excuse for speaking of her memory on this occasion; Aga- 
memnon had not intimated, any time for his return, he had not 
been absent from the scene such a length of time, as could jus- 
tify the words of the interpolator (borrowed from another play) 
Xpovtov amovra, and it may be recollected that he and his wife 
had parted in ill-humour, v. 649. And though Hermann alters 
the translation of BeByxoros from accedentis to adventantis, yet 
i apprehend he will find it almost as difficult to justify the latter 
as the former version of that participle. I will detain the reader 
no longer with an exposure of this forgery ; the traces of which 
if he does not perceive after what has been said, all arguments 
will be unavailing. I will only add that woot in v. 999 was 
substituted for some word which was construed with ’Arvyapep- 
vovos. i have printed deuas, as being a periphrasis common 
with our Author (see Hec. 712. "ANN e1g0pw yap ToveE dec- 
morou dépas ‘Aryapepxvovos) though some perhaps, from the 
greater similarity of the words, may prefer qooa, which is equally 
Euripidean (see Orest. 1215. wapQévov déyou oda). It must be 
remarked too that the translators, in order to reconcile the 
beginning of this speech with what follows, render wpooKowov- 
wevn prospectura, while it really signifies prospictens. 

v. 1002. ev Kan, opportunely, as Herael. 971. Orest. 572. 
els eae Here. F. 728. Soph. CEd. T. 78. 


170 NOTES ON THE 


v.1005. Ti 0 éa7w ov cot Katpos avtiAaCuTat;] This 
line is greatly mistaken by the translators: it means literally, And 
what ts st, on which jour opportunity (or convenience) seizes? See 
v. 1122. Tévecov, ob viv aurihatypat XEpt- 


v. 1007. Commonly HUT peTriawEvat. 


v. 1008. Ilpoxvras TE, Badrew up xaQaporoy Xeporv | 
It was written wip xaBapeov ex XEpor: Reiske restored xa0ap- 
otov: Markland intimated that ex should be erased, and in fact 
one Paris MS. does omit it. Xepow is from Musgrave. This pre- 
paration for the sacrifice is again mentioned in v. 1349. aibesOw 
de mip T]poxurats kaBapatoct. Hermann cites Electr. 801. 
“AXAot dé mup avi rou, angi r éaxapas AcBnras wpOovv" 
wioa 0 exture ateyn. AaBwy oe TPOXUTAS nT pos evveTns 


oéBev “EBadrAc Bupous. 


v. 1013. Xwper 6€, Ovyarep, exTos" oicBa yap mar pos} 
dé is omitted in three MSS. Canter proposed wapos for watTpos, 
by which it is evident that he did not comprehend the construction 
of the latter. Understand zepi, as in Soph. Ant. 1182. "H roe 
KAvovea taios. Electr. hans TOU Rage yraTeN Ti ns; 


v. 1014. T[lavrws a& méAde’ xUmd aois memos aye] 
Commonly pede ye. Gaisford was the first to erase ‘ye. 
Markland proposed wav’ daa *ye meAXet, but without any neces- 
sity. ois, for Tos, is from Matthie. 


v. 1017. 7 po tnooe, for pos THO. The author of this 
emendation is Joshua Barnes; it is confirmed by some of the 
MSS. po Is on behalf of, as Alcest. v. 336. Oapoe po TtHode 
yap Aéyew ovy dCouat. 

v. 1018. Téxvov, Ti kAaets, ovo €6" yoews opGs | Commonly 
ove O: Reiske first proposed the correction ovo €0. Markland 
noews opqs, which I wish that my text had adopted. I have 
no example to justify the use of ydews o opas for noews Brees, 
and when we consider that the latter would have suited the verse 
‘quite as well, it is less probable that the Poet should in this 
single case use-opqv without an accusative. Hermann however 
defends it, rendering oux poeuis 0 OpPas, non suaviter promice 

v. 1020. 1. Dev. Tiv av AaBouue TwHV Emov apx7y KAKO 3 
“Aract yap mpwroot xpycac0a rapa] Till lately these 
lines were given to Iphigenia. Bremius seems to have been struck 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 171 


with the impropriety of her commencing a regular speech in the 
midst of her tears and agitation, and he therefore suspected the 
lines to have been borrowed from some lost Tragedy. Matthie, 
after much balancing, agrees with this theory ; he objects to giving 
the lines to Clytemnestra, in whose mouth they are perfectly ap- 
propriate, and who had just intimated her determination to speak 
at length, because having once made an exordium she does not 
proceed till after much interruption. But this very interruption 
shows the art and judgment of the Tragedian, and increases the 
pathes and interest of the scene. The Vict. MS. assigns them 
to Clytemnestra, so does Hermann, and as I learn from his note, 
others have recently done the same. 

After these lines there follows one of the Interpolator’s, Kay 
YOTATOLTL, KaV péegolct WAVTAXOV, to which the Editors have 
in vain laboured to give any rational meaning, although no one 
of them seems to have doubted its integrity. This intrusion at 
such a moment is more than usually offensive. The author of 
the line seems to have misunderstood that which precedes, daract 
yap TpwT ost xpnsacBa Tapa, and to have thought that some- 
thing more was wanted to comprise all the complaints of the 
speaker. The truth is this: it is common at the commencement 
of an oration to express hesitation as to what subject shall have 
precedence, as Agamemnon says in v. 365. apEopa moOev ; 
Here Clytemnestra does the same; What, says she, shall I take 
up as the beginning of my grievances? for they crowd upon me al- 
together, as fit subjects for an exordium. 

, Ww 0 ed , » aA ed hot 7 

v. 1022. Tio ECTLV;, WS MOL TAVTES Els EV HKETE, Suy- 
Xvow EXOVTES Ka Taparyyov ouparwv | Markland takes away 
the interr. after €or; and translates Ti 0 E€oTe ws, Quid vero 
est quare, &c. But there is no fault in the common punctuation ; 
WS fLol mavTes &c. is an exclamation, waves implying Cly- 
temnestra, Iphigenia, and the attendants who are supposed to 
accompany the latter out of the house. 

v. 1024. Eig ‘av Epwrnow ge yevvaiws, woot] The 
translations have que te interrogabo. Epwrnow is not the future, 
but the aorist subjunctive: Potter’s version is more scholarlike, 
Answer me what I ask, with honest truth. 


v. 1025. Oudev xedevonod det o* epwracOa Oérdw} . Ald. 
ovdev KéAevon’ ov oe: ty» One of the Paris MSS. has oveey 


172 NOTES ON THE 


kéXevop ov dec ry €. 0. the other ov de: y ¢. 9. both which 
readings exhibit attempts to give a new and affected turn to a 
plain sentence. Canter properly edited keXevouov. Markland pro- 
posed det ww, as Reiske had done before him (though the latter 
considered u as an elided pot) and this reading meets the appro- 
bation of Porson and of Hermann. But I have no doubt that 
instead of dec ty Euripides wrote det ao. Clytemnestra had ex- 
horted Agamemnon to give a sincere answer; he replies, You 
have no need to use exhortations. This is the reading of Dobree. 

v. 1026. See note on v. 775. 

v. 1027. "Ea. tAnuova + Edekas, virovoeis O a pn ce 
xen] Every copy has tAqjuova ry, which I have on my own 
responsibility altered to TAnMOva Tv. My reason is two-fold ; 
Ist the particle ye, when used in this sort of dialogue, has 
generally the force of assent, which would here be unsuitable to 
the sense. 2dly, though the expressions Oey édekas, Oavpaor 
EXekas, yervar édetas &c. are common in the tragic dialogue, 
yet I do not recollect ye ever being attached to them. 

v. 1028. The words €y’ Hovxos are wanting in all the editions 
before Markland, who found them m the MSS. Elmsley on 
Med. 587. cites other instances of the same phrase; and on 
Soph. Céd. Col. 315. gives several examples in which one or 
two words are interposed in the Iambic dialogue of the Trage- 
dians, as distinct lines. 

v. 1030. The old edd. have eixora «Aves, against both pro- 
sody and construction. Markland restored e«or av KAvows: 
the latter word is in the margin of Barnes’ text. 

v. 1031. Aldus has ovx, adX’ Eepwrw, i.e. minime, sed inter- 
rogo. Canter ovx, GAA’ €. minime, alia interrogo. Barnes prints 
it correctly, ove GA’ €. non alia interrogo. 

v. 1032. In the old editions this line is thus dislocated, 

® jwoTva TUN, Kai potpa, Kat daiwwy ry Epos. 
The credit of the restoration is due to Musgrave. The MSS. 
which fluctuate, all tend to confirm this reading. Porson’s note 
is, “MS. apud Musgravium daiuwv 7’, qui optime legit "Q wor- 
nua pope, Kal TvUXN, daiuwv + éuos. Frustra Heathius et 
Marklandus legunt woTva, que vox scene prorsus ignota est: 

Idem MS. delet xai ante dainov.” , 
v. 1033. Kapos ‘ye, «al THO, .€ls T pia dvodatnove | 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 173 


All the editions had xauos 7, until Matthies properly printed 
kapos ‘y: the meaning is, aye, and mine too, and her's. 

v. 1034. There is an: extraordinary variation in the first 
words of this line: Aldus has cl noiknoas 3 some MSS. Tin 
noiknoe; others tiv nu noiuknoe; (which means Tiv or vip) 
I have followed Matthie in printing Ti & notknoa; as being 
nearest to the Aldine; though it might have been Tis go nonce; 
or Tio nolknoa; or TW yoiknoa ; which last is adopted by 
Hermann, who removes these two lines, placing them after v. 1031. 
I do not think his reasons for the transposition satisfactory. 


v. 1035. ‘O vous 80 avros voiy Exwv ov tuyyavel 
Porson quotes Cic. Att. VII. 3. Causam solam tlla causa non habet: 
ceteris rebus abundat. Erasmus translates this line, verum astus 
hic astu vacat, Atque ista calliditas profecto incallida est. 


v. 1037. The editions till very lately had [lavr olda, xai 
memo, & GU ye meAdNes we Opa». MSS, wéracn’. Elmsley 
was the first who corrected it to wemuaucO’ a ov ats wt. O- The 
source of the corruption is evident; memuagua having been writ- 
ten for wemvaueO on account of oloa, the ae was supposed to 
be cut off, and then ‘ye was, as usual, summoned to fill up the 
metre. Elmsley observes, “A similar change of numbers occurs 
immediately afterwards v. 1042, “Axove oy vuv’ avaxadiw 
yap Aoyous, Kovxere qapwpoots Xpnoopecd awviryuacw. So 
also v. 436, AaQogue rovr av, adr’ exe av AncopLev 
(ov Ajcouat Aldus). v. 563, Acuvera vuv Epouuer, ci oe 
evppave. v. 830, Kai rors Arpeicats, nv pev nrywvTat Kadax, 
Tlescoped’, Grav dé un KaXws, ov reicoma (we:coueBa. Ald.).” 

v. 1039. ay Kauvns Aérywu continued, like the reading men- 
tioned in the last note, to occupy every edition, at least as late 
as Matthie’s, though it is as much opposed to syntax as that is 
to prosody. The Greeks said ay Kauve and ay kauns, but not 
ay Ka UNS. It was corrected by Porson on Hec. 1166. 

v. 1040. 1. ‘[dov, owe to yap avalaxuvrov je Oéi, 
Vevdy Aéryoura, mpocdaBeiv +H Evudopg] Thus were these 
two lines given in all the editions without scruple, till Elmsley (Q. R. 
viii. p. 230.) pronounced that we ought to read interrogatively 
To ‘yap avaioxuvrov ti det, and to render it, for why should I 
add falsehood to my other entls? In this reading he is followed 


174 NOTES ON THE 


by Matthiz and Hermann, the latter of whom does not apprise 
the reader of his deviation from the received text. To me it 
appears not only unnecessary but injurious to the sense. The 
common reading is unexceptionable ; only let it be recollected that 
evdy A€-yovra has the meaning of «i Wevdn AeEw, a common 
usage of the participle; see the same words in v. 908. and in v. 
321. dvoua dpwvTa Kov oixaa, i.e. et dpacw avoua. The 
lines imply, For I must, if I speak falsehoods, add to my misfor- 
tune the character of effrontery. This might be spoken aside. 

v. 1042. Commonly dxove 69 viv. Matthie corrected it. See 
the note on v. 911. 

v. 1043, Esch. Ag. 1154. Qpevwow 6 ovner’ ef aimryuatov. 

v. 1044. Tlpwrov per, va cor mpata taitT ovediow|] 
Every copy has rout. I have given tavrT, not only because 
TavTa and Tdce are more commonly used, even where one 
thing is implied, than tovro and rode, but on account of 7pwra 
in juxta-position. Compare v. 270. ‘Tavra MeV OE TpOr emndOov. 

v. 1045. All edd. before Markland have Er*yNHES, a barbarous 
word, which, Elmsley thinks, borrowed its termination from «aAa- 
Bes in the same line. | 

v. 1046. Tov mpocBev avdpa Tavradov xaraxravwv] 
“'Tavradov, Thyeste filius fuit. Vid. Pausaniam ii. 18. 22.” 
Musgrave. This incident is opposed to the authority of Homer 
Il. A. 113, where Agamemnon says, kai yap pa KAvTatuvyc- 
tpns mpoeBovta Kovpidins adoxyov. The discrepancy is 
noticed by Eustathius. 

v. 1047. The old copies have Bpedos TE TOUMOV TW 1 poo- 
oupicas mad. An idea struck both Scaliger and Milton of 
altering the verb to mpocovoiwas, and H. Stephens renders the 
line in his Thesaurus 111. p. 30. G. infantem meum vibrando illi- 
sistt solo, seu vibratum. Various other conjectures have been ha- 
zarded, all, however, involving the horrid cruelty of dashing to 
the ground Clytemnestra’s infant. Matthie says, “ édq conj. 
Scaliger et recepit Gaisford. Sed hujus vocis vis inest jam in 
a pogovotcas, et quid est o@ wedw? Saltem ad partes vocanda 
erat Musgr. conjectura (wy pro om, Bp. Te Tovucy C@v mpoc- 
ovcicas meow, ut fecit Jacobs.” Hermann at length perceived 
that mpocovccas, and whatever had been built on that foundation, 
was purely imaginary. But strange to say, while he points out.the 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 175 


errors of others, he himself misses the true reading. He only 
changes the accent of the verb, writing apocovpicas, and render- 
ing it as a participle, puerum meum tu@ sorti in divisione captivorum 
adjictendum curans. The participle, however, is not 7 pocoupiaas 
but 7m poc opicas. Alithis time the simple emendation, Tpocwpicas, 
is overlooked ; the sense is, parvulum autem meum tue sorti adje- 
cisti. The difficulty made about this passage is the more remarkable, 
as opiCw and its compounds are of frequent occurrence. 

v. 1049. Kat rw Atos ce waio, €uw oe avyyovw, “Ir- 
Towce wapuaipovT ewertparevoaTny | “Vel Aus Te Taio s 
quia sequitur EUW TE ouryyovw : : vel Atos ce mato — éme- 
oTpaTevoaTny, ut Phen. 292. eréeg TpPAaTevaav Aprystot woAw.” 
Markland. Of these two proposals Hermann embraced the first, 
which Elmsley (on Med. 440) had also approved. The latter cir- 
cumstance surprises me, as the instances quoted in Elmsley’s note 
(which will well repay the perusal) tend to confirm the readings 
in my text, Atos ge and ene dé. See Herc. F.97. ”“EXOoe 
T &T av Taig OuUpos, evyn Twp dé gos. 

v. 1054. I do not object to the reader adopting, if he pleases, 
Markland’s suggestion, ov uaptupyces, instead of Evuuaptupyces. 
I have been deterred from doing so myself by the frequent re- 
currence of the same pronoun in the sentence; the common read- 
ing contains nothing positively faulty. 

v. 1056. Me)a6pov abfous’, WoTEe G eictovTa Te] Aldus 
and other old editors wot cicovra tre. Canter pointed out the 
proper correction, WoTE oO EictovTa Te. One of the Paris MSS. 
has WoT eic.ovTa oe Te. 

v. 1060. Tixrw 0 emt tpict mapOévoict maida cor] 
Elmsley (Bacch. 938) notices this line as inharmonious, the two 
first syllables of a trisyllabic foot being in one word, and the 
third in the following, ez Tpt—an arrangement which occurs fre- 
quently in the first, but not in the other places. He compares 
however Ion. 931. Ti ps 5 ; tTlwa Aoyov Aokiou KaTNYopeEts 3 

v. 1061. wv mtas ou TAnpovws pL atooTepeis | Elmsley 
would read TAnmoves p, but the adverb seems more pathetic ; it 
may either be rendered cruelly, or be considered as equivalent to 
TANpoUL Mop. 

v. 1063. Aefov, vi paces ; 7 pe xen deryew Ta oa;]| 
oO TI pnoes Porson. But the common reading is preferable 
both in regard to the verse and to the effect. See the note of 


176 NOTES ON THE 


Elmsley on Med. 1108. Aefov dé awe wAovTo. Compare Soph. 
Aj. 1261. "“Ooris ™ pos nuas avTi cov deket Ta oa. 

v. 1064. 5. ‘EXeévny Mevedews wa abn.—xadov ‘ye vo) 
Kaxjs ryuvaikos picOov amoriaa trexva| All editions have 
‘EXevnv MevédXaos—I prefer MeveAews, as does Dobree. 
Elmsley (Edinb. Rev. Vol. x1x. p. 69) gives Mevédaos “EXevny. 
Then Aldus and the MSS. read xador ‘yevos, a palpable corrup- 
tion: but in the second Hervagian Ed. and that of Brubach is 
kaXov tye vw, which, whether it proceeded from manuscript au- 
thority or not, I believe to be the true reading, or nearly 60 
perhaps some may give the preference to the dative vpy, as in 
Med. 514. Kadov yy Odvedos Te vewori vuppiy Trwyous 
adacOat waidas. The ironical use of xados ‘ye has been re- 
marked on v. 633. The meaning is, It is a pretty thing to be sure 
that you and I should pay our children’s lives as the price of a bad 
woman. Elmsley has a different emendation, highly praised by 
Matthie, xaXov y €0os, and Hermann xaXov xAeos: both seem 
to enfeeble the sentence, and the latter loses the particle which is 
highly significant. It was formerly edited arorica:: Elmsley 
corrected the accent. 

v. 1066. Tay@ora root pirtaros wvovpeOal The first 
word in this line was corruptly written in Aldus and the Paris 
MSS. Tax Gewa. This soon deviated still further from the 
truth; 7 ayGevra Herv. 2, T ax Bewa H. Steph. Brodeeus re- 
stored TayOtora. Instead of Toit Hermann gives TOL TOIS. 

v. 1067. Commonly nv oTparevan and Kaxer ryevnon. But as 
the latter must be a future (Attic ryevnaet) the subj. being 
yéevwuae not yevyowuat, Elmsley gives et orparevoe. It may 
be a question whether it should be oTparevoes: or oTparevael. 

Vv. 1070. Alcest. 966. Tuvacxos evvas evT av ciciow Kevas, 
Opovous +’, ev olow We. 

v. 1072. The Edd. and MSS. have xa@yua, which Elmeley 
alters to xaQwuat: Hermann follows him, and, after some hesi- 
tation, I have done the same. There is no doubt but that, if the 
sentence is to proceed in regular syntax, a subjunctive is re- 
quisite after Orav. But the Tragedians sometimes change the 
construction for greater effect; and Matthie argues that on this 
ground xaQyua: is right. Hermann however remarks that in 
such. changes of mood, the tense is always that which the meaning 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 177 


requires; and that consequently, were the indicative to be adopted, 
the word would be not xaOnuat but xaOedovuat. Upon this point 
the learned reader must exercise his own judgment. , 

v. 1073. Amwrecév o, w Téxvov, Oo gurvoas raTnp | 
Commonly o purevcas aatnp. I agree with Elmsley in read- 
ing gitucas, as giving somewhat smoother numbers. Hermann 
prefers the other, making vov O gu the fourth foot. It is of some 
consequence to observe that 0 gitvaas waTnp is a frequent 
termination of senarians; and it generally happens that the old 
copies have altered that participle to gurevoas, the more common 
word, in open violation of the metre. See the note of Monk on 
Alcest. 305. The numbers of this verse are certainly not the 
most harmonious, and I might perhaps suggest a little improve- 
ment, by reading w TEKVOY, ATWAETEV O O gd. wT. or amTrwrEcev 
ge, Téxvov, 6 d. 7. were I not aware that the poet in this play 
used a more lax versification than in his earlier compositions. 

The lines of Clytemnestra’s speech, which ensue, have caused 
great embarrassment to the Editors, between no two of whom 
does there appear to be any coincidence of opinion respecting 
them. I do not deny the difficulty, or presume to suppose that 
my edition will have removed all doubts respecting the readings 
and interpretation; but I apprehend that I shall have greatly di- 
minished them, if I can establish that the line which follows v. 
1074. Totovde prsOov xaradkirwy mpos Tovs dopous, is a 
weak invention of the interpolator. It is translated Tale premium 
relinquens familie: but the words cannot bear that signification ; 
nor, if they could, would it suit the speaker’s argument. I appre- 
hend that their author intended them to mean, Having left me 
such a reward as this for my care of his house. But though that 
would be an intelligible remark, yet the Greek words will not 
convey such a meaning. Matthie suggests that a line has been 
lost, in which was found the word apién referring to mpos Tous 
SSuovs. L. Dindorf joins this line’ with what follows, reading 
eet (for met) advenies. Hermann prints ™po gov domots, talem 
pro te mercedem edibus relinquens, which it is not easy to com- 
prehend. But the productions of this interpolator seem to defy 
the efforts of criticism to convert them into sense: he rarely 
takes the trouble of looking for words to constitute his verses 
further than the page before his eyes, and this line is made up 
of words which he saw in v. 1065—1069. This intruder being 

23 


178 NOTES ON THE 


ejected, I have transposed the two following lines, which in all 
the copies come after 1079, but which Markland perceived to be 
required in this place. I observe that Potter in his translation has 
actually adopted this transposition, without which indeed the argu- 
ments of Clytemnestra would be inconsequential: ezret implies expla- 
nation, but according to the common arrangement there is nothing to 
which it can refer. The oration is now not only clear and unembar- 
rassed, but displays the art of the Poet with very fine and delicate 
touches. The anticipation of her condition during her husband’s 
absence, deprived by his cruelty of the society of her eldest daugh- 
ter, forces upon the imagination of Clytemnestra the first idea of that 
guilty conduct, which in the sequel of the story she adopted. She 
therefore implores him not to drive her to such guilt, and then 
explains what she means in the words xkaxnv syevecOat TEpt oe, 
by a threat, intimating the kind of reception which he might 
expect on his return to Argos. 

v. 1077. The only change which I have made in this passage 
is we det for de. Many editors have’ adopted Reiske’s conjec- 
ture evoe:: but it seems as if the insertion of me is, if not indis- 
pensable, yet conducive to clearness, and dec is much better than 
€oet in such a sentence. The construction is the same as in v. 
1025, ovdev xeAevomov dec o. See Porson on Orest. 659. Mat- 
thie and Hermann give explanations of this passage differing 
widely from each other: the former, who reads or understands 
o é0et, explains it, Tam parum liberos amabas, ut levi tantum- 
modo causa opus tibt esset ad occidendam filiam: quare male te ex- 
cipiemus: the latter, Brevi aliquo pretextu uti poteras, ul te et 
ego et quas relinquis Trojam petens filie sicuti patrem-familias decet 
revertentem exctptamus. Whoever adopts either of these interpreta- 
tions will find that the force and spirit of the speech is evaporated 
and lost. The latter sense indeed is plainly refuted by the words 
qatces at Nedewuevat, which must imply the daughters who 
would be left after the sacrifice of Iphigenia. And the conclud- 
ing words, de{oucOa détw qv oe dekacOa ypewv, contain an 
intelligible menace, we shall give you such a reception as you de- 
serve. In point of construction compare Bacch. 953. Kpuwee ov 
Kp, nv ce KpupOnvar xpewv. 

v. 1080. Elev. Qvces dé tyv maid’ eita tivas evyas épers 3] 
I have written efra instead of €vOa, which last signifies where. 
Markland’s proposal of onv for Tv is not merely unnecessary ; 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 179 


It impairs the sound of the verse by too much sigmatism. Elms- 
ley’ . is still more objectionable, Ouvaas o€ onv Taio, elta Tivas 
evyas é€pers; for, as Hermann observes, prayers were uttered not 
after but at the time of a sacrifice. 

v. 1081. Ti cot xarevfe tayabov, cpaCwy Téxvov;] This 
is rendered Quid tibi boni in sacrificio filie precabere ? and no editor 
has ever made the least scruple about the language: it becomes 
me therefore to speak with diffidence; but I am not satisfied with 
the Greek of Ti cot xatevéer TaryaBov; the article being super- 
fluous. Either Ti cor xarevger aryaOov; or Ti To atyabov 6 oat 
xarevéet; would be correct. If this remark be just, it follows that 
we ought to read 7 coi xaTevéet taryaOov......3 what? will you 
pray for yourself that which is good, while sacrificing your child? 

As to the following line, voorov movnpov olxoBev yy aicxpws 
twy 3; every one, I think, will allow that it weakens the effect of what 
goes before; so much so, indeed, as to excite strong suspicion that 
it has been intruded into the text; and this suspicion is augmented 
by the embarrassment which it produces in the construction. Por- 
tus renders it, Num reditum malum, quum turpiter domo sis profectus ? 
I shall not criticise the translation, believing that the verse does 
not belong to this passage: nevertheless it is not in the style 
of those interpolations with which the reader is familiar. It might 
have been brought into this place from some lost Tragedy. 

v. 1084. “Hv ap acuverous tous Oeous nryoipel av| OUT ap 
is I believe the reading of all editions, except Barnes’s and one 
or two others which have our ap’. Valckenaer (Duair. p. 108.) 
substituted nT ap » Musgrave qT ap ; which last I consider to 
be right, if it be understood as 4 Tot dpa. Both Matthiz and 
Hermann prefer the common reading o’T ap , placing an inter- 
rogation at the end of the next line. My objection to this is 
that I do not believe ov ro: to be ever used interrogatively: I 
have therefore adopted nT ap’, the only reading which seems 
to give a satisfactory meaning, Verily then, we must believe the 
Gods to be senseless. Upon the use of these particles in the be- 
ginning of a senarius, see Elmsley on Heracl. 651. where he adds 
his sanction of the reading which I have preferred. 


v. 1086. mpoomecory Ald. T pooTeans MSS. mpoo7ece: Mus- 


grave. 
v. 1087. Tis dé kai mpoaBréeWera Hlaidwy oa, Ww avroy 


180 | NOTES ON THE 


mpo0énevos KTavns twa;] All the copies have €ay auv7or, 
which was certainly the reading of some one who thought that 
an anapeest was as admissible in the second foot of a Tragic as 
of a Comic senarius. Porson’s correction STwy av cannot be right, 
as it gives a sense foreign to the passage. I have adopted Elmsley’s 
(on CEd. T. 1460) as the easiest and most probable, tv auTwy. 
Clyteemnestra means to say, Will any of your children meet your 
looks, that you may treat her as you have treated Iphigenia? that is, 
all your children will fly from your presence, for fear that you 
should put them to a public death. Hermann gives in his text a 
verse of his own, which it seems incredible that metrical ears could 
have approved, Tlaidwv o', eav avros od 7 poe nevos KTQUNS ; 
Elmsley proposes TT POEMEVOSs as he avows, audacter. It strikes | 
me as not only unnecessary, but as less expressive than a po0e- 
sevos, which implies exposure as a public victim. 

v. 1089. Tavr’ 7rOov 40n dia oyu. 7 oKn Tr pa oa 
Movov ctadépew, cai orparndatev oe devs] 7. 9. 9. 0. A. 
Thus far I have proceeded in my argument. This is said as pre- 
paratory to a new topic. The phrase teva, eAQew, pore ca 
Ao-ywy has usually a dative, and cot is here understood. See the 
note of Elmsley on Med. 842. Some MSS. have 7\0ev, Hermann 
m\Oes. What follows has occasioned great perplexity, it having 
been written 7 oKATT pa aot. I hope that I have removed the diffi- 
culty by the smallest of all possible changes, oa for got. Barnes 
has 7 for 7. “ oKHTWT pA drabeper cum contemptu dicit, obambu- 
lare cum sceptris significans, quo dignitas sua ab omnibus con- 
spiciatur.” Hermann. See v. 334. Lan pw vuy ayer, cov 
KaciryvnTov 7 pooous. The fovce of this passage is, What? have 
you no duties to perform except to carry about your truncheon, and 
to marshal the army? I doubt whether any edition before Her- 
mann’s has the interrogation. 

v. 1090. ov xpqv, for ov xpr, is a necessary correction pro- 
posed by Reiske; quippe opporlebat te gusta oratione uti. 

v. 1094. All editions have ev tow yap nv Too; I have 
adopted Markland’s suggestion -y av mv, which seems to me, if 
not necessary, by far preferable; and no change was more likely , 
to have occurred in the MSS. +e is here very expressive: This 
would at any rate have been fair.. Then I write uno instead of 
yo, and Hermann does the same. Here, as well as in the next 

~" ‘sentence, ‘xpnv is understood from v. 1091. “4 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 181 


v. 1096. 7 po ANT POS Scaliger, for pos unt pos. 

v. 1098. Commonly aratoos voTEpya opiat. Hermann objects 
to vot. as aliquanto debilius verbum, quam quo hic usus videatur 
Euripides. I have a different objection to it: I cannot find this 
future to have been in use at all, and in the only instance that I 
recollect of the verb in the Tragedies, its signification is of an- 
other kind—-Phen. 990. *Hy voTepnons, otxonecOa, xatOaver. 
votepeioOa in the sense of losing, is found with a genitive in 
prose writers, and particularly in the New Testament, from a 
recollection of which passages, I suspect that it was introduced 
into this line. Epist. Rom. iii. 23. mavres yap juaprov, Kat 
vorepouvrat THs dokns TOU Oeov. Porson proposed (as Reiske 
had done before him) es TEpNaomat, and if any authority could 
be found for the use of that form of the future, it ought to be 
adopted here. But I know of no passive future of this verb, 
except oTepyoouat. I am therefore driven to Markland’s emend- 
ation, wae aTrooTepycouat. The construction of the accusative, 
instead of the genitive, after oreperv and atrooreperv is not very 
common; but there are instances enough even in the Attic Poets 
to justify its adoption: see Here. F. 137. otous Evupuayous— 
arooTepnoet: in Xenophon several examples may be found. This 
word suits the bitterness of Clytemnestra’s expostulation: she may 
be imagined about to say ais amToAw, but to substitute, as more 
touching, avoor. Hermann introduces an emendation of his own, 
qWaLroos 7s oTEepnoouat. What induced him to believe that our 
Poet could use 99 for eujs I do not comprehend. 


v. 1099. Aldus has uTroaT popov veavioa, but all the MSS. 
vrorpoov. A great number of conjectures have been hazarded 
upon this word; Scaliger umwpodov, Reiske evBoorpuxov, 
- Markland UITOT poTroV, Hermann viropogor, to all of which there 
are very strong objections. There remains that of Heath, which 
I have no hesitation in considering the true reading, vot portos, 
redux, reversa, an Homeric word frequently applied to persons 
returning to their country. Od. Y. 332. Ei voorna ‘Ocvoevs 
Kal umoTpotos ikero dopa. X. 35. "Q xoves, ov mw er eda- 
oxeO vrroTpomrov otxad ixeoOar Anuov aro Tpwwv. The Scho- 
liast on Homer explains vxotpomos, e€ vxoarpodis emtaveNOav. 
I apprehend that this, or some such gloss, written over the word, 
gave rise to vrootpodov, from which proceeded vaorpodov. 


182 NOTES ON THE 


v. 1102. The common reading is 6 S ev AeAekTaAt vw, LY 
én rye xravys, in which voi is a glaring corruption: but it is 
not possible to correct the line with much confidence, since it 
cannot be said that any word in the place of vwi is absolutely 
necessary either to the sense or the construction. Elmsley’s. con- 
jecture Taya is by much the best and most probable that has 
been proposed. Te ou rye, instead of an on rye, 18 my own emend- 
ation: it seems preferable to Elmsley’s ude ov, or Blomfield’s 
uy Ota, as ov ‘ye adds materially to the force of the queen’s ad- 
juration at the conclusion of her speech; do not you at least —. 
as Med. 1052. uy ov y epryaon TaOe. 

v. 1105. Aldus and the MSS. have Ayauepuvov’ ovdeis a pos 
Tad avTeirot Bporwy, in which the absence of av distresses every 
reader solicitous for the purity of a'Greek sentence. Markland 
observes, Demosthenes inseruisset av, to which Elmsley adds, neque 
omisisset Euripides. The latter thinks that instead of avteizrot 
the Poet wrote avrepe: the same conjecture is also propounded 
by Blomfield and by Hermann. Having such formidable authority 
against me, it is with due humility that the following suggestions 
are made—It does not seem very probable that any person would 
write avTeimo: (or avreian, as one MS. has it) as an explanation 
of avrepe:: the verbs avrevreiv and avrepewv should rather be 
joined with a dative, than with wpos and an accusative, as in the 
first instance quoted by Elmsley in favour of his emendation, 
Hipp. 404. ovdeis avrepet BovAevuact. and had an instance oc- 
curred of the other syntax, it would probably have been cited by 
one of those critics. The reading which I have given, ovdels 
Toigd av avretzo: BpoTwy, is unimpeachable on the score of 
syntax or of sense, and is agreeable to Tragic language. If we 
suppose it to have been written by the Poet, nothing is more 
likely than that av might have been left out in a MS. on account 
of the same letters following in the next word; in which case, it is 
exceedingly probable that in order to set straight the halting metre 
mpos TAO was substituted for Toicd. 

v. 1106. Ei wev rov ‘Opdews cixov, w marep, door, 
TleiOew erqdove’ wo0 ouapretv mor werpas| The meaning is 
the same as if Iphigenia had said, et pev elon, womep ‘Opoeus, 
weiWew aouact wéTpas &c. The editors compare a similar pase 
sage in the Alcestis of our Author v. 367. Eid ‘Opéas oe 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 183 


yAagoa kal méedos rapqv, “Qor’ 4 Kopny Anuntpos, 4 Keivns 
moow “Yuvoit ky\noavta o e& Atoov Aafserv, Karnd@ov av. 

v. 1107. is one of those quoted by Porson (Suppl. Pref. ad Hec. 
p- 31) as instances of the fifth foot being a Spondee although di- 
vided between two words, the second being, like jot, an enclitic. 
Elmsley (on Med. 56. note z.) wishes to alter the reading ; he says, 
“Si plura legerentur qualia coupi(e: (cor opi(et) apud Asch. 
Choeph. 927. covmcQev apud Arist. Thesm. 195. auctor essem ut 
reponeretur apud Euripidem Iph. A. aeiOew emqcova , ware pov- 
papery TeTpas.” But I think that the examples of lines similar 
to the present, given by Porson, should be sufficient to deter from 
such attempts at alteration. One Par. MS. has peracove for 
€mqoove , and hereon Hermann founds a different reading; in his 
text the verse is [lei@ew u emqoovcay 0 omapTeiv jot TET pas. 

v. 1110. Commonly SvvaiueQa. Markland and Porson duvai- 
ue’ av, which was first admitted into the text by Gaisford. 

Vv. 1111. ‘Ixernptav de yovaros ekartw oé0ev To coua 
Toupov| syovaros for tyovacw is the emendation of Markland, 
which I have adopted after some hesitation. Matthie defends 
the construction ‘yovadw efarrw in Gr. Gram. § 377. by such 
quotations as Hom. Il. 3.115. TlopQet de tpets maides auvpo- 
ves eteryevovro, were born to Portheus; but such expressions 
admit of no comparison with ours. I am not prepared to deny 
that a poet might possibly have used a dative after efarrw To 
gwua Tovuov, that expression being equivalent to mpoominrw: 
but no reason can be found for Euripides abandoning in this 
instance the natural construction, and I think therefore that a 
transcriber had his eye caught by ‘yovac: in v. 1116. or perhaps 
thought that the plural was preferable to the singular in such a 
case ; if so, he was certainly mistaken. 

v. 1114. All the copies of Euripides have BXNerew’ ta 6’ 
ume ys uy p teiv avayxaons. But Plutarch, who cites this 
and the preceding line, has Aevooew and uo yyv. The former 
is strongly recommended by Porson, who proves that scholiasts 
used to explain Aevoow by (Aerw. See Alberti on Hesych. vv. 
Aevacet, Nevsowv. UIE 7S, scil. OvTa, appears to be the requisite 
syntax. Monk on Alc. 921. “ray uo ryatay omnes edd. Verum 
accusativus, ni fallor, in tali locutione tantum adhibetur cum 
motus aliquis significatur, ‘ut supr. v.47. Kazafouai ye vepre- 


184 NOTES ON THE 


pav uo yOova. Dedi igitur -yaias, ut in Hec. 149. Hipp. 196. 
In Hecube loco omnes ante Porsonum habent Tous & vio syatay, 
planissime contra metrum.” 

v. 1115. “Hunc locum sic adumbravit Lucretius I. 94 Nec 
miser@ prodesse in talt tempore quibat, Quod patrio princeps donarat 
nomsne regem.” Barnes. 

v. 1116. Newry Oe, yovact goiot coma dove’ éuov] For- 
merly -youvact, which was first corrected by Barnes. I cannot 
help suspecting that all here is not right: Sovca and €0wxa in 
the same sentence, within the space of two or three words, have 
a suspicious sound. It might have been cap ageio épov. 

v. 1119. All the copies present apa o, o Texvov, Evdaipo- 
vos avopos év dopmotoww OWonat Zocavy re xat Q@Qdddousav 
atiws €“ov; and in order to remove the anapest in the second 
foot (uoros av) as many conjectures have been essayed as on 
any passage in this Tragedy. I forbear to mention several which 
violate the language or the measure. Pierson (Verisim. p. 65.) 
Evdaipov avopos: Markland evdatmovovvros év 6. 0. Porson 
ap evdaipovos, ‘QO réxvov, avdpos ao év Somacw SYroua: Her- 
mann Evdamovoucw ev 6. o. I will not dwell on the objections 
existing to the reception of each of these, but state the arguments 
for my own reading, evdaiueciv wor ev 0. 0. Agamemnon was 
evidently anticipating the happy marriage of his daughter, and 
év evdainoaw Copos Cooav expresses that allusion most correctly. 
In Pheen, 543. is otxouvs evdaiuovas, and in Hec. 622. wAovcias 
€v Owpacw., The insertion of xore, some time or other, renders the 
speech more natural. It is therefore probable that evdaiuovos avdpas 
was interlined as an explanation of evdaiuoow, and afterwards 
found its way into the text to the exclusion of the particle. 

v. 1121. One Paris MS. has dav for av. 

v. 1122, avTtAd{ouat Aldus ; but the Attics preferred the other 
form avriaCunat, as is observed by Porson on Med. 1213. 

v. 1128. There is some difference of opinion not respecting 
the words, but the pointing of this sentence. Markland places the 
interrogation after ce; Hermann after ti 5; I have no hesitar 
tion in following the punctuation of the old editions which place 
it atter wpecBuv 5 

v. 1125. [lovey reOyvovs axocidovca cor Tpodas;] Under- 
stand ayti before wurwy as in Hom. Od. A. $26. cited by Musgrave. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 185 


“H x pucor idov avopos edetaro Tyunevta. Potter translates: 
correctly, to repay The careful nurture which he gave my youth? . 


v. 1128. 9. It was written “ay mpos ye UleAozos, before 
Markland ; he gave mpos ce Il. as well as tya0e for THs ye 
along with some MSS. I do not recollect any other instance si 
welverv governing an accusative. 

v. 1131.2. Ti woe pereort Tav Adekavopou ry apr, "EXevns 
re; ma0ev dO’ ex odcOpw Twup, warep;| There has been 
a very needless attempt to disturb the second of these lines. 
Markland would read ‘EAevy re qoOev 7\0'......3 a strange 
misapprehension. Matthie says Hic versus mihi valde otiosus vide- 
tur. But Hermann justly observes that, if it were taken away, 
the mention of Paris would be an unmeaning interruption to the 
line of argument. He properly explains it, Cur, quod ille Spartant 
venit, mihi est pereundum ? 

v. 1134. “ly ada rovro xaTOavovr exw oeBev Mvguetov] 
Barnes would place a comma after 7, and alter the order of. 
construction on account of the unusual position of aAAa. But that 
adverb is properly rendered in Portus’ version saltem. See a 
note of Professor Monk in Mus. Crit. 1. p. 206. 

v. 1135. It is commonly read €i uy Tots pots metaOys Aoryors. 
To remove this union of ¢¢ with a subjunctive, Porson gave ei 
fr}. .--mei0et, Elmsley weioe, But it seems far more likely that 
nv should have been changed into et, than etcOxs into reiBer 
or reicet. I adopt therefore 7v with Matthie, who observes, : ** ¢i 
apud Atticos non jungi conjunctivo post alios monuit Hermann. 
ad Viger. p. 831. not. 304. et quum in plerisque locis, ubi e¢ cum 
conj. legitur, alii Codd. eav, alii av, alii 7» habeant, quis dubitet, 
quin ibi, ubi nulla talis varietas exstat, et librariorum errori, e 
consuetudine serioris temporis nato, tribuendum sit?” Hermann. 
has subsequently altered his opinion, and now upholds 1 wea Ons. 

v. 1136. Bacch. 1364. [uk pos emixoupos Tarn. 

v. 1137. Aldus gives this line, “Ouws de cuv ddxpuow | iKE TNS: 
yivov watpos, which held its place in the editions till very lately, 
to the great offence of all metrical ears. It is not impossible that: 
amid a. hundred conjectures the right reading might have been 
hit upon ; but fortunately it has been preserved by the manuscripts, 
Suws o€ cuv ak puaov, (KeTEVTOV WATPOS, for which the other 
was substituted by some one who preferred the syntax, and pos~ 

24 


186 NOTES ON THE 


sibly the metre, of the Aldine. But a great difficulty has been 
made about the genitive marpos following ikeTevgoy, a verb 
which generally governs an accusative. Markland would substitute 
1apos, Gaisford race, Blomfield ve 10s, Hermann T €p0Il. 
The latter however retains TAT pos, observing that Euripides 
might possibly have preferred using ixerevw in the same construc- 
tion as verbs of similar signification, XenGws déouar. I am always 
happy to be able to agree with Hermann: and that TAT pos is cor- 
rect, may I think be demonstrated from the two following passages 
of the Medea; v. 938, Zu 0 adda onv KéAeucoy aitecOat ma- 
tpos Tuvaixa, matdas tyvde my evyew yxOova. v. 1151, 
Aekee de dapa, Kai mapartyce: matpos Puyas adeivat wal 
TOO, EMMY apt. In both these passages the ordinary con- 
struction would have given warepa. Our vernacular language 
admits similar licences: while the common mode of speaking is, 
entreat your father, it would be quite allowable to say, entreat of 
your father, that your sister may not be put to death. 

v. 1188. One Paris MS. omits uy Qavecv, substituting ws. 
All copies have atcO@nua 71 Kav vyrios ye Tev kaxay erytyiryve- 
Tat. Instead of 7:, Hermann properly gives Tot, but I wonder 
at his not observing that ye has no business in this sentence, and 
that we ought to read xav vyriost, which fully gives the sense, 
even in infants. rot and ‘ye are rarely found in the same sen- 
tence: the former particle expresses as we all know. 


v.1141. ‘AAX’ aldecai we, cai Karoixretpov Biov] Biov, for 
Blov, is the suggestion of Markland, which no subsequent editor 
has condescended to mention. xat. Biov, meam miserare vitam, 
would hardly express the force of the appeal. ue is governed by 
KaToixre:pov as well as by atcdeca:. I have already remarked 
how much inclined our Poet is to the use of the gen. Siou (sub. 
ovvexa) at the end of a sentence. 

v. 1142. This line used to end with avropecOa duw diro, 
not only presenting an anapest for the fifth foot, but violating 
the Attic practice, which adopts dvo and not dvw, as has been 
shown by Dawes and other critics. Barnes properly gave dvo, 
but his credit was so small, that Markland and Musgrave would 
not even notice his correction. The former proposes dUw Téxvw, 
deeming the other frigidum et inefficar; upon which Porson ob- 
serves ‘“Nihili sunt, que ad hunc versum scripsit Vir doctus. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 187 


‘pidw satis defendit Eur. Phoen. 1673. (aAX’ evxAeés Toe vo 
ith xecoOar mwedas) ad cujus fabule versum 1659 recte citat 
vo diy Valckenaerius.” 

v. 1148. “ veoaaous de liberis dicere amabant Tragici.” Monk, 
{on Alcest. 414) where he gives many instances of this usage. 

v. 1144. “Ep Evyrenouca, TavTa vikynow Aoryov] There have 
been needless difficulties made in the interpretation of this line. 
ev Evvreuovoa means ev cuvTOMws eizrovca, and the sense is, 
one brief saying will beat all arguments. Compare Hec. 1162. 
“Aravra Tavra ovvTepwy eyo ppacw, where out. is cuvTopws 
eirwv. Canter and several others, not comprehending the sense 
of the sentence, have proposed xtyyow, which I should probably 
not have noticed, had not Hermann adopted it in his text. 

v. 1146. The reading of Aldus and the MSS. is ta vepOe 
& ovceis. But Stobeeus (p. 489. Grot.) citing the last lines of this 
speech, has To vépOev ovdev, from which Heath, Markl. and Valck. 
(Diatr. p. 141) concur in reading ra vepOe 5 ovcév. Some 
critics, with Aristotle at their head, complain that the conclu- 
sion of this very pathetic speech contains a sentiment unworthy 
of the character of the heroine, and one of them, Bremius, would 
have the two last lines cut out, in order to preserve her reputation 
for spirit and courage. But the slightest consideration should sa- 
tisfy the reader, that the Poet designed to represent Iphigenia as 
affected in the first instance by all the natural love of life, and 
horror at the sudden tidings of the cruel fate into which she had 
been entrapped. The effect is, that our admiration is heightened 
at the courage and patriotism which she displays in the following 
scene. We shall soon have occasion to recur to this topic. 

v. 1147. Kaxws Cav Kpetacov n Oaveiv xadws] Stobseus and 
the Flor. MSS. «adds Oavetv: but the order of words in the text 
is better, as being more oratorical. 

v. 1151. The old reading i is Prrwy éuavtov Texva. Markland 
prefers giAw 7, which is approved by Musgr. Pors. and Gaisf. 
Porson observes, “ Recte Marklandus. Euripides fortasse Erectheo 
apud Plutarch, T.11. p. 809.D. ito rexv" adda warpid eunv 
Maddov dito.” Matthie and Hermann retain dikwy. There are 
several reasons for preferring @iA@ 7’, but the following considera. 
tion appears decisive. In the remark, paivoiunv cyap av, there 
is understood et uy Pikw Téxva. Were we to retain the parti- 
ciple @iAwv, those words would imply et ay ouveros emi ta 


188 NOTES ON. THE 


T OTpa Kai Ta “H: a sentiment, im which all point and pro- 
priety would be lost. 

v. 1152. Every edition before the present has Acives 3 exe 
se TavTa ToAuHoa, Texvov, nor has a suspicion been expressed 
in regard to the phrase 6. db €yex pe. Reiske alone mentions pos 
as a conjecture, which he had himself repudiated. Nevertheless 

it appears to me clear that the language requires dewas 3 exer 
mot, as in v. 54. To xpayua 6 a amo pess elxe Tuvdapep war pl. 
870. kai ‘yap daxpucat pasies avrois €xet, AvoABa + etre. 

v. 1155. Xadxewr OF order avaxres ‘EXAqvwv do] Xad- 
xewv Ow)wy is in all edd. before Matthie, who inserted the copula 
from three MSS. (Compare with this expression Alcest. 514. Caxpu- 
gou Opnxias mehr ys avat. Suppl. 680. movanxucwv avat. 
Cycl. 86. Kwmans + avaxras. It is of little consequence whether 
we read this sentence interrogatively or not. 

v. 1158. Oud écre Tpotas etedetv xrewov Babpov] The 
old reading was xa:voy BaOpov, an undoubted corruption for 
xXervoy, as all scholars have admitted for the last 100 years: I be- 
lieve however that Reiske first propounded the emendation. «Aewvos 
and xatvos are words easily mistaken for one another: Elmsley 
(on Herc. F. 38) cites several instances, but omits the present. 
Markland would place this verse before the last; but the sentences 
follow the order in which the ideas presented themselves to the 
mind of Agamemnon. I used to think that this line might 
have been inserted from some lost drama of our Author, before I 
saw a similar suspicion in Matthie’s note. 

v. 1159. Meunve o appodiry Tis EAnvev otpate] adpo- 
cirn is here explained by emtOuuia, one of the attributes of 
Venus; as in Pheen. 410. "Exovew adpooitny Tw oeay b Kany, 
it implies another attribute, TEep\ww. In both instances tis is 
attached to the name of the goddess. It is really painful to ob- 
serve the extent to which Hermann has suffered his love of subtilty 
and refinement to carry him. He objects to the metaphorical use 
of ‘Agpod iTy in this line, because that goddess was not likely 
qwavaa AExTpwy apraryas, and also to the use of Tis after a 
proper name, not adverting to the line in the Pheeniss. He then 
prints a verse, which, had he found in any copy of a Tragedian, 
his ear would have repudiated, and his judgment condemned ; 

eunve dé pakapwy tis ‘EAAnvev orparovr. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 189 


This is the second time that he has introduced into the text of 
this play the active tense Eunve, for the use of which he has, I 
believe, the authority of only one place, Ion. 520.* Then the con- 
‘jecture that Agpodirn had been written over Baka pwv TIS as an 
explanation is, to say the least, exceedingly void of probability. 
Finally a Critic who introduces by way of emendation a verse 
unusual and inharmonious in its structure, has the chances against 
his being right incalculably great; and all this is done to disturb 
a plain, but very expressive sentence, the meaning of which is, 
A sort of passion rages in the Grecian army. 

v. 1161. A€xTpwy apmaryas “EAAnnixa, raptus uxorum Gre- 
carum. Every edition which I have seen has ‘EAAnuas. Elmsley 
pointed out the correction: he observed, “‘ By reading ‘EAAyuixov, 
we may improve the sound of this verse, certainly without any 
injury to the sense.” In support of this emendation, he cites a 
number of passages from the Aldine edition of our Author, in 
which the termination of the adjective has been corrupted, as in 
this line, by the vicinity of another word. 

v. 1162. 3. O% Tas ev “Apyet mapOévous KTevovci mou, 
"Yuas TE, Kae, Oecpar et AVow eas | The old edd. have 
xTeivovot and Becparov. Almost all the critics, from Scaliger 
downwards, prefer xTevouvct and becpart, the latter being neces- 
sary for the verse. Barnes’ ed. has both corrections. Hermann 
gives Tas T ev "Apyet: to the insertion of t I have no objec- 
tion, except that it does not appear to be necessary. 

v. 1169. jnoe BapBapwy iro “EXAnvas ovras NExT pa 
avAacba Bia] Sub. nuas. Every edition has BapBapors, 
Markland says, ‘ Usitatior constructio est BapBapwv Umo, to 
which Matthie replies, “In poetis quidem altera non minus usi- 
tata. Vid. Gram. Gr. 392. Blomfield. ad Asch. Pers. 58.” I am 
not satisfied that any of the instances quoted by Matthie and 
Blomfield will justify the use of the dative in this place. Indeed 
they shew that uo with a dative, when following passive verbs, 
retains the signification of under; and I can discover no reason, 
an should induce Euripides to deviate in this Instance from 

8 usual mode of writing. See Helen. 606. 7 mou BapBapwv 
ovnaad imo; Orest. 1596. Et yap katéaxov, un Oewv Krep- 
Oeis bro. The sentiment expressed in these lines is illustrated 
by the words of Demophoon, the King of Athens, in Heracl. 244, 

* cunve......eTparov. was the conjecture of Lobeck on Soph. Aj. 705, 


190 NOTES ON THE 


Ei yap mapyow Tovoe avdacba Big Zevov mpos avdpos 
Bwnov, ovn édevOepavy Oixetv soxnow yatav. 

v. 1171. It has hitherto been edited w réxvov, w Eevat. But 
the reader may observe that Clytemnestra no where else in the 
whole play notices the women of the Chorus, after her first ac- 
knowledgement of their courteous salutation, when her carriage 
drew up in the orchestra, and she alighted close to them. That 
she should address them at this particular moment when her feel- 
ings are most agonized by despair at perceiving the certain fate 
of her daughter, is surely not very probable: and as what follows 
is spoken to Iphigenia alone, I have no hesitation in attributing 
the words, w £évai, to the interpolator, who has before been dis- 
turbed at the Queen not paying more attention to the Chalcidian 
strangers, and to remedy this neglect, has inserted the lines which 
used to follow v. 542. I have therefore printed TExvoy, w 
TEKVOD, as in v. fol. w parep, w marep. 

v.1172. Ot ‘yw Oavarov rod cov perea] Aldus and the 
other edd. of eyo, Qavarov cov. Heath first corrected it to 
@. rou cov, for the sake of the anapestic measure. 

v. 1174. This line used to conclude with tavTo yap, (ren 
clamante lege cuvacpeias. Porson says, “ Dele yap et lege TavTov.” 
His orders have been obeyed by Gaisford, Hermann, and myself: 
though I am not sure that we have done right:in discarding ‘yap. 
Dobree would omit the second MNTEP, and read TauTov yap on. 

v. 1178. ‘This beautiful and pathetic song of Iphigenia has 
been roughly handled by ancient critics, and with little less vio- 
lence by some moderns who have proposed metrical arrangements 
of the verses. Seidler (De Vers. Dochm. p. 52) would make the 
first part to consist of Dochmiacs, a species of verse of which I 
do not think that this Tragedy has a single instance: Elmsley (on 
Med. 4. note) would force all the lines from the beginning down 
to 1206. into the Trochaic measure. The arrangement which I 
have adopted is that given by Monk in Cambridge Classical Ezx- 
aminations, p. 142. except in some particulars where I shall maintain 
that a different reading is to be adopted. 

v. 1179. I have ejected the words “ldas 7 Opea, as being 
nothing more than an interpretation of @puyav vamos, which 
having been written in the margin, found its way, as often hap- 
pens, into the text. These words, besides their being a prosaic 
explanation of a poetical expression, are clearly intrusive; they in- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS, 191 


jure the measure, which is Trochaic, and whether we read wedev 
or wdeAes in v. 1186, they embarrass the construction. 

v. 1182. Cretic dim. a metre often intermixed with Trochaic. 

v. 1184. "Idatos, [datos ] This line consists of two Antibacchiac 
feet, like 1201. wo waTeEp, w mare. 

v. 1186. Commonly pyror were. The Trochaic metre 
plainly shows that either wedes or wpedev should be substi- 
tuted: Elmsley gives the former, Hermann the latter. If we con- 
sider the song to begin with an address to Mount Ida (which is 
the more spirited and poetical idea) we shall read wqedes, par- 
ticularly from the great resemblance of the following parallel 
place in Pheen. 814. "Q (a0ewv merddwy woAvOnporatov varros, 
‘Aptéutdos XLover podov ouua K.Bapwv, Myzore Tov Qavarep 
mporievra, Aoxeun ‘loxacras, “Oenres Otdrrodap Ope vat 
Bpéqos ExBorov otxwy. See also Soph. CEd. T. 1391." But if any 
readers think that a sentence of invocation ought to have begun 
with the interjection w, and prefer making vazros a nominative, 
they will adopt weer. 

v. 1187. All the copies have the word AAétavépor following 
this line; but it plainly belongs to the interpolator, who seems to 
have thought that as it contained two of the names of the royal 
peasant, Paris and Ideus, the line would be more complete if it 
had all three: his liberality has caused much embarrassment to the 
metrical flow of the verses. Seidler writes ext pager , Elmsley 
waid ‘AXékavopoy xricat, and Hermann makes the unmanageable 
name to constitute a verse by itself. Monk seems to have been 
sensible of the intrusion, as he incloses the word in brackets. 

v. 1188. The scene of the Judgment of Paris is similarly 
described in v. 178. emi xpnvaiarot dpogos, and in Helen. 682. 
Aovrpwy Kai xpnvav, “Iva Oeat poppav eaidpuvar. 

These follow two lines which I have placed at the foot of the 
page, as having been interpolated: Kai podoevt avOea vaxivOwa 
te Qcatct Sperew. The words may have been taken out of some 
poem on the Judgment of Paris: the marks of intrusiveness are 
glaring, particularly when we consider that they follow the descrip- 
tion of the ground, Aepwv + avOecr OarrAwv yAwpois. But 
their metre, their language, and their dialect all concur in convicting 
them: the mention of roses and hyacinths for the goddesses to pluck, 
comes before any notice of the goddesses themselves: and the word 
podoevra betrays the forgery, as Euripides would have said pocea. 


192 NOTES ON THE 


Med. 837. evwon podewy wAcKov avOewr. Hel. 251. podéa werada. 

v. 1191. “Ev@a wore TlaAXas Euorer, dodroppwv TE Kumpis,: 

“Hpa 0’, o Aus + aryyedos ‘Epuas] 

All editions have xat dodkcoppwv K. and ‘Epuas 6 0 Atos a. 
In both cases I have adopted the corrections of Dr Monk, whereby 
the first line becomes a cretic tetram. and the second an anapestic 
dim. Previously, they were not reconcileable to any description of 
metre. It may be remarked that the substitution of Te for Kai, 
in a sentence where the former copula is to be twice repeated, is 
recommended by usage ; and in the latter transposition, the collo- 
cation of ‘Epuds is improved; it is the same as we find in Electr. 
462. Avos aytyedw Evv Epug. 

v. 1194. Kuzpis, a oe doupi IladAas] All the editions have 
dopi. Elmsley proposes dopi de TladAas, omitting the article. 
Monk gives oupi, a much easier change, by which the line be- 
comes, like the preceding, a Trochaic dimeter. 

v. 1195. Commonly “Hpa te: Beck “Hpa de: Elmsley omits 
the name of the Queen of the gods, and writes a de Atos a |vaxros 
evvaicw Pactdiot, and he is followed by Monk: but I think 
it unlikely that “Hpa would be omitted in this sentence after 
the mention of her two rivals. I abstain from alteration, not con- 
sidering it to be safe; though I cannot help believing that there 
has been violence done to this line, as well as to several others, for- 
the sake of producing a lame senarian. The general flow of the 
verses, as given by the Poet, was trochaic: consistency with what 
precedes and follows might be maintained by writing, 

a de Atos avaxros evvai— 
ow Baoirios worm “Hpa. 

v.1196. Kpiow emi oTuyvav epi te Kaddovas, enov oe 
Oavarov] Commonly tas xadXovas. Monk and Hermann omit 
the article, and Matthie observes “‘ ras insititium videtur, non 
solum ob metrum, sed etiam quod articulus abhorret a more Tra- 
gicorum.” See v. 179. pw é pu popias. Androm. 278. E pte 
atuyep@ KexopvOuevov evuopias. I have given eucv for emoi, 
as was proposed by Elmsley, from whose scheme however in all that 
follows I must entirely dissent. After Qavarov the copies have 
this line, Ovoua sev epovra Aavaidacw, o kopat, which gave 
offence to readers even in the time of Portus, as violating the lan- 
guage by making ev and de change places. Musgrave accord- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 193 


ingly corrected the passage to Aavaisacw svoma pev gepovr , 
euot € Oavaror, w kopat: in that case we ought to read: pepoucap. 
But consideration will, I think, convince the reader, that I have 
done right in rejecting the line altogether. It would impair. the 
pathos of her lamentations, were Iphigenia here to allege that 
“her death was bringing fame to the Greeks.’ The display of 
her patriotism is reserved for the following scene; she is now 
altogether occupied with bewailing her own hard fate: nor am ] 
satisfied that, had any such meaning been intended by the Poet, 
the bare word ovoua would have been used to express Tiyy or 
kXNéos. Neither is it conceivable that Iphigenia would at this 
moment have inserted an appeal to the Chalcidians, to whom she 
says nothing else. I have therefore altered w kopat into ® Kopa, 
as being the words of the Chorus. Elmsley gives the two next 
lines to the Princess, and writes ex ingenio mpoOvuaT EAafev: 
he is followed by Monk and Hermann, the former giving éAaGe 
uw, the latter ov, w Kopat, .* apoOumar éAafev. But I per- 
ceive nothing which makes the interposition of the Chorus at. this 
moment either improper or unusual: the old editions have confined 
their words within the limits of a senarian iambic, believing that 
an interruption from the Orchestra ought always to be in that 
measure; but a reference to vv. 1376, &c. will shew that similar 
interlocutory remarks are sometimes made in the same kind of verse 
as that used by the actor. 

v. 1204. Ilupav isovca duvcedevav] I feel great suspicion of 
the word icovca, which seems to be unmeaning, and to weaken an 
affecting sentence. Why should she.at this moment observe that she 
had beheld Helen? I do not venture to propose any emendation, 
but will suggest the manner in which it is possible that the present | 
reading might have been caused. Let us imagine that such a line 
as [apais d]iWovca duceAévay stood in the text, and that the 
bracketted letters were obliterated by damp or some other cause 
(an accident which certainly has befallen another part of this song): 
a metrical correctar was likely to supply the chasm, by repeating 
axpav from the preceding line. Helen is called by Euripides 
Avoedeva also in Orest. 1384. the term being probably suggested 
by Homer’s designation of her paramour, Avovapi, II. I. 39. 


v- 1208. Evéfy edition has aS Audis. I have. erased dé as 


an insertion made for the purpose. of producing a dimeter 
25 


182 NOTES ON THE 


v. 1102. The common reading is ef O ev AEAEKTAL Vw, Ln 
én rye KTAVNS, in which yvwi is a glaring corruption: but it is 
not possible to correct the line with much confidence, since it 
cannot be said that any word in the place of vwi is absolutely 
necessary either to the sense or the construction. Elmsley’s con- 
jecture Taya is by | much the best and most probable that has 
been proposed. un ov ye, instead of Ter on ye, is my own emend- 
ation: it seems preferable to Elmsley’s ydé ov, or Blomfield’s 
an OnTa, as ov rye adds materially to the force of the queen’s ad- 
juration at the conclusion of her speech; do not you at least —. 
as Med. 1052. uy ov y epyaon TaO0Ee. 

v. 1105. Aldus and the MSS. have Ayauepvov’ ovdeis 7 pos 
Ta avTettrot Bporwy, in which the absence of av distresses every 
reader solicitous for the purity of a‘Greek sentence. Markland 
observes, Demosthenes inseruisset av, to which Elmsley adds, neque 
omisisset Euripides. The latter thinks that instead of avtetzot 
the Poet wrote avrepe:: the same conjecture is also propounded 
by Blomfield and by Hermann. Having such formidable authority 
against me, it is with due humility that the following suggestions 
are made—It does not seem very probable that any person would 
write avretmot (or avreimn, as one MS. has it) as an explanation 
of avrepe:: the verbs avrecety and avrepetv should rather be 
joined with a dative, than with mpos and an accusative, as in the 
first instance quoted by Elmsiey in favour of his emendation, 
Hipp. 404. ovoeis avTepet BovAevmact. and had an instance oc- 
curred of the other syntax, it would probably have been cited by 
one of those critics. The reading which I have given, ouceis 
TOLGO av avTeizot Bporay, is unimpeachable on the score of 
syntax or of sense, and is agreeable to Tragic language. If we 
suppose it to have been written by the Poet, nothing is more 
likely than that av might have been left out in a MS. on account 
of the same letters following in the next word; in which case, it is 
exceedingly probable that in order to set straight the halting metre 
mpos Tao was substituted for TOTO - 


v. 1106. Ec pep TOV ‘Oppews elxov, w TATED, Aoryor, 
Hee érqcovs a0 ouapTey Mot mer pas The meaning is 
the same as if Iphigenia had said, et pev elyov, wamep ‘Opgevs, 
qeiOev aonact weTpas &c. The editors compare a similar pas» 
sage in the Alcestis of our Author v. 367. Ei 0 ‘'Oppéws por 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 196 


orédNew, and Toor de weAAew, as also cis Tpolav in v. 1209, 
but he erroneously gives rors nev Aaidect. : 


v. 1216. This line stands in all the copies 7 moAuuoyOop 
apepiwy, The measure of the preceding lines being anapeestic, 
Markland suggested the insertion of Twv before apepiwv. I trust 
that my introduction of ay has better consulted the sense. This 
verse used to have a note of interr. which Heath properly rejected. 

v. 1217. In this and the next line, the imperfect sense and the 
unintelligible metre shews that something has been lost. The old 
reading was xpewv dé te Avaorotmov avopacw aveuperv, affirm- 
atively. Barnes gives de vi, with this translation, quorsum igitur 
opus est hominibus accersere malam sortem? I do not comprehend 
Musgrave’s version, fatum vero aliquid hominibus difficile toleratu? 
Hermann writes to xpewv. My own suggestion of a probable mode 
of supplying this sentence is given in the margin. It may occur 
to some critics, that we should have adhered closer to the writing 
of the copies by the insertion of one more letter, ovde ypewy o 
ers Avaororpoy avdpaat vercos avevpery, (ia, iw,) Meryada rabea, 
&c. so that ce might refer to Helen, the mention of whom immes 
diately follows. I admit that this would actount for all the letters 
in O€ Tt, and, what is more, would elevate the spirit of the passage. 
But I am not satisfied that iw, iw could properly he thus inter- 
posed in the middle of a sentence ; and I think that a transition 
from the anapeestic metre, which has prevailed for many lines, to 
the trochaic, was not likely to have taken place, except after a 
sufficient pause. 

vv. 1219—21. In all editions these lines are given to the Chorus. 
Blomfield properly noticed that they belong to Iphigenia’s song: 
and thus they are printed by Hermann. tors used to be prefixed 
to Aavaidais, in order to make the verse a Senarian; one Paris 
MS. omits it, another has it inserted by a different hand. 

v. 1222. Two Flor. MSS. have xaxys. 

v. 1995. Tov re ras Oeas maida, Téxvov, @ ov dcvp: 
€AnAvOas| In the Aldine and other old Edd. the verse stands, Tov 
re THs Oeas wai, w TeKVOY Y, w deup EdnAvOas. The per- 
son who thus altered it, seems not to have been aware that Jeas was 
used as a monosyllable, and about the trochaic ceesura he knew nothing. 
Heath restored the metre by writing waida, texvov, w ye 0. €, 


196 . NOTES ON THE 


Hermann properly gives @ aU. Reiske had suggested rov ye 
tys 8. mw. and this is adopted by Matthie, who renders it ef 
quidem, as if it were xai Tov ye—. 

v. 1227. Ti de, réxvov, pevryars 5 ‘Axia TOvd idety 
aicxvvonat] All edd. till lately have ri dé hevyets, Téxvov; Tov 
“Axa rov ioe aioxvvouat, but most of the MSS. omit 
tov before Ax. The line is now printed as Porson gives it in 
Misc. Tracts p.197. The first part was corrected by Heath, the 
second by Musgrave. 

v. 1228. Iph. T. 560. ws ri dn OéAwv; Or. 786. ws Ti On 
TO0E ; 

v. 1229. Oux ev aBporntt Keicat pos Ta viv wemruKdra | 
This is the reading of the MSS. The editions had ‘arpos Ta voy 
memparyneva, before .Markland, who gave WET TWKOTA from the 
Paris MSS. and cited Hipp. 715. pos Ta vuy wertwxora. Elect. 
644. pos to wimrov. Plutarch. ad Apoll. p. 112. F. the latter 
taken, as Porson observed, from Plato p. 604. C. ‘Adde Alexin 
Stobeei, p. 560. 15. Terent. Adelph. IV. 7. 21. Ita vita est hominum 
quasi quum ludas tesserts.” Porson. Barnes compares Phen. 1291. 
Aidoune®’ oxdov: Oux ev aioxuvn Ta od. afporns answers 
to the English, delicacy—oenvorns, to reserve. 


v. 1280. a duveea—] An aposiopesis. Clytemnestra being 
about to say cov Biov cwaat, or something to that effect, is in- 
terrupted by the hasty cry of Achilles. Here again Hermann gives 
the reins to his genius for alteration, and prints in the text w 
oouvwpeba, rendering it, Non est usus superbie, ubt in dolore sumus. 

v. 1288. “Libri aovypov oiwvoy Noryov. Marklandus \oywv 
vel Aovyou, verissime, probavitque Musgravius, nec quisquam de- 
bebat non probare. Nam dovyor prorsus putide adjectum esset. 
Quod dicit Clyteemnestra otwvov, ipsa hec verba Achillis intelligit 
appr ons maos. Nam ubi de filia sua sermonem esse audiit, 
animo preesagit quid porro narraturus sit Achilles. Ea narratio 
est quam Rorywu vel Aoryou nomine significat: malum dizxisti au- 
gurium rei, quam sis narraturus.” Hermann. 

v. 1234. All the copies give Os ypewv opaka viv: KovoEis 
Toic® évayTiov Neyer ; with a spondee for the third foot. Heath 
restored the metre by reading ovdeis, which most of the subsequent 
editors have approved; Markland having observed that the K was 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 197 


only an error from the first letter of Clyteemnestra’s name being 
taken into the words of the Poet. But Hermann says, rudss est 
Heathii emendatio: nam necessarium est xovdeis——nisi dicatur TiS 3 
ovdeis—aut 4 ovdeis—” I do not accede to this dictum: xal 
would be suitable,' but not necessary ; ovdeis 6€ would be more 
agreeable to usage; but the Tragedians, like all other writers, 
sometimes give force to their sentences by omitting conjunctions, 
Hermann adopts Musgrave’s alternative conjecture spata ode, 
an alliteration very distressing to the ear. 


v. 1235. Ald. and MSS. have Es Bopuf3ov EW TOL KAUTOS 
nrvOov. K. és tiv, w eve; with a double infraction of metre. 
Heath and Markland would prefer -y\@ov, though they do not 
seem to have perceived that the dactyl was absolutely inadmis- 
sible. The other error it is very difficult to remove in a satis- 
factory manner. Markland proposes eryorye kavtos. Musgrave 
éyw tt x autos. Blomfield eyyw tw avros. Porson and Mat! 
thiee adopt Markland’s, Gaisford and Hermann give Musgrave’s. 
I have -with much hesitation admitted Blomfield’s; but am now 
of opinion that Markland’s is the safer correction: Dobree cites 
éywrye kal autos from Plato Gorg. p. 245, 10. Routh. 

v. 1236. The old edd. have pov Kopyy cute € eunv; Canter 
first perceived that the true reading must be owCwr. It implies, 
‘Whal? in endeavouring to preserve my daughter ? 


v. 1237. All the translations render tis 0 dv €TAy by quis 
vero ausus est? It should be quis vero ausus esset ? 

v. 1238. oTparos oe Mupudovev ov oot rapny ; | This. line 
exhibits one instance of a dactyl in Troch. tetram. comprised in 
a proper name; v. 784. has another, Eis ap ‘I@uryevecay ‘EXevas 
vOOTOS nv TET PWLEVOS ; ; Elmsley in his Review of: Porson’s He- 
cuba (Edinb. Rev. Vol. xix. p. 71) while he-allows to any place 
of ‘Tragic iambics except the last, the licence of an anapest 
when entirely comprised in a proper name, wishes to deprive the 
trochaic of the corresponding liberty: although the reason is pre- 
cisely the same in both cases, that many names, like that of our 
Heroine, could not otherwise come into the dialogue. Accordingly 
he thinks these two lines corrupt. I mention this only to protest 
against this disposition to limit the Tragic licences so much more 
narrowly than Porson has done, and to say that the existence of 
but few instances is an insufficient argument in favour of a change. 


198 NOTES ON THE 


The surviving plays of our Author do not abound with trochaics; 
out of eighteen only eight have this measure at all. Had all the 
lost Tragedies been preserved, in many of which we know that 
the names of Apriomn, ‘Avopouedn, BedAcpoborrys, “Y\ixvdn, 
[lpwresiiaos &c. abounded, is it not probable that we should 
have had numerous instances of such names in this part of the 
dialogue? Elmsley here says, Read orparos d¢ Mupyscwv, and, 
strange to say, Hermann obeys his bidding. 

v. 1239. [lpwros nv exeivos exyOpos] Tile primus erat adver- 
sarius. My correction, €yOpwy, is proposed without much con- 
fidence, but it seems more agreeable to common diction. 

v. 1240. Ald. and MSS. O% we twr yauev amexadouy 
yocov. Matthie tov -yaywy a. 9. He cites in defence of his 
emendation Soph. Aj. 725. Tov tov pavevros xamtBouNeuvrou 
oTpaty =vvaiuov awxoxadovvros. Hipp. 584. Kai pyv cagdws 
"ye Thy Kax@p TpopvyoT pray, Tnv deaxorov a pocovcay etavog 
Aexos. Besides the usage of roy in this mode of speaking, yanwy 
is, as Hermann remarks, more suitable than Twv ‘yauov. Com- 
pare Andr. 682. “Hocev xecbucws Kumpisos, w xaxicre ov. 

v. 1243. Tro. 23. "Eyw de, vxagmor ydp ‘Apyelas Beds 
“Hpas, A@avys 6. Cycl. 458. Baxyiou vixwuevos. Heracl. 234. 
Tyyv 8 evryeveaay ras TUXNS viKepevny Niv oy padiot ececcov. 

v. 1244. Commonly maxn or paye:. Elmsley and Matthie 
properly give the future uayer. 

v. 1245. Ovao Top pevev: “AX ovycouecba| Elmsley 
corr. @AX’ cvynconev oe: Matthie justly defends the common 
text: “ovncouecOa dicit Achilles, respiciens ad id quod Clyt. 
dixerat, ovato Twv Ppevav, utinam fructum capias probi animi tui. 
Respondet, Ego vero fractum capiam. Fructum autem intelligit eum, 
quem e servata Iph. capiet.” 

v. 1247. Hermann’s is the first Ed. in which oux is accented. 

v. 1248. Ulysses has a similar office allotted to him by our 
Poet in the case of Polyxena, Hec. 140. “Hée 5 ’Oducevs, Scor 
oux 40n, [lwAov apediwy sav ame pacrov. 

v. 1249. Vulgo tia wpaccov, contra metrum. iia is the 
emendation of Heath. | 

v. 1250. AipeOets exwv. KA. wovnpav y alpecwv, msarcpo- 
veiy| There is a similar use of the infinitive in Helen. 1653. 
"H je mpovdwxev: Kadny rye mpodociay, dixaa spay. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 199 


v. 1252, It continued to be published eue de Ti xpy dpav 
Tore; in opposition to the metre, and without the notice of any 
editor, till Dr Gaisford restored the verse by transposing ypy Ti. 


v. 1258. ws Tove ovvex’ ov o*haynoerat| Elmsley on Med. 
596. (Qs ov xpwovua TwVOE Got TA TAEtova) “ws fortiter 
affirmantis est, ut tc0: ws.” He cites many examples from the 
Tragedies of this usage of ws with the future, and the present 
line among the rest; but his proposed alteration of Tove to Tad, 
is unnecessary. Matthie properly explains rovd by Toi eué auTiis 
avréyecOa. Hecuba’s declaration on a similar occasion is con- 
veyed in similar language, Hec. 400. ‘Os tad exovca maces 
ov weOycouat. Brodeus renders Tovd ovvex', quod attinet ad hoc. 
These words used to be written interrogatively ; an error remarked 
by Heath. Some MSS. have évex. 

v. 1254. The common reading is A\Aa mv eis TouTO ry Het, 
which Barnes explains by supposing Achilles at this moment either 
to lay his hand on his sword, or to point to his faithful soldiers, 
who were prepared to fight in defence of the maiden. Several 
commentators have adopted this notion, and Brumoy renders it, 
Voici qui me repondra d’elle. Hermann explains the words differ- 
ently, Aqui, eo venietur, ut ex amplexu tuo eam conentur abstrahere. 
Such a remark appears so utterly useless after what he had already 
said, that I have adopted eis tavrow 7€et, it will come to the same 
thing. Musgrave, followed by Matthie, proposed tavro y. Of 
the phrase eis tavrov 74xw, I have spoken in my note on v. 574. 
I cannot see the absurdity which Hermann discovers in this reading. 
Though Achilles had in reply to the mother’s inquiry, what she 
should be doing, told her to cling to her daughter, it is natural that 
he should now add that this would still leave her in the same 
danger, and that her preservation must be effected by those other 
means to which he had alluded. Perhaps fees may be preferable. 

The speech of Iphigenia, in all editions except this, begins with 
antep, eicaxovoate Tov ena Aoywv. I do not object to 
éigaxovoare after u7TEp on mere grammatical grounds; for if the 
address had been intended for several persons, the plural might 
be used; see v. 359. But all the early part of the speech is ad- 
dressed to her mother exclusively: I have therefore given eica- 
xovaTeov. Elmsley on Heracl. 535. says “Cum hac Macarie oratione 
comparanda Polyxene oratio in Hec. 342. Iphigenia in Iph. A. 


200 NOTES ON THE 


1368. Praxithee in Erechtheo. Omnes locis. communibus refertee 
sunt, quorum multo patientiores fuerunt Athenienses quam nostri 
homines.” 

v. 1256. ra 0 advval’ nuiv xaprepeiv ov pqdiov] Musgrave 
and others render xaptepecv obniti, the opposite of its real mean- 
ing, which is sustinere, to endure, bear with: as Alcest. 1090. 
xaprepew Oeov docw. The difficulty of this sentence lies in the 
word advvara. It seems to be used for aunyava. Indeed these 
two adjectives are adopted indiscriminately by our Author. See 
Herc. F. 138. advvarwy fou epqv. Alcest. 208. Taunxava 
Cnrwv where the words are convertible. So in this speech of Iphi- 
genia v. 1282. aA auyxavoy is synon. with adv aduvarov. 

v. 1257. Ph. 1697. °Q Ou-yartep, aivw Mev Oe THS a poOuuias. 

v. 1258. AdAad kal ce Tov opgy xpn, m7 d:aBrnO7 oT pare, 
Kai rAcov mpakwuev ovdev, de dé suuopas tvxn] Hitherto 
diaBAnOns. Iphigenia’s apprehension was not that Clytemnestra 
but that Achilles should be denounced to the army, and thereby 
suffer for her sake. I have therefore given d:aBr7On, and am 
surprised that I should be the first to introduce so obvious an 
emendation. Then the common reading was os dé cuutpopas 
TUxn: this is due to some one (perhaps Aldus), who judged that 
ds could be used for ovros: most of the MSS. have o de o. 7. 
Markland and Musgrave perceived that the true reading was Ode dé. 
Compare Heracl. 421. Tair ovv dpa av, kai EvveLeupioy , 
dxws Autoi te awOycecbe, cai wédov rode, Kgryw roXirats 
un craBrAnOnoopa. 

v. 1262. Evxdeos mpatat, wapeica y Ex3OOWY TO dvaryeves] 
All the edd. ro dvcueves. This too seems to have originated. 
with Aldus, as the MSS. have to dvoryeves. Hermann gives 
mapeioa T, coupling it with evxAews, a reading which I used 
formerly to approve: see Orest. 118. Dom apocedOcrvy pynua 
gov, tapBotca tre Apyetov Sydov, where oBw and rapBovca 
are joined by the copula. But vapeica y is justifiable, and 
therefore not to be disturbed; its force is, J mean by dismissing 
all ignoble thoughts. 

v. 1264. “ENAds 4 meyiotn pro 4 weyadn. Hesychius, 
meyiaryv, peyadnv.” Musgr. “In Esch. Eum. 44. peyiores 
accipiendum videtur pro peryahy.” Gaisf.. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 201 


v. 1265. Kav emot wopOyos Te vawv] Many critics have 
illustrated by examples this well known Grecism, and among the 
rest Blomfield (Gloss. Esch. Pers. 117) who in quoting this line 
proposes to read xav emot vewv TE qopOyos : but the common 
order of the words seems to me preferable. vacs and vawy are 
used by the Tragedians as frequently as vews and vewv. 

v. 1267. The copies have MyxéO’ apraCew eqv tas odPias 
e€ ‘EXAddos, Tov ‘EAvevns ricavras ode pov, qvTw qpmwacev 
Ilapis. The second of these lines I consider to be spurious. It 
is the only intrusion made by the interpolator upon the trochaics of 
this drama. Musgrave remarked how inappropriate it was to call 
Helen’s abduction tov ‘EXevns oAeOpov, and he said, caudam trahit 
Sequens comma jvTw ypmacev Lapis. He might have added 
that ricayras is used in a wrong signification, and that #vTwa 
is adopted where the simple relative 4v is required. But this line 
is not without its value, if it assist us in correcting that which 
precedes. Porson in Pref. ad Hee. p. xuiii. in noticing that the 
trochaic cxsura cannot rest upon an article or preposition, says, 
Leviter corruptus Iph. A. 1391. et leviter corrigendum Tac® pro Tas. 
Of this correction, which is adopted by Matthisee, Hermann observes, 
quo nihil fingt molestius potest. While I agree with this censure, 
I am disposed to say of Hermann’s reading, vw for Tas, quo nih 
Jingt frigidius potest. What may be said of my own emendation, 
tova® for ras, I will not anticipate ; but I will urge in its defence, 
' that Iphigenia may be supposed to leok at Achilles and his soldiers, 
who are designated by Tovao in v. 1245, and that the interpolator’s 
word, Ticayras, seems to argue that he had found rovoo in the 
old copy of the Poet which he used. 

v. 1270. The reading of almost all edd. is Kai sydp oude Tos 
Niav ry’ enol dirowuxetv xpewv: an evident corruption. Most of 
the MSS. have Kai yap ovdé ror Aiav éue @- x- It will be ob- 
served that eue, not e“ol, is required both by the syntax and the 
metre. I have adopted the first correction of Elmsley (Edinb. Rev. 
Vol. x1x. p. 92) ovde rot Tt Asay, particularly as one of the Paris 
MSS. has ovce rot, the other ovce Ti, a fact of which Elmsley was 
not aware. He afterwards (Mus. Crit. Vol. n. p. 282) proposed a 
different reading, ovy o'Tw tt Xiav, on various accounts lesd 
probable than that which Hermann and myself have admitted. 

v. 1271. Taot yap mw “EAAnen wowov Erexes, ovyxi aor porn | 

26 


202 NOTES ON THE 


Elmsley proposed xocvyv and ovx epot. Had he considered the 
passage more maturely, I am convinced that he would have with- 
drawn both those alterations. 

v. 1274. €xOpous re Ald. The correction is Reiske’s. One 
of the Paris MSS. has eyOpovs ye, in the other there is no 
particle. Matthiee first placed the interr. at the end of v. 1275. 

v. 1276. Aldus | Gives this line in a very corrupt state, Ti vo 
Oixatov Tou ry 3 ap exo1ev aurevmety €mros ; the manuscripts 
have either Tovro' ‘yy or tov yy with To written over it. Of 
this reading and of almost all the attempts made at correction, I 
will first observe that the opt. omev used interrogatively, with- 
out dy, is, as I conceive, a solecism, Elmsley evades the main 
difficulty; he says (in Edinb. Rev. Vol. x1x. p. 92.) We do not 
pretend to correct the whole verse; but we have little doubt that 
the true reading of the latter hemistich i is eXonev avrerm ety mos.” 
Hermann gives Ti ro dixatov tovre ¥y ; ap yon av avrectrey 
€70S 3 a verse which retains two of the faults of the Aldine, the 
expletive -y, and the want of the trochaic cesura. Porson de- 
clares the line to be manifestly corrupt, but makes no attempt at 
emendation. After the failure of these chiefs of the critical art, 
it becomes me to speak very diffidently of my own essay. I shall 
only mention the reasons which. have moved me to give the fol- 
lowing line, Ti to Oixaov; ap Exomev Tod dv avrerecv 
emros ; On the supposition that the beginning and end of the verse, 
as given in the copies are correct, the only position which the words 
ap Exorpev could possibly have occupied is that here allotted 
to them. If the reader will turn to v. 1105. he will observe a 
similarity to the case now before us, which makes it probable that 
the corruption of both verses arose from the same cause, the 
omission of av before avreizrot in one, and avTe:recy in the other. 
If then we have rightly corrected the former by the insertion of 
toia0 av, I think it follows that this requires the same remedy. 
Here, however, I believe that there was an additional cause for 
error—the mistaken interpretation of the words ti To dixatov; 3 
which some read as if it had been ri Oixatop, and inserted rovr 
(for Touro ‘y is a mere metrical expedient) in order to give what 
they believed to. be the speaker's meaning, How is this just? But 
Tt TO Sixatov 5 ; really signifies, what is justice? as Phoen. 558. 
Kara wou ‘oriv 4 dixn; When therefore the verse had assumed 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 203 


this form, Ti to dtkatov TovT ; ap Exouev roigs avretmreiv 
€mros ;_ others strove to reduce it to something like rhythm by 
writing TovTo . and erasing TOO - 

v. 1279. Eis Y avnp Kpetcowy cyuvaikwy mupiwy opav aos | 
Dobree proposes opwy for op@y: but the latter is right, the con- 
struction being the same a in Orest. 795. ‘Os avnp dors Tpo- 
mwotot auvtaxn, Oupatos wv, Mupiov Kpeicowy Onaimeon avopi 
xextnaOat diros. Hermann omits the y after eis, and I was 
once tempted to do the same; for though the particle is not un- 
meaning, yet without it I think the sentence would have run 
better. One Paris MS. has eis yap avnp. 

v. 1281. The old copies have syevyoou’ eryw, which error was 
first corrected by Reiske. 

v. 1284. To the same effect are the — of Macaria, Heracl. 
591, Tao avti matowy éoTi pot mewn ua 


v. 1285. BapBapwv & “EdXAnvas apyew eixos} Aldus and 
the MSS. eixos apxewv. Dan. Heinsius first pointed out that the 
measure required those two words to be transpased., It is cor- 
rectly quoted by Aristotle Polit. I. 2. 

v. 1286. TO mev, i.e. TO BapBapov ryevos. 

v. 1288. Ph. 1217. Kadws Ta Tov Oewy kai Ta THS TUXNS EXEL. 

v. 1289. paxapioy me tis Oewv “EuedAXe Onoew, «8 TV OU! 
gwv yauwv] The common version is incorrect, beatum me Deo- 
rum aliquis facturus esset, si tuas nuptias possem habere. It ought 
to be, beatum me facturus erat, si mihi nuptie tua contigissent. 

v.1291. Tov sev Ald. and MSS. One Paris MS. has cov super- 
scribed, which also appears in Canter’s edition. 

After v. 1292. follow two lines which I have degraded to the 
bottom of the page: To Ocouayery yap amohurous , & cou kpa- 
tel, EfeAoyiow ra xpnTra, Ta T avaykaia ye. The editors 
differ in reading, some tT avaryxaia ‘ye, others Tavaryxaia Te, but 
not one of them has intimated a suspicion of these lines not being 
genuine. Nevertheless I am persuaded that no person can read this 
play without feeling their impropriety. They destroy the effect of 
what Achilles has just said, and reduce his admiration of the young 
princess’s noble spirit and generous patriotism, to a mere compli- 
ment on her prudence in surrendering to necessity. This sentiment 
is so unlike his character, and so inconsistent with what he says 
before and afterwards, that it might safely be deemed an inter- 


192 NOTES ON THE 


Med. 837. evwon podewp wAoxov avOewv. Hel. 251. podea weTaAa. 

v. 1191. "EvOa wore TladXas Euodev, dodcoppwv TE Kuzpus, 

“Hpa 6, 0 Aus 7 aryyedos ‘Epuas] 

All editions have xai dodioppwv K. and ‘Epuds 6 0 Atos a. 
In both cases I have adopted the corrections of Dr Monk, whereby 
the first line becomes a cretic tetram. and the second an anapestic 
dim. Previously, they were not reconcileable to any description of 
metre. It may be remarked that the substitution of ve for xat, 
in a sentence where the former copula is to be twice repeated, is 
recommended by usage ; and in the latter transposition, the collo- 
cation of ‘ Eppuas is improved ; it is the same as we find in Electr. 
462. Aros aryyéedw Evv Epuq. 

v. 1194. Kuaprs, a oe doupt Ila\\as} All the editions have 
dopi. Elmsley proposes dopt de TladXas, omitting the article. 
Monk gives Soupt, a much easier change, by which the line be- 
comes, like the preceding, a Trochaic dimeter. 

v. 1195. Commonly “Hpa te: Beck “Hpa de: Elmsley omits 
the name of the Queen of the gods, and writes a de Atos a|lvaxros 
evvatow PBactdiot, and he is followed by Monk: but I think 
it unlikely that “Hpa would be omitted in this sentence after’ 
the mention of her two rivals. I abstain from alteration, not con- 
sidering it to be safe; though I cannot help believing that there 
has been violence done to this line, as well as to several others, for. 
the sake of producing a lame senarian. The general flow of the 
verses, as given by the Poet, was trochaic: consistency with what 
precedes and follows might be maintained by writing, 

a de Atos avaxros evvai— 
ow Baorios woru “Hpa. 

v. 1196. Kpiow emt oTuyvav epi te Kaddovas, epov de 
Qavarov|] Commonly tas kadXovas. Monk and Hermann omit 
the article, and Matthie observes ‘* ras insititium videtur, non 
solum ob metrum, sed etiam quod articulus abhorret a more Tra- 
gicorum.” See v. 179. é pu E pu popdas. Androm. 278. € pte 
aruyepa KexopyOuevov evuopdias. I have given euov for enol, 
as was proposed by Elmsley, from whose scheme however in all that 
follows I must entirely dissent. After Qavarov the copies have 
this line, ovona ev epovra Aavatsacw, Kopat, which gave 
offence to readers even in the time of Portus, as violating the lan- 
guage by making mev and de change places. Musgrave accord- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 193 


ingly corrected the passage to Aavaidaicw ovona pev pepovr , 
énot dé Oavarov, w kopat: in that case we ought to read epovcay. 
But consideration will, I think, convince the reader, that I have 
done right in rejecting the line altogether. It would impair. the 
pathos of her lamentations, were Iphigenia here to allege that 
‘her death was bringing fame to the Greeks.’ The display of 
her patriotism is reserved for the following scene; she is now 
altogether occupied with bewailing her own hard fate: nor am IJ 
satisfied that, had any such meaning been intended by the Poet, 
the bare word dvoua would have been used to express TyuLNV oF 
xAeos. Neither is it conceivable that Iphigenia would at this 
moment have inserted an appeal to the Chalcidians, to whom she 
says nothing else. I have therefore altered Kopat into w Kopa, 
as being the words of the Chorus. Elmsley gives the two next 
lines to the Princess, and writes ex. ingento apoOuuaT éAaev : 
he is followed by Monk and Hermann, the former giving é\a(e 
mw, the latter ov, w kopat, * * rpoOuuaT eAaBev. But I per- 
ceive nothing which makes the interposition of the Chorus at. this 
moment either improper or unusual: the old editions. have confined 
their words within the limits of a senarian iambic, believing that 
an interruption from the Orchestra ought always to be in that 
measure; but a reference to vv. 1376, &c. will shew that similar 
interlocutory remarks are sometimes made in the same kind of verse 
as that used by the actor. 

v. 1204. Tliuxpay idovca dvcedevav] I feel great suspicion of 
the word idovaa, which seems to be unmeaning, and to weaken an 
affecting sentence. Why should she at this moment observe that she 
had beheld Helen? I do not venture to propose any emendation, 
but will suggest the manner in. which it is possible that the present | 
reading might have been caused. Let us imagine that such a line 
as [apais O]iovca ducedévav stood in the text, and that the 
bracketted letters were obliterated by damp or some other cause 
(an accident which certainly has befallen another part of this song): 
a metrical correttar was likely to supply the chasm, by repeating 
aupav from the preceding line. Helen is called by Euripides 
Avuoedeva also in Orest. 1884. the term being probably suggested 
by Homer’s designation of her paramour, Avowapi, II. I. 39. 


v. 1208. Evéfy edition has do Avs. I have erased do as 


an insertion made for the purpose. of producing a dimeter 
25 


194 NOTES ON THE 


anapestic: the pronoun is expressed in rovgd eis Sppyous. This 
line is a spondaic (See note on v. 118.) like three which presently 
follow. 

v. 1209. To this line are always added the words eis Tpoiav: 
but that they were an interpolation is proved by the improbability 
of ets Spuous and eis Tpoiav, being written in juxta-position, and 
by the terminations of two adjacent verses Tpoiay and qoyumaiav, 
in rhyming cadence. 

v. 1211. Commonly ayr. Hermann properly corrects it, une . 
In the following lines I have taken the liberty of omitting several 
words, which appear to have arisen partly from interpretations written 
in the margin, and partly from a desire to produce a system of 
dimeters. At the foot of the text are found the six lines as they 
stand in the copies of our poet, out of which I have made three; 
comprising all the meaning that can be extracted out of the six, 
without any of their improprieties. Before the reader condemns 
such a liberty taken by an editor, I request that he will carefully 
peruse the six verses, and if he be not himself satisfied that they 
include some interpolations, he may retain and cherish them, entire 
and unaltered. If however he be convinced that some intrusions 
have been forced on the text, let him accompany me in a candid 
and detailed consideration of the passage. om7rav was suggested 
by ouzraiay, in its immediate neighbourhood; and Euripides 
would not have said wvetv troumav, but we avpav. Then me- 
Aicowv seems quite inappropriate in this place, and arose from the 
mistake of the interpolator, who fancied that a calm was implied, 
whereas Iphigenia speaks only of the prevalence of adverse winds ; 
besides, the syntax in this place would have required metri€as : 
the interpolator took the word from another line of Euripides, 
Hel. 1355. Zevs petdicawy otvytous opyas. The sole meaning 
of what follows is, that the breeze, sent by Jupiter, brought hap- 
piness to some mortals, and adversity to others; the marginal ex- 
planations intimate that some could put to sea, while others were 
wind-bound ; to the former being applied the words efopyqy and 
orédXew, (they should rather have been eFopuacOa and oréd- 
AecOar), to the latter ueAAew. Again, Torr oe Avtray is, I think, 
a palpable gloss.of To.ct 0 avayxav. As for Aaidest, I consider 
it to be an interpretation written by an erring scholiast over Tors 
nev. In. the above lines Monk omits tots Se Avwar, Tow o« 


a ° 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 195 


oreAXev, and roict o€ meAAev, as also eis Tpoiav in v. 12060, 
but he erroneously gives tots uev Aaidect. 


v. 1216. This line stands in all the copies 7 rodunoy Gov 
apepiwv. The measure of the preceding lines being anapestic, 
Markland suggested the insertion of Twy before apepiwy. I trust 
that my introduction of wav has better consulted the sense. This 
verse used to have a note of interr. which Heath properly rejected. 

v. 1217. In this and the next line, the imperfect sense and the 
unintelligible metre shews that something has been lost. The old 
reading was xpewy dé Te Avorroruov avopacw aveupeiv, affirm. 
atively. Barnes gives dé ri, with this translation, quorsum igitur 
vpus est hominibus accersere malam sortem? I do not comprehend 
Musgrave’s version, fatum vero aliquid hominibus difficile toleratu? 
Hermann writes To xpewv. My own suggestion of a probable mode 
of supplying this sentence is given in the margin. It may occur 
to some critics, that we should have adhered closer to the writing 
of the copies by the insertion of one more letter, ovde ypewy o 
ert Avotrortpov avopact veckos aveupety, (iw, iw,) Meryada wabea, 
&c. so that ce might refer to Helen, the mention of whom imme- 
diately follows. I admit that this would actount for all the letters 
in dé Tt, and, what is more, would elevate the spirit of the passage. 
But I am not satisfied that iw, iw could properly he thus inter- 
posed in the middle of a sentence ; and I think that a transition 
from the anapestic metre, which has prevailed for many lines, to 
the trochaic, was not likely to have taken place, except after a 
sufficient pause. 

vv. 1219—21. In all editions these lines are given to the Chorus. 
Blomfield properly noticed that they belong to Iphigenia’s song: 
and thus they are printed by Hermann. tos used to be prefixed 
to Aavaidass, in order to make the verse a Senarian; one Paris 
MS. omits it, another has it inserted by a different hand. 

v. 1222. Two Flor. MSS. have xaxys. 

v. 1225. Tov te tas Beas maida, Téxvov, wm av devp’ 
€7AvOas| In the Aldine and other old Edd. the verse stands, Tov 
re THs Oeds Waid, w TEKvov yy, w devp EAnAvOas. The per- 
son who thus altered it, seems not to have been aware that eas was 
used as a monosyllable, and about the trochaic czesura he knew nothing. 
Heath restored the metre by writing matoa, TEKVOD, @ ye 0. €, 


196 . NOTES ON THE 


Hermann properly gives @ ov. Reiske had suggested Tov ‘ye 
tys 0. mw. and this is adopted by Matthie, who renders it et 
quidem, as if it were xai Tov yye—. 

v. 1227. Ti de, vréxvov, gevryeis ; "AxiAA€a Tove ide 
aisxvvopat | All edd. till lately have Ti de gevyeis, TEKVOV; TOV 
"Ayo\Aea Tov tet aicxvvouat. but most of the MSS. omit 
tov before Ay. The line is now printed as Porson gives it in 
Misc. Tracts p.197. The first part was corrected by Heath, the 
second by Musgrave. 

v. 1228. Iph. T. 560. ws ri oy Oédwv; Or. 786. ws Tt dn 
TOOE 5 

v. 1229. Ou ev aBporyti Keicat mpos Ta voy werTwKoTa] 
This is the reading of the MSS. The editions had tapos ta vv 
TEN paryyueva, before Markland, who gave remrwxora from the 
Paris MSS. and cited Hipp. 715. wpos ta vuv wewrwxora. Elect. 
644. mpos TO wimrov. Plutarch. ad Apoll. p. 112. F. the latter 
taken, as Porson observed, from Plato p. 604. C. “Adde Alexin 
Stobei, p. 560. 15. Terent. Adelph. IV. 7.21. Ita vita est hominum 
quasi quum ludas tesseris.” Porson. Barnes compares Phen. 1291. 
Aidouue®’ Gydov: Ov ev aicyvvn td od. aBporys answers 
to the English, delicacy—oeuvorns, to reserve. 

v. 1280. jv dvvwyePa—] An aposiopesis. Clytemnestra being 
about to say gov Biov awoat, or something to that effect, is in- 
‘terrupted by the hasty cry of Achilles. Here again Hermann gives 
the reins to his genius for alteration, and prints in the text iv 
oovvwpeOa, rendering it, Non est usus superbie, ubi in dolore sumus. 


v. 1233. “Libri aovnpov viwvoy Aoryov. Marklandus Aoywy 
vel Ao-you, verissime, probavitque Musgravius, nec quisquam de- 
bebat non probare. Nam Aoctyov prorsus putide adjectum esset. 
Quod dicit Clyteemnestra otwvov, ipsa hec verba Achillis intelligit 
audi ons watdos. Nam ubi de filia sua sermonem esse audiit, 
animo presagit quid porro narraturus sit Achilles. Ea narratio 
est quam Aoywy vel Aoyou nomine significat: malum dixisti au- 
gurium rei, quam sis narraturus.” Hermann. 

v. 1284. All the copies give ‘Qs ypew» ohatar viv: Kovdets 
Toigo evavTiov Aeryet ; with a spondee for the third foot. Heath 
restored the metre by reading ovdeis, which most of the subsequent 
editors have approved; Markland having observed that the K was 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 197 


only an error from the first letter of Clytemnestra’s name being 
taken into the words of the Poet. But Hermann says, rudis est 
Heathii emendatio: nam necessarium est xovdeis—nisi dicatur Ti 0 3 
ovceis—aut 4 ovdeis——” I do not accede to this dictum: «al 
would be suitable,’ but not necessary ; ovdeis dé would be more 
agreeable to usage; but the Tragedians, like all other writers, 
sometimes give force to their sentences by omitting conjunctions, 
Hermann adopts Musgrave’s alternative conjecture opata ope, 
an alliteration very distressing to the ear. 

v. 1235. Ald. and MSS. have "Es OopuBov eyw Tot Kavos 
mrvOov. K. es ti, w £eve; with a double infraction of metre. 
Heath and Markland would prefer -7\@ov, though they do not 
seem to have perceived that the dactyl was absolutely inadmis- 
sible. The other error it is very difficult to remove in a satis- 
factory manner. Markland proposes é-ywye xavros. Musgrave 
éyw vt « avros. Blomfield eyw tw’ avros. Porson and Mat! 
thie adopt Markland’s, Gaisford and Hermann give Musgrave’s. 
I have -with much hesitation admitted Blomfield’s; but am now 
of opinion that Markland’s is the safer correction: Dobree cites 
éywrye kat avros from Plato Gorg. p. 245. 10. Routh. 

v. 1236. The old edd. have pwv Kopyy owe eunv; Canter 
first perceived that the true reading must be cwCwv. It implies, 
‘Whal? in endeavouring to preserve my daughter ? 


v. 1237. All the translations render tis 0 av ErAn by quis 
vero ausus est? It should be quts vero ausus esset ? 

v. 1238. OT pares oe Mupusdovey ov cot qaphy ; | This. line 
exhibits one instance of a dactyl in Troch. tetram. comprised in 
a proper name; v. 784. has another, Eis ap ‘Iquryevecav ‘EXevns 
vooTos HY Tempwuévos ; Elmsley in his Review of. Porson’s He- 
cuba (Edinb. Rev. Vol. x1x. p. 71) while he-allows to any place 
of ‘Tragic iambics except: the last, the licence of an anapest 
when entirely comprised in a proper name, wishes to deprive the 
trochaic of the corresponding liberty: although the reason is pre- 
cisely the same in both cases, that many names, like that of our 
Heroine, could not otherwise come into the dialogue. Accordingly 
he thinks these two lines corrupt. I mention this only to protest 
against this disposition to limit the Tragic licences so much more 
narrowly than Porson has done, and to say that the existence of 
but few instances is an insufficient argument in favour of a change. 


198 NOTES ON THE 


The surviving plays of our Author do not abound with trochaics; 
out of eighteen only eight have this measure at all. Had all the 
lost Tragedies been preserved, in many of which we know that 
the names of Avridan, Avdpouesn, BedAepoorrys, ‘Y Wervdn, 
Ilpwreciiaos &c. abounded, is it not probable that we should 
have had numerous instances of such names in this part of the 
dialogue? Elmsley here says, Read otparos dé Mupysdwy, and, 
strange to say, Hermann obeys his bidding. 

v. 1239. Ilowros nv eéxeivos éx6pes] Ille primus erat adver- 
sarius. My correction, €yOpwv, is proposed without much con- 
fidence, but it seems more agreeable to common diction. 

v. 1240. Ald. and MSS. Ot me Twv yauwr azeKxadouy 
Hocov. Matthies tov yaywv a. 7. He cites in defence of his 
emendation Soph. Aj. 725. Tov tov mavevtos xan tBovdeurou 
oTpary =uvacuov amoxaXovvros. Hipp. 584. Kai uyv capws 
ye THY KaKw@V TpopVnaT play, Tay deamoTou mpocovcay éfavdg 
Nexo. Besides the usage of Tov in this mode of speaking, yanwy 
is, as Hermann remarks, more suitable than Tov yauov. Com- 
pare Andr. 682. “Hoowy metpune's Kumpisos, w W KAKIGTE GU. 

v. 1243. Tro. 23. "Eyw de, vexamat y4p ‘Apyelas Oeas 

“Hpas, ‘A@avys 0. Cycl. 453. Bakxiov vexomevos. Heracl. 234. 
Tyv 0 eveyevecav ris TUXNS vexwpevay Nov o9 padsor’ éoecdov. 

v. 1244. Commonly man | or payec. Elmsley and Matthie 
properly give the future Mayet. 

v. 1245. ovato tev cpevav: "AX ovncopecBa| Elmsley 
corr. ar ovncowev ae: Matthie justly defends the common 
text: “ovycosecOa dicit Achilles, respiciens ad id quod Clyt. 
dixerat, ovao Twv hpevwv, utinam fructum capias probi animi tui. 
Respondet, Ego vero fractum capiam. Fructum autem intelligit eum, 
quem e servata Iph. capiet.” 

v. 1247. Hermann’s is the first Ed. in which ovx is accented. 

v. 1248. Ulysses has a similar office allotted to him by our 
Poet i in the case of Polyxena, Hec. 140. "HEee 6 ‘Odvaers, & oo ov 
oux 76n, [lwAov apertwy owy amo macro. 

v. 1249. Vulgo wig mpacowr, contra metrum. idta is - the 
emendation of Heath. 

v. 1250. AipeBeis exwv. KA. srovnpavy y alpeow, ene 
veiv] There is a similar use of the infinitive in Helen. 1653. 
“H pe mpovowxev: Kadynv rye mpodociay, dixata dpav. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 199 


v. 1252, It continued to be published eue de ti ypy Spav 
Tote; in opposition to the metre, and without the notice of any 
editor, till Dr Gaisford restored the verse by transposing py Ti. 


v. 1258. ws Tovd ovvex ov opaynoerat| Elmsley on Med. 
596. (‘Os ov xpwovua Tavde cot Ta wretova) “ ws fortiter 
affirmantis est, ut tc@: ws.” He cites many examples from the 
Tragedies of this usage of ws with the future, and the present 
line among the rest; but his proposed alteration of TovO to THAO, 
is unnecessary. Matthie properly explains rod by Tov eue avtiis 
avréxecOa. Hecuba’s declaration on a similar occasion is con- 
veyed in similar language, Hec. 400. Qs THoo éxovoa Tatoos 
ov ueOycoua. Brodeus renders rove over, quod attinet ad hoc. 
These words used to be written interrogatively ; an error remarked 
by Heath. Some MSS. have évex. 

v. 1254. The common reading is AAAa pyy eis TovTO y Aker, 
which Barnes explains by supposing Achilles at this moment either 
to lay his hand on his sword, or to point to his faithful soldiers, 
who were prepared to fight in defence of the maiden. Several 
commentators have adopted this notion, and Brumoy renders it, 
Voici qui me repondra d’elle. Hermann explains the words differ- 
ently, Atgui, eo venietur, ut ex amplexu tuo eam conentur abstrahere. 
Such a remark appears so utterly useless after what he had already 
said, that I have adopted eis ravrov ket, it will come to the same 
thing. Musgrave, followed by Matthie, proposed tavro y. Of 
the phrase eis Tavrov 74xw, I have spoken in my note on v. 574. 
I cannot see the absurdity which Hermann discovers in this reading. 
Though Achilles had in reply to the mother’s inquiry, what she 
should be doing, told her to cling to her daughter, it is natural that 
he should now add that this would still leave her in the same 
danger, and that her preservation must be effected by those other 
means to which he had alluded. Perhaps #£ees may be preferable. 

The speech of Iphigenia, in all editions except this, begins with 
aATep, eicakovcate Twv euwv Aoywv. I do not object to 
eicaxovoare after un Tep on mere grammatical grounds; for if the 
address had been intended for several persons, the plural might 
be used; see v. 359. But all the early part of the speech is ad- 
dressed to her mother exclusively: I have therefore given eica- 
xovcTéov. Elmsley on Heracl. 535. says “Cum hac Macarie oratione 
comparanda Polyxene oratio in Hec. 342. Iphigenie in Iph. A. 


200 NOTES ON THE 


1368. Praxithee in Erechtheo. Omnes locis. communibus refertee 
sunt, quorum multo patientiores fuerunt Athenienses quam nostri 
homines.” 

v. 1256. ta d advvad’ nuiv xaprepetv ov paciov] Musgrave 
and others render xapTepecv obniti, the opposite of its real mean- 
ing, which is sustinere, to endure, bear with: as Alcest. 1090. 
xaptrepew Oeov doow. The difficulty of this sentence lies in the 
word advvata. It seems to be used for aunyava. Indeed these 
two adjectives are adopted indiscriminately by our Author. See 
Here. F. 138. advvarwy fox’ epav. Alcest. 203. Taunxava 
(ntwv where the words are convertible. So in this speech of Iphi- 
genia v. 1282. GAA auryavov is synon. with add’ advvarov. 

v. 1257. Ph. 1697. °Q Ouryarep, aivw méev ae TIS a poOuias. 

v. 1258. ‘ANAd Kai ce Tov8' opav xpy, uy dca BdnO7 orpare, 
Kai rAcéov rpakwuev ovdev, dde dé suudopas tvyxn] Hitherto 
diaBrnOns. Iphigenia’s apprehension was not that Clytemnestra 
but that Achilles should be denounced to the army, and thereby 
suffer for her sake. I have therefore given c:a(3A79n, and am 
surprised that I should be the first to introduce so obvious an 
emendation. Then the common reading was os ée auucopas 
TUX: this is due to some one (perhaps Aldus), who judged that 
os could be used for ovros: most of the MSS. have o dé o. 7. 
Markland and Musgrave perceived that the true reading was de 0¢. 
Compare Heracl. 421. Tavr’ ovv épa av, Kai fuvetevpicy’, 
drws Auvroi te awOycecOe, Kai medov rode, Kayo wodéirats 
un dcaBrOycopat. 

v. 1262. Ev«Aews wpaka, wapeioa ry exrrodwy To dvaryeves] 
All the edd. ro dua meves. This too seems to have originated 
with Aldus, as the MSS. have to dvaoryevés. Hermann gives 
mapeioa T, coupling it with evxAews, a reading which I used 
formerly to approve: see Orest. 118. @o3py mpoceAOery pvnua 
gov, tapBovca te ‘Apryeiov oxAov, where Posy and rapBovca 
are joined by the copula. But wapeioa y is justifiable, and 
therefore not to be disturbed; its force is, I mean by dismissing 
all ignoble thoughts. 

v. 1264. ““EdAas 9 meyiorn pro 9 weryady. Hesychius, 
meyiorny, peyaAnv.” Musgr. “In Asch. Eum. 44. peryiaTen 
accipiendum videtur pro peyady.” Gaisf. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 201 


v. 1265. Kav euot wopOu0s te vawv] Many critics have 
illustrated by examples this well known Grecism, and among the 
rest Blomfield (Gloss. Esch. Pers. 117) who in quoting this line 
proposes to read xav epot vewy TE qopOyos : but the common 
order of the words seems to me preferable. vaos and vawy are 
used by the Tragedians as frequently as vews and vewv. 

v. 1267. The copies have MyxeO apmraCev eqv Tas oAPias 
e& ‘E\Xddos, Tov ‘EXevns ricavras ore pop, qvTW pTacev 
Ilapis. The second of these lines I consider to be spurious. It 
is the only intrusion made by the interpolator upon the trochaics of 
this drama. Musgrave remarked how inappropriate it was to call 
Helen’s abduction Tov ‘EXevns oAeO pov, and he said, caudam trahst 
sequens comma nuTw nptracev Tlaprs. He might have added 
that ricayras is used in a wrong signification, and that #vTwa 
is adopted where the simple relative 7v is required. But this line 
is not without its value, if it assist us in correcting that which 
precedes. Porson in Pref. ad Hec. p. xuiii. in noticing that the 
trochaic cesura cannot rest upon an article or preposition, says, 
Leviter corruptus Iph. A. 1391. et leviter corrigendum tac® pro Tas. 
Of this correction, which is adopted by Matthie, Hermann observes, 
quo nihil fingt molestius potest. While I agree with this censure, 
I am disposed to say of Hermann’s reading, tw for Tas, quo nihil 
Jjingt frigidius potest. What may be said of my own emendation, 
Tova® for ras, I will not anticipate ; but I will urge in its defence, 
’ that Iphigenia may be supposed to look at Achilles and his soldiers, 
who are designated by Tovae in v. 1245, and that the interpolator’s 
word, TicavTas, seems to argue that he had found Touvco in the 
old copy of the Poet which he used. 

v. 1270. The reading of almost all edd. is Kai yap OUOE TOs 
Niav ry’ euot Prropuyerv xpewv: an evident corruption. Most of 
the MSS. have kai yap ovde Toe Aiav enue gp: x. It will be ob- 
served that eue, not euol, is required both by the syntax and the 
metre. I have adopted the first correction of Elmsley (Edinb. Rev. 
Vol. x1x. p. 92) ovde rot Tt Néav, particularly as one of the Paris 
MSS. has ovde Tot, the other ovde Tt, a fact of which Elmsley was 
not aware. He afterwards (Mus. Crit. Vol. nm. p. 282) proposed 4 
different reading, ovy olTw Tt Néav, on various accounts lesd 
probable than that which Hermann and myself have admitted. 

v. 1271. Tlace yap mw “EXAnot wowov érexes, avy! cot povn | 

26 


202 NOTES ON THE 


Elmsley proposed xow7v and ovx epot. Had he considered the 
passage more maturely, I am convinced that he would have with- 
drawn both those alterations. ; 

v.1274. eyOpous re Ald. The correction is Reiske’s. One 
of the Paris MSS. has eyOpous ‘ye, in the other there is no 
particle. Matthie first placed the interr. at the end of v. 1275. 

v. 1276. Aldus gives this line in a very corrupt state, Ti TO 
Sikaoy Tov y's ap Exomev avrerrev Eos; the manuscripts 
have either tovro' yy or Tov yy with To written over it. Of 
this reading and of almost all the attempts made at correction, I 
will first observe that the opt. eyoupev used interrogatively, with- 
out av, is, as I conceive, a solecism, Elmsley evades the main 
difficulty; he says (in Edinb. Rev. Vol. x1x. p. 92.) “We do not 
pretend to correct the whole verse; but we have little doubt that 
the true reading of the latter hemistich is €xouev avrecrety Eos.” 
Hermann gives Ti To dixatov TovTO yy; ap Exo av avTermery 
emros ; a verse which retains two of the faults of the Aldine, the 
expletive -y, and the want of the trochaic cesura. Porson de- 
clares the line to be manifestly corrupt, but makes no attempt at 
emendation. After the failure of these chiefs of the critical art, 
it becomes me to speak very diffidently of my own essay. I shall 
only mention the reasons which have moved me to give the fol- 
lowing line, Tt ro dixaov; ap evounev T0008 «av avre:ren 
eros ; On the supposition that the beginning and end of the verse, 
as given in the copies are correct, the only position which the words 
ap Exornev could possibly have occupied is that here allotted 
to them. If the reader will turn to v. 1105. he will observe a 
similarity to the case now before us, which makes it probable that 
the corruption of both verses arose from the same cause, the 
omission of av before avreizot in one, and avTecewv in the other. 
If then we have rightly corrected the former by the insertion of 
roiad av, I think it follows that this requires the same remedy. 
Here, however, I believe that there was an additional cause for 
error—the mistaken interpretation of the words Ti To dixatov; 
which some read as if it had been Ti dixatov, and inserted Tour 
(for Tovro y is a mere metrical expedient) in order to give what 
they believed to be the speaker’s meaning, How is this just? But 
vi TO Oikatov; really signifies, what is justice? as Phoen. 558. 
KaTa wou ‘ativ 4 oixn; When therefore the verse had assumed 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 203 


this form, Ti To dSikatov Tour ; ap Exoruev roias avretmenv 
€rros ;_ others strove to reduce it to something like rhythm by 
writing TovTo > and erasing TOGO - 

v. 1279. Els Y avnp Kpetcoww ryuvaiKkwy mupiwv opav daos | 
Dobree proposes opwy for opqy: but the latter is right, the con- 
struction being the same as in Orest. 795. ‘Qs avnp doTts TpO- 
Tot cuvtaky, Oupaios wr, Mupiwr Kpsioowy Ouaiuwv avopi 
xextyoOar giros. Hermann omits the y after efs, and I was 
once tempted to do the same; for though the particle is not un- 
meaning, yet without it I think the sentence would have run 
better, One Paris MS. has els yap avip. 

v. 1281. The old copies have yeyyoou’ ey, which error was 
first corrected by Reiske. 

v. 1284. To the same effect are the wands of M. acaria, Heracl. 
591. Tao avri mraidwy éoti pot new uc 


v. 1285. BapBapwv & “EdAnvas apyew eixos} Aldus and 
the MSS. eixos apyetv. Dan. Heinsius first pointed out that the 
measure required those two words to be transposed, It is cor- 
rectly quoted by Aristotle Polit. 1.2 

v. 1286. To pep, i.e. TO BapBapov ryevos. 

v. 1288. Ph. 1217. Kahws Ta Tov Oewy kai Ta THS TUXNS aX Et. 

v. 1289. pakaptov me Tis Dewy “EmeAXe Once, 6 TVKOLL 
owy yauwv] The common version is incorrect, beatum me Deo- 
rum aliquis facturus esset, si tuas nuptias possem habere. It ought 
to be, beatum me facturus erat, si mihi nuptie tue. contigissent. 

v.1291. tov uev Ald. and MSS. One Paris MS. has cou super- 
scribed, which also appears in Canter’s edition. 

After v. 1292. follow two lines which I have degraded to the 
bottom of the page: To Deomaxerv yap. amoArmoua , 5 cou Kpa- 
tei, E€edoryiow va XpNTTa, Ta T avayKaia Ye The editors 
differ in reading, some T avaryxaia ‘ye, others Tava‘ykaia Te, but 
not one of them has intimated a suspicion of these lines not being 
genuine. Nevertheless I am persuaded that no person can read this 
play without feeling their impropriety. They destroy the effect of 
what Achilles has just said, and reduce his admiration of the young 
princess’s noble spirit and generous patriotism, to a mere compli- 
ment on her prudence in surrendering to necessity. This sentiment 
is so unlike his character, and so inconsistent with what he says 
before and afterwards, that it might safely be deemed an inter- 


204 NOTES ON THE 


polation, even if the numbers were harmonious, and the diction un- 
exceptionable. Such however is not the case. The ear accustomed 
to Tragic versification is not pleased with either of these lines ; 
and the words, J think, shew that the author was not a Greek; 
a7o\elretvy was intended by him for a translation of omittere, but 
it is an inaccurate one; and it would not have been used, like the 
Latin verb, with an infinitive. e£eAoyiocw was the interpolator’s 
version of reputdsti. The sentence professes to be explanatory, 
To Oconayxetv yyap—but nothing can be less like an elucidation of 
what has been said; not to mention the impropriety of its coming 
immediately after ev yap Tod elas, atiws Te TaTpivos. 

v. 1294. Scaliger and Canter read onv for Tv, and Barnes 
follows them. 

v. 1296. The common lection is ayOouat T 

v. 1298. aOpocov for a0pycov was a corruption of Aldus. H. 
Stephens and Canter restored the true word, which the MSS. confirm. 

v. 1300. “H Tuvdapis rais Aa TO TO apket maxas  Avdpwv 
rOeioa, Kat dovous| The old edd. and MSS. have apxet. The 
credit of the true reading, apxet sufficit, belongs to the Pére Har- 
douin in Mem. de l’ Acad. Inscr. 1v. p. 246. The construction is the 
same as in Alc. 393. A provpev mus ot a poOvnakovres oebev. 
Soph. Ant. 547. dpkeaw OvycKova’ eryw. 

v. 1804. "Q rARw’ Gpiarov Iph. T. 609. 

v. 1307. Ones 0 tows av Kav meTayvoins race] I have 
substituted ov for sve. This particle has usurped the place of the 
pronoun in v. 1317. and in several other lines of this play. One 
Paris MS. has opus yy tows Kav a. T. whence Markland con). 
Ouws yy tows ov. But rye is out of Place. Hermann tows yap. 

v. 1808. ‘Qs ovv av eions Taw eéuov Nedeyueval ta ar 
e€uov signifies all that can proceed from me. i.e. what lies in my 
power; as in Tro. 74. 1154. Compare v. 1109. Tar €uov coda. 

After if 1312. three more lines have been interpolated, 

ovKouy eaow o adpoocvvn TH on Oavery 

eXOwy dé avv SmAors roise apos vaov Beas, 

kapacoxnow anv exe. Tapovatav. 
In justice to the author of these lines, I must acknowledge them to 
be so far superior in language and in numbers to the other inter- 
polations, that they might in a different situation, have fairly passed 
for verses of Euripides. They can hardly have been forged by 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 205 


the same hand as the other intruders: nevertheless the marks of 
their spurious origin are sufficiently distinct. 1st. They express 
nothing but the same resolution as Achilles had declared in the 
preceding sentence. 2dly. About half the words are picked out, with 
slight variations, more interpolatoris, from lines immediately pre- 
ceding. 3dly. adposuyn implies that Iphigenia was out of her senses, 
and is therefore inconsistent with what Achilles had just before 
said in v. 1292 and 1305. 4thly. The words arpos vaov Beas must be 
a forgery; since there is no record of a Temple of Diana at 
Aulis, or in the aAgos or Aewwv of the goddess, where her sa- 
crifices were performed. I hardly know whether I ought to add 
to the arguments against the sanity of these verses that Hermann, 
who defends almost all the other lines which I have ejected, pro- 
nounces these three to be interpolated. He holds indeed the same 
opinion of three more (1308, 1311, 1812) in which I profess my- 
self unable to find any thing objectionable or suspicious. 

v. 1315. It used to be written and pointed thus, Ilavoai me, 
py Kane, which was absurdly translated Pofius me compescas, ne 
languefacias. Markland in order to make sense of the words, 
stopped them, wavoa, we wy Kxaxt(e. Porson properly wrote 
mavoat, me my Kaxie, for eue is emphatic. wavoat scil. TE 
ryouoa Kopas dak puors, cease weeping, do not make a coward of me, 
as you have of yourself. Hermann’s notion of this sentence is quite 
different. He omits all stop, and says ‘confusa in unum zravoai 
pe kaxiCwy (Qu. kaxiQovoa) et wy me KaKiCe.” 

v.1316. Aer’, ws Tap nwy ovdev aciknoe, Texvov} Elmsley 
Heracl. 461. ‘‘ Apud Nostrum Iph. A. non male conjicit Canterus 
agus gS pro a anon.” I should have said, pessime conjicit Can 
terus. aduknoouat is a passive future, forme media, as edcopat v. 
252, amroo Tepygouat v. 1093. In Monk’s note on Hipp. 1458. is 
an enumeration of many futures of this class used by the Trage- 
dians; but this word is not included. I wonder that we do not 
find in this line rap nuev y. 

v. 1317. Myr’ ove ov tov coy wAoKapov EKTEUNS Tptxos | ou 
for ye, Elmsley: an obvious emendation. The particle is as much 
out of place here as it would be appropriate in the preceding line. 
Then follows in all the copies a verse now erased from the text, 
Mnr aug coma péAavas apTrioxn aemAous, which was taken by 
the interpolator from v. 1327..with such alterations as he thought 


206 NOTES ON THE 


necessary to adapt it to the occasion. That this line was intrusive 
was pointed out first, I believe, by Burges, in Class. Journ. Vol. 1. 
p- 613. who remarked that it destroyed the regularity of the o7i- 
xouvOia, or dialogue in alternate verses. This cause would not 
have been sufficient by itself for its ejection, as there are some 
instances, though few, of such a deviation from the general rule: 
but when added to the other considerations, it leaves little doubt 
as to its condemnation. In this opinion I am shappy to say that 
Hermann concurs. He however, changes unr ovy into an (Ol, 
as I think, very erroneously. Iphigenia, referring to the two 
outward signs of mourning practised among the Greeks, intends 
to beg Clytemnestra neither to cut off her hair, nor to put on 
black clothes; but no sooner has she named the first particular, 
than she is interrupted by the impatient mother, whose attachment 
to the fashions of her country is displayed in her moments of 
affliction as strongly as at the period of her fancied happiness. 

v. 1318. This was formerly written, Ti ogra 100 elas, w 
TéKvov, aTroNégaua oe; a verse with two anapsests: one was re- 
moved by Barnes’ correction 67, the other by Markland’s erasure 
of w. But though 6 for Onra is adopted by Porson, Elmsley, 
Matthie, and Hermann, I feel convinced that the right particle in 
this line is srore, for which Onra was erroneously substituted here 
as well as in v. 238. 

v. 1319. All copies have Ov av ‘ye, and no cavil has yet been 
heard. But surely ye is out of place. The true reading is ov 
ov us scil. awTwAEcas. 

. 1322. In the editions it stands thus, Ti dai ro Ovyoxetv, ov 
régpos vouiceTat ; ; except in Gaisford’s, who writes both here and 
in v. 1326. 09 for dai, (which last was not used by the Tragedi- 
ans; see Brunck and Porson on Med. 1008) but adds, ‘“‘Sed hic 
locus graviori vulnere adhuc fortasse laborat.” Nothing to be 
sure can be more senseless than the common translation, Quid 
vero, an non ipsa mors existimatur sepultura? But it does pot ap- 
pear that any other correction is necessary, than that which I have 
given by placing an interr. after OunjaKer ; ; why, what thenis death ? 
I should have preferred: Ti yap. TO Ounonery ; ; The Poet had his 
eyeon Homer II. II. 456. "Ev6a € Tapxvaouct kag iryvyrol Te €Tat 
re, TuuBw te orndrn Te’ TO yap ‘yEepas éoTi BavovTwv.. 


v. 1327. Mnod angi Ketvats péAavas efayyn wemXous, is the 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 207 


common reading ; xeivay is my emendation, efayns Reiske’s. Not 
only is an accusative with agi more usual in this sense, but I 
think it may be concluded that such was the reading of the older 
copies of Euripides, from which the interpolator compiled the line 
after 1317. Had he found xeivas here, he would have there written 
owuart instead of cwuza. Upon the other.variation Hermann says, 
“Libri efawny. Reiskium efawns corrigentem secuti sunt Gais- 
fordius aliique, non memores medii eam vim esse, ut significet ne 
illas quidem jubeas atras vestes induere.” I must demur to this 
doctrine: the active is both simpler and more agreeable to usage. 

v. 1828. é7os ti vulgo. Enos Tt ed. H. Steph. 

v. 1829. All edd. have Opeorny 7. But as a new topic is 
started, Opearny ©’ appears to be necessary. 

v. 1333. Ilatvépa tye Tov euov pr) otuye, woow te cov | 
In Ald. and MSS. warépa tov euov. Scaliger proposed TaTEepa 
Tov auov. Barnes gave TaTEepa ye Tov €“ov. Markland and 
Elmsley follow the critic of great name; Musgrave and Mat- 
thie adopt Barnes’ reading, which is confirmed by the greater. 
part of the MSS. ‘ye has the force common in dialogues, yes. 
Hermann, TaTEpa ve. If there were any. reason for deviating 
from the authority of MSS. I should prefer maTépa au Tr. é. a. 
G. 1oaw oe cov. See note on v. 1049. 

‘v. 1334. ewous aryaras dia oe Oe Ketvov Spapuerv] This is 
a correction by Porson (Pref. Hec. p. xxxv.) for ketvov det dpaueiv, 
which is opposed to his canon regarding the fifth foot of the se- 
narius. Compare Orest. 868. atywva QOQavacinov Spapovpevov. 
Bacch. 962. Torryap o arywves avauevovor oy éxpiqu. 

v. 1336. Aodw 05 AYEVVWS, Atpews T OUK aliws | “* Elmsleius 
dodw ‘y', aryervas tT, Arpews 7 ovx akiws. Non recte. Nam 
sensus est, axwy ev, OoAw dé.” Hermann. 

v. 1387. Tis uw eiow afwv, mp orapaccecOa Kouns 3] 
commonly omapatecOa:. Elmsley remarked that the fut. inf. after 
aplv is a solecism, and that owapaccecOa is required. The two 
Flor. MSS. have xouns, which Hermann adopts: at this I am 
surprised. Iphigenia might have said mpiv u amoorac0at xouns, 
before I am dragged away by my hair, or ayeoOa Kouns, as ake 
eOeions in v. 1252. but mpiv omapaccecOat Kouas has a different 
meaning, before I have my hair torn. 

v. 1338. “Eywrye mera cou—I®. uy av ry" ov Kadas AErvyers | 


208 NOTES ON THE 


Commonly ery MeTaA rye gov. Markland suspected that the posi-. 
tion of ‘ye should be altered: éywrye is in fact necessary for the 
harmony of the verse. See note v. 1060. The reader may com- 
pare the concluding part of this scene with the parting of Hecuba 
from her daugntet polyaens in Hee. v. 402 to 440. 

v. 1343. Kat wadw y ov un porw] Yes, and I shall not 
come back again. Another instance of ov “ay with the aor. subj. 
used as a negative future, is in v. 1380. KNEos yap ov ce py 
Aiwn. Elmsley has collected many instances of this syntax in his 
note on Soph. C&d. T. 870. but has omitted these two. I presume 
that there is now no need of cautioning even tiros against con- 
founding this construction with that of ov jy joined to a future 
indicative, as Dawes has done in Misc. Crit. p. 221. 

v. 1344, Aimovca pnrép; Id. ws opas y, ov‘ afiws] 
Iphigenia’s words imply, Yes, as you see; not in a filing manner, 
i.e. not for my wedding, but for my slaughter. I should not have 
explained a sentence of such obvious meaning, had not Bremius 
and Hermann quarrelled with the words ov« afiws, as being un- 
suitable to the speaker. Hermann substitutes in his text ev xafiws, 
which is surely an unfortunate change. He has taken those words 
from a passage of our author, Hec. 976. as dissimilar from the 
present as can be imagined. THecuba on receiving Polymestor’s 
assurance that her son Polydorus was alive and well, and knowing 
at the same time that she was speaking to his murderer, replies 
with the bitterest irony, 'Q pidra6’, ws ev xakiws ceBer Aeryers. 

v. 1347. Toup (Cure Poster. in Theocr. p. 29) citing this 
passage, says, «Per Atos Kopnyv “A prepuv intelligendus hymnus, 
sive pean in Dianam, qui ab istis verbis inchoabat. Huc respexit 
poeta infra v. 1521 (1400). Matthie says, “Mihi erev@nuyocare 
qatava dictum esse videtur pro maiavicere, hinc “ApTeut addi- 
tum.” There seems to me no necessity for having recourse to any 
such explanations. The two accusatives ma:ava and “Apreuy, each 
of which might separately follow ereununaare, are here both 
governed by the same verb. Compare Iph. T. 1403. Navra 3 
‘emevgnunoav evyaiow kopns Tladva. 

v. 1348. {rw de Aavatoas evgyuia | Portus renders this, 
Veniat autem bonum omen Grecis. Markland prints Aavatoas 
evdnia in apts, as being the actual words of the Pean. Mus- 
grave says, “evdnuia est vox preeconis evpqueiv [i.e. silere] ju- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 209 


bentis. Arist. Ach. 237.” These three interpretations are widely 
different from one another. As all the other commentators are silent, 
I must conclude that they had not made up their minds about the 
sense of these words. To me they seem to imply nothing more 
than this, and let the joyful strain go forth to the Greeks, i.e. let the 
army join in the Pean. irw has a similar force in Electr. 879. 
AAN irw Evvavros Bod yapg. Euripides in this Tragedy, more 
than in any other of his works, had his eye upon Homer. If have 
already pointed out many passages, and the reader will detect many 
more, in which it is plain that ideas and expressions have been sug- 
gested by particular lines of the Iliad and Odyssey. Here I appre- 
hend that he had in his mind IJ. A. 472. Ot dé TavapEptot podwry 
Ocov ikacxovto, Kadov aeidovres matnova Kovpo Ayawy, 
MeAovres exaepryov: while the words themselves might be sug- 
gested by Il. A. 22. exrevnunoav Ayatol. 

v. 1849. See note on v. 1008. 

v. 13853. Iphigenia, while pronouncing these words, may be 
imagined to descend from the stage to the orchestra, where the 
women of the Chorus assist her in preparing for the altar. Bro- 
deeus and Markland notice the absence of any expression of com- 
passion from the Chorus, and think that two iambic lines, after this 
speech and before the song, may have been lost. Such a custom 
however is by no means so general as to cause surprise at its 
omission; and it is more probable that the Poet did not choose by 
any sentimental common-place to impair the pathos of the scene. 

This is a proper occasion to notice Aristotle’s censure of the 
character of the Heroine, on the score of inconsistency. The fol- 
lowing is a defence of the economy of this Tragedy by Bishop 
Hurd in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Pisos, Vol. 1. p. 113. 
“ Aristotle’s words are, Tov dé avwuadou [ rapaderyua | y ev 
Avrids “Iduryevera* ovdev yap EoKev 4 wKerevouca TH voTEpa. 
i.e. Iphigenia ts an instance of the inconsistent character ; for there 
ts no probable conformity betwixt her fears and supplications at first, 
and her firmness and resolution afterwards. But how doth this 
appear, independently of the name of this great critic? Iphigenia 
is drawn, indeed, at first fearful and suppliant; and surely with 
the greatest observance of nature. The account of her destination 
to the altar was sudden, and without the least preparation; and as 
Lucretius well observes in commenting upon her case, nubendi tem- 
pore in ipso; when her thoughts were all employed, and, according 

2 


210 NOTES ON THE 


to the simplicity of those times, confessed to be so, on her’ promised 
nuptials. The cause of such destination too, as appeared at first, 
was the private family interest of Menelaus. All this justifies, or 
rather demands, the strongest expression of female fear and weak- 
ness. But she afterwards recants, and voluntarily devotes herself to 
the altar. And this, with the same strict attention to probability. 
She had now informed herself of the importance of the case. Her 
devotement was the demand of Diana, and the joint petition of all 
Greece. The glory of her country, the dignity and interest of her 
family, the life of the generous Achilles, and her own future fame, 
were all nearly concerned in it. All this considered, together with 
the high, heroic sentiments of those times, and the superior merit, 
as was believed, of voluntary devotement, Iphigenia’s character 
must have been very unfit for the distress of a whole tragedy to 
turn upon, if she had not, in the end, discovered the readiest sub- 
mission to her appointment.” As each reader will exercise his own 
judgment upon this question, I shall only further state that Twyning, 
who is disposed to join in Aristotle’s censure of Euripides on ac- 
count of the suddenness of the change in Iphigenia’s sentiments, 
admits that it would not have been fairly applicable but for the 
unfortunate conclusion of her speech (v. 1146) paiverat 0, os 
eVxeTat Oaverv’ Kakws Cav K pete Ov n Oavetvy xadws: which 
words he thinks that Aristotle had particularly in view. However 
this might have been, it is but fair to remark that Euripides was 
then only putting into his own verses a well known passage of 
Homer, where the Shade of Achilles says, Bovdotuny K ema poupos 
Ewy Onreveper adhyp ‘Avopi wrap’ aKAn py, @ un Bioros woNus etn, 
“Hl waow vexvecot xatapOmévoicw avaccev. Odyss. A. 488. 

v. 1353. The verses with which the play concludes are forced 
by Seidler and Hermann into an antistrophic form, if that term. can 
properly be given to such schemes as the following: Seidler (De 
Vers. Dochm. p. 285) makes v. 1353—1375 a Strophe, v. 1388 to the 
end an Antistrophe, and the intervening lines a Mesode. Hermann 
makes two Strophes, two Antistrophes, and three Epodes. Both 
arrangements are. effected by means of omissions, transpositions, 
and other violent changes, in which the object aimed at is the cor- 
respondence of metre, rather ‘than the propriety of. language or 
sentiment. It is unnecessary to state the particulars of those 
changes, as. I do not acknowledge the soundness of the principle 
upon which they are made; and am far from being convinced, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 211: 
either by arguments a priori, or by the examples adduced, that the. 
Tragic poets did generally compose those parts called Kommoe in. 
antistrophic arrangement. As in each song particular descriptions 
of verse usually predominate, it happens that there is frequently. * 
found a resemblance of measure for two or three lines together in 
different parts of the same melody. But this is a poor reason for 
doing violence to the language of other lines, for the sake of realiz- 
ing an ideal correspondence of metre, which when effected, conveys 
neither harmony to the ear, nor satisfaction to the understanding. 
It does not seem probable that the Poet would take the trouble of 
making a portion of the concluding song of the Chorus, after 
Iphigenia’s final exit, correspond exactly in metre with a part of 
her strains and their responses. The result of such antistrophizing 
labours is that we obtain licentious forms of Dochmiac measure, 
instead of easy and harmonious lines of the common species ; that 
we have such antistrophic parings as, tw ya matep with xAewo- 
TaTov atepavov: or, Ow opev auerepa with Axawy Oédruv. 
I may add that many other arrangements, besides the two men- 
tioned, might be devised with an equal show of probability; and 
it seldom happens that among the advocates of such schemes, any. 
two are found to agree exactly upon the words or even the limits 
of the respective stanzas. 

These lines, as they are now arranged, consist for the most part 
of trochaics and iambics, with the interposition of some cretics. The 
first verse, like 1388, 1398. is that called Periodic Catal. having one 
iambic dipodia followed by a troch. monom. catal. It is not un- 
frequent in tragic songs, in which, as here, iambic and trochaic 
verses are intermixed. | | 

v. 1354. eAemroXis is a word of Eschylus, applied by him to 
Helen, Agam. 671. ) 

v. 1355. I intended to have given oredn as in v. 1390. 

v. 1356. wAoKxauos d0e katactedew] <“ The last three words 
are properly explained by Markland, Here is my hair to crown. So 
Androm. 412. ldov, mpodeirw Bwuov. oe Xerpia UpaCev, do- 
VEVELV, OELV, arapTicat dépynv. So also Hippol: 293. if:-we retain 
the common reading, which ought not to be hastily rejected: Ke: 
wey vooets Tt TMV aTroppnTwY Kaxwy, Tuvackes aide cuyxahora- 
vat vooov.” Elmsley. | 

v. 1357. Commonly waryatow. Reiske and Seidler waryas. 

v. 1358. ‘“EAlacer’ audi Bwnov, ‘Audi Bwpov “Aprenw] 


212 NOTES ON THE 


éXicoere “Apreuw is explained by Markland (on Suppl. 1215) 
celebrate Dianam, saltantes circum aram. Compare Herc. F. 688. 
ange wvXas Tov Aarous evraia ryovov EiNiacovca KadXi- 
_ xopov. Every edition before mine has aug vaov,; audi Bwpov: 
but there is no mention found in any Greek Geographer or other 
writer, of a temple of Diana having existed at Aulis, nor is there 
in this play any other allusion to such an edifice, except in a passage 
acknowledged even by Hermann to be spurious. Euripides was 
not accustomed to feign matters contrary both to the fact and to 
the common belief among his countrymen ; but supposing him to 
have chosen to represent a temple of Diana as standing at Aulis 
in the time of Agamemnon, is it conceivable that no allusion would 
have been made to it in all the previous parts of the play, even 
in the Parodos, where the Chorus recounts what they had beheld 
in their visit of curiosity to Aulis? Indeed, they expressly name 
the aAcos of Diana as the place were her sacrifices were per- 
formed (v. 181.). I feel therefore much confidence in substituting 
audi Bwuor, the repetition of which words is perfectly consistent 
with the Poet’s manner. It was around the altar that the dance 
took place during a sacrifice: compare v. 585. =rycomev ap ai 
Bwpov, w TATED, Yopous ; I think that the corrector, who sub- 
stituted vaov, had in his mind a line of the Hecuba, 143. ‘AAN’ 
70: vaovs, 10: mpos GBwuous, and recollecting also the Temple of 
Diana, the scene of the Tauric Iphigenia, he thought it would be 
an improvement to introduce a temple in this Tragedy of Aullis. 

vv. 1362. 3. These two verses are cretics. Some metrical 
scholars may prefer a different arrangement, attaching ainacw to 
the preceding line, and Q@vuaci Te to v. 1364. The latter will then 
be of the same kind as 1391. Badouevav yepviBwy Te maryds, and 
1408. KAéos aeiuvnorov augiervat, i.e. a trochaic dim. brachye. 
with a cretic prefixed, a frequent termination of a choric period. 

v. 1866. dSaxpua yé cot edd. and MSS. daxpye co: Blomf. 
The ‘ye has been inserted by some one who wished to make a 
trimeter out of this and the last line. It is worth while to re- 
mark that this particle, so frequent and so expressive in the dia- 
logue, is rarely adopted in the poetical parts of Tragedy ; so rarely 
indeed, that whenever it is found in our copies, the passage should 
be carefully and suspiciously examined. In these concluding fifty 
lines, tye appears in most edd. not less than four times; but in 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 213 
mo one is it reconcileable to the language. The particles To: and 
uv are perhaps equally rare in the Tragic melodies. dpa and 
O97 on the contrary are very frequent. Any one solicitous about 
the metre, might join this line with the following, and by writing 
Owoonev ap aperepa, obtain a Cretic trimeter; but v. 1367. is 
like 1871. and such changes ought not to be made solely to pro- 
duce similarity among adjacent metres. Seidler and Hermann give 
the four lines 1365—68 to Iphigenia: this is, I presume, on account 
of & ToTVIAa TwoTMa MATED, which werds however are in truth 
more suitable to the Chorus than the daughter; the latter would 
rather have said, w d:ATara, or w dvaTave patep. In Phen. 303. 
the Chorus accost Jocasta the mother of Polynices, in similar 
language. In Hipp. 1139. the Chorus apostrophize the mother 
of Hippolytus, who is not present, by the term # TaAawa MaT Ep. 

v. 1368. [lap iepots yap ov mpeme:] Scil. daxpvew. Suppl. 
289. an dak puppoee Zeuvaror Anous eaxapats Tapnuevn. 

v. 1369. [In all other editions, this and the four following lines 
are assigned to Iphigenia. But it must strike any one who attends 
to the ceconomy of the scene, that they are inappropriate to her: 
they express nothing more than the request which she had already 
made to the women of the Chorus, that they would join in cele- 
brating Diana in a song. This request is here repeated, but not 
in the same strain of enthusiasm, and accompanied only by an 
allusion to the position of Chalcis, on the side of the Euripus 
opposite to Aulis. Iphigenia’s knowledge of geography is repre- 
sented by the Poet to have been very slender; witness her inquiry 
about the position of Phrygia v. 571: besides she could hardly 
have known that these females were natives of Chalcis; and if she 
had, her mention of that place would be unnatural at a moment 
when about to quit all earthly scenes for ever. But let these lines 
be given to the Chorus, as in my text, and the allusion becomes 
plain and appropriate. The principal singer first addresses a few 
words to Clytemnestra, who remains on the stage absorbed in 
tears and misery, and then calls upon her companions to comply 
with the invitation of the unhappy sufferer, and join in a song to 
the presiding deity of Aulis, a place adjacent to their own city. 

v. 1371. One line at least must have been lost, in which was 
fyav or ‘yatav or mécov, or something of the kind, with which 
the adj. avrizropov agreed. That word is the epithet, ‘not of Diana 
but, of a place or region, as in every other instance where it is 


214 - NOTES ON THE 


found. See Med. 213. “EdAad’ és avrixopov. Esch. Pers: 67: 
eis avrimopov yeirova ywpav. Suppl. 558. aPrimopov ryatav. 

v. 1872. The editions give wa te dopara péuove daia [oe: 
éuov dvona Tad | AvAidos o. 8. (except that Brubach and some 
following edd. have Tas yy). Portus translates it, ubi haste (i. e. 
turme hastate) manent propter meum nomen; Musgrave, ubt naves 
bellice manserunt propter meum nomen. But the meaning of pémove 
is widely different; it is a verb borrowed by the Tragedians from 
Homer, where it is frequent, and implies, to be resolved, deter- 
mined, eager for action; senova seems indeed the singular of the 
verb whose plur. and part. mepaact and pemaws, occur so continu- 
ally in the Iliad and Odyssey. meéemovas JEsch. Theb. 683. Le LOVED 
Soph. Phil. 515. Since dopara, ligna, signifies in poetry both 
spears and ships, either Portus’ or Musgrave’s interpretation of 
that word may be defended. I should prefer the latter, on account 
of Sppots which follows. One thing, I hope, is clear; that I have 
done right in excluding the words 6: euov ovoua, they having 
been inserted by some one who thought that Iphigenia was speak- 
ing, and believed, as the grammarians told him, that mé“ove was 
a tense of wevw, and implied the detention of the armament. Even 
had it borne that sense, the words added would have been un- 
meaning: they should rather have been cc euyv puyny. The 
pronoun taad’ came from the same hand as in v. 1208. He 
thought that as AvAls occurred twice with #cée in the play, it 
ought to have the same adjunct whenever it was named. By this 
purgation of the sentence, the trochaic metre is relieved, much’ 
better than by writing dga, as is done by Hermann. _ 

v. 1374. It is commonly edited as one verse, dppos” iw ya 
antep. I have written iw, tw. This exclamation, when: indepen- 
dent of the following metres, is generally doubled, as in v. 1178, 
1381, 1387. The next seven or eight lines are dim. iambics: this. 
circumstance would be enough to raise suspicion respecting a line 
which I have ejected after 1375. Muxyjvai tT epnal Oeparrawvat, 
The MSS. indeed have Muxyvatat, and most scholars since Canter 
and Scaliger read Qepamvas. but neither of. these changes will. 
make it probable that the words can belong to Euripides. The 
interpolator thought that woAioua II Epoews meant only Mycene,, 
and that this city therefore should be named by the dying maiden, 
But Euripides, here as elsewhere, speaks of Argos and Mycene, 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 915 


indiscriminately; as the same place, built by the Cyclopes, once 
the kingdom of Perseus, now of Agamemnon; and he sometimes 
stiles this royal capital, from its original settlers, [leAacyia. Ex- 
amples will readily occur to the scholar. In Orest. 949. 954. 
MleXacryia and ya KuxAwmia are used for Argos. See Suppl. 
368. Herc. F. 462. It is plain from the words of the Chorus, as 
-well as from EOpeWas in v. 1378. that Iphig. apostrophizes one 
place alone, and that the addition, whether it were intended for 
place Ob persons, is superfluous and importunate. 

v. 1878. “E@pewas ‘Edda peérya fas] I have written us 
for cpaos, in order to make this line, like its neighbours, a dim. 
iambic. We have pera gus used in a similar way v. 965. Elms- 
ley erases meya and gives "BAA. ue aos: he is followed by 
Hermann. Some MSS. have eue superscribed over Opewas, but 
this was, I conceive, nothing more than an interpretation. The sen- 
tence would suffer by the loss of weya, and the objection, that 
the ictus metricus falls on the last syllable of ‘E\Ader, is ‘not quite 
removed by Elmsley’s alteration: nor is it clear to me that the 
restrictions generally observed in the trimeters of the dialogue 
are applicable to iambics in the. Tragic melodies. 

‘v. 1879. Qavouca © ouK avaivopat | Elmsley on the Bacchee 
compares this use of avaivouat with Bacch. 251. dvaivopat, Tarep, 
To y7pas und Eta opwv vouv OvK Exov. Herc. F. 1235. ev dpacas 
d€ o oux avaivouat, He explains the signification by &xOouat, 
piget. The peculiarity to be noticed is, that a verb, generally 
followed by an accusative or an infinitive, is in these instances 
construed with a participle. So in Esch. Ag. 566. Nexwuevos 
Aoryorot ouK avaivouat, 

v. 1882. "Q Aapsracoiyos apépa] I hav prefixed w, which 
is both agreeable to the practice of the Poet (see vv. 1365. 1369. 
1375. 1430) and makes this verse, like so many preceding, a di- 
meter iambic. Burges on Tro. p. 147. A. does the same. Virg. /En. 
vil. 148. Postera quum prima lustrabat lampade terras Orta dies. 

‘y. 1883. If the reader admits ws before ETEpov, he will obtain 
a yerse corresponding in measure with the last seven, and will 
moreover give spirit and decision to the parting words of the victim 
of superstition. Compare v. 1365, and see the note on v. 1253. . 

v. 1391. It is generally read BadAopevay and maryais. Mark- 
land suspected that it should be Badonevav, which is undoubtedly 


216 ‘NOTES ON THE 


right, not, as he intended, in a passive, but in a middle sense, 
having put on. qatyas was a conjecture of Reiske, and is found 
as a var. lect. in four MSS. 

v. 1892. The edd. and MSS. have Bwyov ye Satuovos Oeas 
‘Pavow aivaroppurots Oavoveay : beyond question such were 
not the words of Euripides. Portus, mistaking Qavovcav for Oavov- 
pevny, translates it, ad aram numinis dew .... morituram. Of con- 
jectures I shall mention only Markland’s, Bwpov dtaiuovos Beas 
and pavoucap, both which are embraced by Hermann with much 
applause. I trust that my emendation, ypavovcay, will be acknow- 
ledged as more like the Tragedian’s language: compare v.873. As 
for dtatovos, the word can no where be found: the adjective in use 
is Otacuos. It is true that-both duamos and onaluwy are used, 
but it is not safe to reason from one compound to another. Even 
did craiuwy exist, I hardly think that the Poet would style 
Diana, though in this instance Ovuace Bpornctos yapeica, 
by the title of a bloody goddess. At any rate we ought not to 
insert from guess another compound of aiva in the same sen- 
tence with aimaroppurats. It appears to me pretty certain that 
QOeas was written in one MS. as an explanation of daimovos, and, 
as often happened, was adopted into the text of another. There re- 
mains the particle ye, which is quite indefensible ; but what should 
be substituted for it, is not equally clear: I have given é7« as the 
most probable that has suggested itself. The verse is cretic. I 
venture to think that an argument in favour of my reading may be 
drawn from the words of Lucretius 1. 85. Aulide quo pacto Triviat 
virginis aram Iphianassai turparunt sanguine fade Ductores Danatim 
delecti, prima virorum. Does it not seem probable that the Latin 
poet had read in Euripides ypavovaap ? . 

v. 1894. evbva Te cwuatos dépav adaryeicav] Every edition 
has evcpu7...dépyv : the interpreters, mistaking the construction, 
join cdaryeroav with the preceding participle, and understand | 
og. kata depnv: whereas Te really couples Gwuov and depay. 
ahayeioay isaro THs pays, as Reiske explains it. The other 
words imply only ev@uovs: cwuatos d€pap. Markland compares 
Helen. 1095. Tlapyoi + Svuya ponov éuBare xpoos. Bacch. 766. 
eK Tapyiowy...ypoos. 

v. 1396. Evcpoca rayai watpwat Mevoval cc xepuif3es Te] 
If the reader be satisfied with these two lines, considering ev. 3. 7- 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 917 


to denote the water contained in the sacrificial yépu:Bes, I do not 
wish to create a difficulty. Still I am bound to remark that eVdopocor, 
and zaTpwat seem strange epithets for the occasion, and that the 
former is a word extant no where else. But if he apprehends 
that something more was intended by the Poet, I avow myself of 
the same opinion, and will give my reasons for suspecting that 
he wrote ov dpocot Taya TaTpiwat, or Tayav TaTpwat, and by 
this allusion to part of the nuptial ceremonies of Greece, intimated 
the maiden’s sad reverse of fortune, and the difference of the ap- 
proaching solemnity from that which she had expected. At wed- 
dings a vessel was brought by the Aoutpoopos, filled with water 
taken from some river or spring deemed sacred in the country 
or the family, as Callirrhoe at Athens, and Ismenus at Thebes. 
wnyat watpwat may signify anya watpwas yns. This custom 
is directly spoken of in Phen. 357. avuuevaca 0 ’lounvos exnoevOn 
AouTpodopou xAtdas, where the scholiast says, Eiw8ace yap ot 
puudtor To wadatov atroAoveoOat ert Tos eyYwplos ToTapLoLs, 
kat weptppaiverOat, AauPavovres Udwp THY ToTaPwV Kal THO, 
cuuBortKws Tadorrotiay evyduevor, eret Cwomroior TO Yowp Kal 
ryoupov. The ancient Lexicographers recognize this custom. I 
will further venture to express my belief, that Lucretius had read 
this passage of the Iphigenia in some such way, when he wrote 
his description of the tragedy at Aulis, I. 96. Nam sublata virtim 
manibus, tremebundaque, ad aras Deducta est; non ut, solemni more 
sacrorum Perfecto, posset claro comitarit hymeneo; Sed casta inceste, 
nubendi tempore in ipso, Hostia concideret mactatu meesta parentts, 
Exitus ut classi felix faustusque daretur. Though ov dpocot for 
evdpocot is easy and probable, yet I confess that the other correc- 
tion required, adda yepuiBes, is violent; but if it be thought that 
there is good ground for my suspicion, it may also seem likely 
that some words have been lost from this sentence. 

v. 1403. °Q worua, Ovpact Bpornciow] A cretic trimeter. 
Hermann repeats 7oTma in order to make a senarian. 

v. 1404. Yapeoa, gratified. The passive aorist éxa pny is fre- 
quent in Homer, and is adopted by Aristoph. Ran. 1028. Av. 1743. 
Nub. 274. kal Tots epost yaperoo. Soph, Ant. 149. avTiyapeioa. 

After v. 1405. I have taken out of the text the line, cai do- 
Aoevra Tpoias é6n, the words of which betray their origin. The 
Homeric adj. doAoes, for doAcos, is not adopted by the Attic, or, 

28 


218 _ NOTE ON THE 


as far as I know, by any other Poets, except Apollonius Rhodius, 
and its use cannot be defended as an epithet of édy7. The unme- 
trical nature of the line contributes to its condemnation. 
v. 1406. In Ald. the scene concludes with these four lines, 
‘Aryaueuvova TE ory xas 
‘EAAac KAeworarov orédavor 
dos ang Kapa TEOv 
Kr€os aeiuvnorov augdiBervac. 
But all the MSS. have ay@i xapa €ov: such then was the reading 
of the parent manuscript, from which all our other copies of the 
play have been taken; Teov seems to have been an insertion of 
the Aldine editor, in order to avoid the hiatus, and at the same 
time to make Agamemnon, when victorious, crown the head of 
Diana’s image, as Hippolytus does, with a chaplet. But I believe that 
all this flows from a scholium, angi Kapa €dv, written over ap- 
@Wervat by some one who mistook the meaning; hence it was 
adopted into the text. The verb augdiWervat is construed with a 
dative. Compare Suppl. 315. TloAe: rapov aot oredavov eukAeias 
Aaerv. Tro. 565. credavov edepev ‘Edad: xovpotpodpy. 
Whether I have corrected the line in the best manner by prefixing 
dos T to Ayan. I feel very doubtful: but as the metre puts 
on a dactylic character, this seemed as probable a course as any. 
But it may have happened that Tov before Ary. was lost, owing 
to the same syllable concluding the preceding word oTparov, and 
that the first line was, like many others in this melody, a cretic: 
tov Aryauéuvova re doryyas [“Apews | 
"ErXade Cos KAeworaTov aréedavor, 
KN€os aciuvycTop, angBeivat. 
kAewOTaTOV orepavop, in apposition to xAéos, may indeed cause 
suspicion: a more probable word would have been xaAAcorov, 
of which the other superlative might have been an interpretation: 
but in cases like the present, the least possible alteration is the 
most advisable. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 219 


eee Seaeerene 


Besipes the various detached lines, which, for reasons stated 
in the Notes, are excluded from my text of the Iphigenia in Aulis, 
there are two portions of considerable length printed in a different 
type at the end of the Tragedy. Upon these passages it is neces- 
sary to say something for the satisfaction of the reader; but before 
doing this, I will state the object of this publication, and the cir- 
cumstances under which it is offered to the literary world. 

Many years ago I was led by the perusal of a dissertation upon 
the Greek Tragedians by Augustus Boeckh of Heidelberg, to 
examine the text of the Iphigenia in Aulis with much care and 
minuteness. In that book* it is ingeniously maintained, that the 
drama which has descended to our times is not the production 
of the great Tragedian, but that of a younger Euripides, his son, 
or, as some say, his nephew. Of the proofs adduced to sup- 
port this notion, the principal is a passage from the Scholiast on 
the Rane of Aristophanes, v. 67. ovrw dé kai at AtdacKadiat 
epovar TeAevTYTavToS Evperidov tov viov avtou dedidaxevat 
ouwvinws ev acre ‘Iduyevecav Tyv ev Avaric, AdKuatwva, 
Baxxas. But this implies only that after the death of the illus- 
trious Tragedian, the younger Euripides exhibited three of his 
posthumous pieces, of which this was one, in the name of his 
father ; a record, which coincides with the evidence of Suidas, who, 
speaking of Euripides, says, vixas dé eiAeTo TéevTe, TAS Mev TET- 
Capas mwepiwv, THY dé plav peta TereuTHv, emodetkauévou TO 
pana Tov adeAguoov auTou Evpsridou. It is also contended 
that a former tragedy did exist, written by Euripides himself, on 
this subject: the following are the arguments :—Ist. A passage of 
the Rane, v. 1309, in which the Shade of Aischylus recites a cento 
made up of expressions taken from choric songs of Euripides: 

aAkvoves, al map aevacs Oadacons 

KUMact OTMMUAAETE 

TérytyovcaL voTEpHS TTEpuV 

pavict Xpoa poot(ouevat. 
the beginning of this (ro mpoxeiuevov) a Scholiast assigns to the Iphi- 
genta tn Aults ; and as nothing of the kind is found in our Tragedy, 

* The title of the book is, Grace Tragedia Principum, Eschyli, Sophoclis, 

Euripidis, num ea, que supersunt, et genuina omnia sint, et forma primitiva 
servata, an eorum familtis aliquid debeat ex iis tribui. Scripsit AUGUSTUS 
BorEcxuius, Professor Heidelbergensis. Heidelberga, MDCCCVIII. 


220 NOTES ON THE 


Boeckh concludes that it belonged to the lost play. But it is more 
probable that there is an error in the name. Indeed, the absence of 
any attacks upon the Iphigenia in Aulis in a Comedy where Aris- 
tophanes lashes so unsparingly most of his works, is an argument 
that no such tragedy had appeared at the time of the representation 
of the Rane, which, we know, was very shortly after the death of 
Euripides. It was long ago suggested by Bergler that the allusion 
intended by the Scholiast was to the Iphigenia in Tauris, v. 1089. 
“Opus, & wapa Tas werpivas Movrou decpddas, adxuwr, ” EXeryov 
O.KT pov deters. 2dly. Hesychius has this reference: a0pavora, 
arpockora’ Evpraidys “Iquryeveta TH ev Avdict. But though 
the word @@pavora is not found in our Tragedy, it might once 
have had a place in a line which has been lost. It is now admitted 
on all hands that the final scene of this play has perished. See Notes 
on v. 54 and v. 507. 3dly. Another argument of Boeckh for the 
existence of a former Tragedy of Aulis is, that the author would 
naturally compose first that piece the action of which was first in 
order of time; that his Iphigenia in Tauris was certainly exhibited 
during his life-time, as it undergoes the ridicule of Aristophanes 
in the Rane, acted just after his death, and was therefore prior 
to this posthumous play. This argument, resting upon an assump- 
tion that the Aulis must have been written first because its story 
preceded that of the Tauric drama, does not require refutation. 
4thly, It is contended that as every other surviving Tragedy of 
Euripides commences with a Prologue, this which begins with an 
anapestic dialogue cannot be his. But it is too much to conclude 
that an author is unlikely ever to alter his practice, particularly 
when it subjects him to obloquy or ridicule. The mannerism of 
the Tragedian in detailing events to the audience is perfectly main- 
tained by the long speech of Agamemnon immediately following 
those anapests; and the economy of the play is decidedly improved 
by this slight deviation from his ordinary practice. 

Such are, as well as I remember, the main arguments by which 
Boeckh defends his hypothesis of this being the composition of the 
younger Euripides, partly borrowed or altered from a former piece 
written by his father. But a minute examination of the text, and 
comparison with the other plays, convinced me that the suspicions 
of Boeckh were fallacious, that the existing Tragedy is the genuine 
production of Euripides, entire with the exception of the last scene, 
and that it is one of the most lively and characteristic specimens 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 221 


of his genius. The external evidences in its favour are almost as 
complete as could be hoped for in such a matter. We find no 
quotation from or allusion to any former piece on the same subject, 
which our Tragedy is supposed to have superseded: many passages 
of the existing play are recognised and quoted by a succession of 
Greek writers from Aristotle down to Stobeus; and it is proved 
by numerous fragments which have been preserved from a Latin 
Tragedy of the Iphigenia in, Aulis, that ours is the production 
which was communicated to the Romans in a free paraphrase by 
Ennius. 

In the course of my critical examination of the text, I fancied 
that I discovered the causes which had led to such strange suspicions 
respecting this play, and had prevented its being as generally read 
and admired as it deserves. First, the perverse industry of an 
interpolator, who, with an imperfect knowledge of the language 
and rhythm of Tragedy, and an almost incredible want of taste, 
has introduced much flat and lifeless matter of his own in various 
parts of this noble piece. Secondly, besides the usual sources 
of corruption to which the remains of the ancients have been 
exposed, many of its verses have experienced deliberate alteration 
by some person (perhaps the same to whom the interpolations are 
due) with the apparent object of removing constructions and ex- 
pressions which he did not comprehend. 

For the restoration of such passages, we have very scanty assist- 
ance from manuscript authorities. I am not aware of the existence 
of more than four MSS. of the Iphigenia in Aulis: two at Paris, 
and two at Florence: each of those libraries contains also the collation 
of a third MS. But since these six authorities concur for the most 
part with one another, and with the Princeps edition of Aldus, it 
is plain that they all derive their origin from the same copy, and 
that one of no great antiquity. In most of the corrupt passages, | 
and in those which are evidently interpolated, the readings of the 
Aldine and the manuscripts agree with surprising uniformity. It 
appears therefore that the two great injuries which the text has sus- 
tained, had been inflicted previously to the transcription of the parent 
copy. In a few cases, indeed, the true reading has been fortunately 
preserved by Greek authors who have quoted the passages: two 
instances of this I will here mention, as they may serve to explain 
the peculiar sort of corruption which our Tragedy has experi- 
enced : 


222 NOTES ON THE 


v. 301. avnp yap xpyoTes uideraOae ourer. 

v. 329. svscwhpoveiv yap, ovxt cuvvoceiv, Ecpuv. 

The reading of the first line is derived from Stobeeus, of the second 
from Plutarch. In our copies of Euripides they stand thus: 

v. 301. avyp ‘yap ainypos aideicO’ ov gudet. 

Vv. 329. aucowhpoverv aot PBovdrop, aXX ov cuvvocetv- 
Both alterations were made by a corrector, who thought that the 
first gave a better meaning, and who could not comprehend the 
construction of the second, which is e rarioribus. In both instances, 
indeed, the elision of the diphthong, which he believed to be allow- 
able, would have revealed the faults of the verses to modern 
scholars; but the true readings could not have been recovered, 
had they not been quoted by writers who possessed unviolated 
copies. Many other passages are pointed out in my Notes as the 
subject of similar violence. In some, the true readings have been 
ascertained with a probability approaching to demonstration, through 
a comparison of other passages of the Tragedians, as well as by 
attention to the grammatical and metrical rules discovered by the 
exact criticism of later times. Still there remain several in which 
the original reading is hopelessly obliterated by the alteration: I 
speak of such as, 

v. 357. oUTOt KaTaww Niav a Eyu. 

v. 561. ovx old 6 Tt dys, ovK oida, pirrar Epmot Warep. 

v. 574. eig TauvTov, w Ovyatep, av O Hes ow marpi. 

In these and a few other desperate cases, I have contented myself 
with keeping the common reading, and giving in the margin such 
words as might, consistently with the meaning and the practice of 
our Poet, have occupied its place. 

Besides Boeckh, who would altogether deprive Euripides of the 
merit of this Iphigenia, Godfrey Hermann, in his Elementa Doc- 
tring Metrice, publ. in 1818, pronounced the whole of the Parodus, 
or first choric song, to be the production of some poet a little later 
than Euripides. When I submitted his opinion to the test of 
examination, the result was this: the strophe, antistrophe and 
epode printed in this edition bore all evidences which language and 
metre could furnish, of the genuine poetry of our Author ; nothing 
indeed can be more appropriate and natural than that the women 
of Chalcis, who had crossed the Euripus to see the Grecian arma- 
ment, should recount what they had witnessed, and nothing more 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 223 


unexceptionable than the manner, the allusions, and the language. 
But the two strophes and antistrophes with the epode appended 
to this chorus have a widely different character: these, I am con- 
vinced, are the productions not, as Hermann held, altquanto recen- 
tioris poeta, but of some audacious interpolator, certainly not a poet, 
probably not an Athenian, devoid alike of genius and taste, who in 
a copy, the transcripts of which have descended to us, attached 
to the Parodus his own continuation. It is nothing but an operose, 
tedious, and inartificial enumeration of the Grecian Fleet, taken 
without judgment or skill from Homer’s Catalogue, destitute of 
any resemblance to the poetry of the Tragedians, and composed in 
verse the measures of which, though constructed with much regard 
to antistrophic correspondence, are such as never came from the 
pen of Euripides.* 

That the last scene of this Tragedy is a forgery, was first 
pointed out by Porson in his Supplement to the Preface to the 
Hecuba, in the year 1802. That it should so long have been 
tolerated as the production of the Poet, is a proof of the little 
advance made before the present century in metrical and gram- 
matical exactness among the editors and readers of Euripides. 

Besides these two long passages, many shorter interpolations, 
dispersed over the play from the first page to the last, have 
contributed to occasion indistinctness and disappointment, and 
greatly to impair the pleasure of its perusal. If any person 
acquainted with the Tragedy from other editions should happen 
to read it in this copy, I am pretty sure that he will acknowledge 
the relief which the absence of those lines produces. It is how- 
ever not merely the dullness or uselessness of the matter, but the 
reasons urged in the annotations which have caused their rejection. 
The number discarded from the Dialogue as spurious is thirty-one, 
of choric lines or half lines not quite so many. About two-thirds 
of the former and the whole of the latter are now, I believe, for 
the first time impeached. 

Of the editors of this Tragedy, Jeremiah Markland is the one 
who has devoted to it most attention, and effected most for its 
correction and illustration; and to him every succeeding editor 
is deeply indebted. It is to be regretted that the very learned 

* These spurious choric lines are mostly either Trochaic dim. cat. or that Tro- 


chaic measure having prefixed to it a spondee, or a cretic, as v. 1. vawy 3d’ | els 
dp:Oudv HAvGov. v.35. éx Mucrlvas dé ras KuxAwrlas. 


224 NOTES ON THE 


Dr Gaisford, the Dean of Christ Church, in his republication of 
Markland’s three plays of Euripides, should have confined himself 
so much to putting forth the lucubrations of others, and have 
given so little of his own criticism. Porson, Elmsley, and Blom- 
field have severally written notes and emendations, which have 
contributed much towards the improvement of the text; but the 
first of those scholars composed his notes while a very young man; 
and an ample field has been left by them all for the further 
amendment of this Tragedy.* A critical attention to the practice 
of the Poet and his contemporaries, the comparison of similar 
passages, and particularly a consideration of the probable causes 
of corruption in the copies, are the means whereby I hope that a 
purer text has been at length recovered. 

Not long after the investigation of which I speak, my attention 
was entirely engaged by other pursuits and dissimilar occupa- 
tions. So completely have I been obliged to renounce classical 
criticism, that I have not read and scarcely know by name any 
writings of that kind which have appeared during the last twenty 
years. Nevertheless the intimate acquaintance once formed with 
the text of this Iphigenia prevented its being obliterated from 
my memory either by time or other avocations: whenever I have 
been able to enjoy the recreation of reading Attic Greek, this piece 
has been present to my mind; and I have thus been able to cor- 
rect or confirm my opinions as to the purification of the text and 
the explanation of its difficulties. 

Any design which I might once have entertained of publication 
had been long abandoned, when a learned friend with whom I 
accidentally conversed upon the subject of the Iphigenia in <ullis, 
having inspected my corrected copy, strongly exhorted me to print 
it; as my so doing would, he thought, introduce to the notice of 
students a tragedy at present little read in colleges and schools. 
My objection to this was the impossibility of my giving it with such 
a critical dress as the learned world expects in the new edition 
of a Greek Author. Not long afterwards, the same friend sent 
me a copy of Hermann’s edition of this play, of which, though 
published in the year 1831, I had not before heard. I then found 
that this illustrious critic had entirely changed his mind respecting 


* The mention of Porson in my Notes, unattended by any reference, applies to 
his Adversaria, p. 248, of Elmsley to Quarterly Review, Vol. v11. p. 441; of Blom- 
field to Museum Criticum, Vol. 1. p. 185. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 225 


the Parodus, that he confined his proscription to those spurious 
stanzas which my examination had detected, and that his sentiments 
respecting the author of this forgery coincided with my own; al-. 
though the particular verses which he had denounced, as not belong- 
ing to our Poet, are found jn that part now admitted by him to be 
genuine. But most of the other passages in the play which to my 
mind bear marks of spuriousness, Hermann sanctions, and many of 
them he endeavours by alteration to reduce to correct language 
and measure; an attempt in which he is not always successful. 
The general character of his emendations is harsh and violent, and 
he has assumed a licence of introducing them all into the text, as 
well in cases where evident corruption called for reformation, as 
in lines to which no reasonable suspicion could attach: so that the 
play in his edition not only retains the former stumbling-blocks, 
but presents a multitude of new readings, the fruit of the 
editor’s genius, in which it is impossible for other scholars to 
acquiesce. The effect therefore of this publication, proceeding from 
such high authority, is to obstruct rather than promote the satis- 
factory perusal of the Tragedy. Hermann’s Iphigenia made me 
believe that a real service would be rendered to literature by the 
publication of a simple text, purified from intrusions, and deviating 
from manuscript authority only where the language or verse shewed. 
that emendation was required. Accordingly, I committed to the 
press my corrected copy, with no addition, except a collation of the 
Aldine, and the excluded passages exhibited at the foot of each 
page in a different type. 

When the text was nearly printed, I was induced to deviate 
from my first intention by considering that, if it appeared with- 
out any commentary, my design would probably be defeated ; since 
the restorations require to be explained and justified. The want 
of an editor’s name is perhaps rather favourable than otherwise 
to the reception of solid and useful suggestions, since while they 
have nothing but their truth to recommend them, there is less oppo- 
sition to be encountered from prejudice and fashion. It is however 
not to be expected that readers should examine the claims of an 
anonymous revision, about which the editor himself has said no- 
thing. Besides it is my opinion that many passages of the Iphigenia 
in Aulis have hitherto been erroneously interpreted ; and that 
correction is no less required in respect to wrong translations than 
corrupt readings. To these considerations my Notes owe their 


226 NOTES ON THE 


existence ; although hastily drawn up, they are for the most part 
taken from such observations as I noted down many years ago, 
corrected and matured by time, with little addition except refer- 
ences to the commentaries of Matthies and Hermann, and remarks 
which occurred to me at the moment of their composition. 

For the language of these Notes some apology is necessary. I 
am aware indeed that the practice of affixing English commentaries 
to Greek authors has of late been adopted, and its advantages have 
been maintained by several learned scholars of our country. But 
in my own judgment the arguments greatly preponderate in 
favour of the ancient channel of communication for this kind of 
literature. Latin notes are accessible to scholars all over the world ; 
they have the recommendation of greater brevity ; and their con- 
ventional phraseology is thoroughly recognised and established by 
usage. On the contrary, verbal criticism in a vernacular language 
has an uncouth appearance, as well as an abrupt and flippant tone, 
displeasing to the reader and still more so to the writer. Its 
adoption in this publication has not been the result of choice, but 
of personal circumstances, which it would be useless to explain. 
About half the Notes were in fact written in Latin, when I found 
that I could not carry them through the press with any decent 
degree of accuracy, except in the vernacular dress, into which 
accordingly I translated them. 

It has been my study to assign improvements of the text to 
the several scholars by whom each was first propounded; that 
being the only unobjectionable rule in dispensing credit to critical 
lucubrations. In regard to recent criticisms, my knowledge of 
them is derived from the notes of Matthiz, printed in 1823, and 
of Hermann, in 1831; and from the general accuracy of those 
editors, I feel a security that few, if any, material omissions have 
occurred up to the latter period. But of critical publications, 
which may have appeared during the last nine years, I am almost 
entirely ignorant*. If therefore any of my emendations have been 
anticipated in them, I hope that this will be accepted as a suffi- 
cient apology for my silence. 

It has been my desire to render to every one of my predecessors 
ample credit for what he has done well, and to suppress or lightly 
notice his failures. The many occasions upon which I have found 


The Cambridge Philological Museum, and the Adversaria of Professor 
Dobree, form the only exceptions. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 227 


it necessary to declare my dissent from the positions of GopFREY 
HERMANN make me fearful that I may appear unfavourably dis- 
posed towards that distinguished critic. Against such an opinion, 
I must earnestly protest. Hermann deservedly ranks as the first of 
living seholars ; a position which he has fairly earned by his learn- 
ing and genius, as well as by the unwearied industry with which he 
has devoted himself for half a century to classical publications ; 
neque ego lt detrahere ausim 
Herentem capiti multa cum laude coronam. 

Possibly his edition of the Iphigenia in Aulis may have been a 
hasty performance ; possibly age may have somewhat changed his 
acuteness into subtilty; possibly his undisputed supremacy in this 
species of literature, and the homage paid by his countrymen to 
his critical decrees, may have given him too great confidence, and 
encouraged him to indulge his genius for alterations with unre- 
strained licence. Whether one, or all of these causes may be in 
fault, I will not pronounce: but it seems to me too plain that he 
has injured, more than he has amended, the text of this Tragedy. 
Whenever I consider him to be right, I have not been slow to 
declare approbation ; in the few cases where he has anticipated my 
own emendations, I have given him the undivided credit of them ; 
and where I condemn him, it is only upon matters of judgment, in 
which no man is too eminent to have his opinions called in question. 

After what I have said of my own edition, it is superfluous 
to offer apologies for its errors and imperfections; it is evident 
that a long abstraction from critical studies, and the absence of 
all assistance from others, must cause a much larger proportion 
of oversights than would otherwise have existed. If the object pro- 
posed by this publication shall have been successfully attained, its 
errors and defects will probably be forgiven: if it fail, the worst 
fate which awaits it is a peaceful oblivion. 


228 NOTES ON THE 


AxouT the concluding scene of this Tragedy, something still 
remains to be noticed. Dr Samuel Musgrave in his Exercitationes 
in Euripidem, publ. 1761. first pointed out the following passage 
of Elian, De Animal. v11. 29. 0 6é Evpemidns € ev 77 "I puryeveig, 

ehagov o Axauav XEpotv evOjow giras* 

Kepovocav, nv adacovres avyyncover anv 

opalev Ouyarepa. 
He justly inferred that these lines could suit no speaker except 
Diana, and thence concluded that they were part of the lost Pro- 
logue of the Iphigenia in Aulis, and were addressed by the goddess 
to Agamemnon. Musgrave’s opinion was embraced by Markland and 
by Boeckh; they seem to have been reconciled to the improbabilities 
of this theory, by its supplying an argument to show that this 
Tragedy, like all the others of Euripides which survive, originally 
began with a Prologue. Porson, at the time of writing his Pralectto 
in Eurtptdem in 1792, concurred in this opinion: See Adversaria p. 9. 
But in 1802 he had formed a juster judgment ; he then said (Suppl. 
Pref. Hec, p. xxi.), “ Nec quicquam mea refert; quippe qui per- 
suasus sim, totam eam scenam abusque versu 1541 spuriam esse 
et a recentiori quodam, nescio quando, certe post Eliant tempora, 
suppositam.” As this has an obvious reference to /lian’s quotation 
from Diana’s speech, it follows that Porson must have been con- 
vinced that the lost passage formed not the beginning but the 
conclusion of the Tragedy, that it was addressed by Diana not 
to Agamemnon but to Clytemnestra, who remained upon the stage, 
and that the spurious scene which puts a narrative of the sacrifice 
and the miraculous introduction of a deer, Tragice furtiva piacula 
cerve, into the mouth of the “Ayyedos, had been substituted for the 
conclusion as given by Euripides. Such is also the opinion of 
Matthie and Hermann and of other learned men mentioned in 
their annotations. 

To point out the faults and enormities which convict the con- 
cluding scene (p. 69) of forgery, would be a superfluous task at the 


* I cannot help suspecting that lian’s memory deceived him in making this 
quotation, and that, instead of pidais, the word of Euripides was Ad0pa. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 929 


present day. Much of the narrative is a lamentable plagiarism from 
the account given by Talthybius in the Hecuba of the sacrifice of 
Polyxena. So servile is the imitation, and so inconceivable the 
want of judgment displayed by this writer, that he makes Achilles, 
whose generosity had just excited admiration, officiate as a party in 
the sacrifice, and deliver an address to the goddess by whom it was 
exacted, (See v. 37) this being done in imitation of his son, Neopto- 
lemus, in the Hecuba. In the dying speech of the maiden, the 
copyist only alters enough of his model to make it his own; as v. 28. 


mpos TavTa, "7 Wavon tis ‘Apryeiwy pou, 

avyn mwapétw yap dépnv evkapdiws.— 
taken from Hec. v. 546. 

pn tis aNvnra xXpoos 

Tov ‘nov" mapéew yap dcépny evxapdiws. 
So palpable is the theft, that Markland suspected those two lines 
to be interpolated, as well as one other, v. 58. 
ns aiuate Bwyuds Eppaiver aponv ths Oeov. 
Hermann alters this, along with most of the unmetrical and un- 
grammatical parts of the condemned scene, into better language; 
why he took that trouble, it is difficult to surmise, unless it were 
in compliance with the suggestion made by Mr George Steevens 
respecting Titus Andronicus, falsely attributed to Shakespear: “ I 
know not that this piece stands in need of much emendation ; 
though it might be treated as condemned criminals are in some 
countries,—any experiments might be justifiably made on it.” 

Hermann thinks that the compiler possessed a copy of the 

Tragedy from which the last leaf had been accidentally lost, or 
which had been left unfinished by the haste or carelessness of the 
scribe ; and that he accordingly determined to supply the deficiency. 
I rather apprehend that he found the piece perfect, but wishing 
it to conclude with a narrative, and esteeming his own powers of 
composition as at least equal to those of Euripides, he substituted 
his production, and destroyed that of the Poet, after having stolen 
from it what suited his purpose. I am led to believe this to 
have been the fact from the first words, 


w Tuvcapeia mat Kduratuvyotpa— 
which were likely to have been the opening of Diana’s speech ; 
as well as from many other passages which have apparently been 


230 NOTES ON THE 


taken from it, after experiencing treatment similar to that of the 
lines stolen from the Hecuba; as for instance, 
yeverOar wovy vewy axnuova .......... v. 44 
omoias ex Oeww potpas xupet ............ Vv. 74 


aiua xadNrapGevov depns rer err fe 


mraivery Bwpov ev-yere: Povy............ v. 64 
Xtwovras AvXisos KoiXous puyous 
Atyatov oldua Sramepgy ........2.22.20eee sees Ve 69 
[aBpavora] Tpoias wépyapu’ ekedewv dopi. ..... v. 45 
dofay apOrrov xaO ‘EXXaoa............ v.75 
ampogsoxnra o€ 
Bporois ra Trev Bewy ............00ee ee eeees Ve 19 
but particularly v. 78, 
Aumns 0 adalpe, xai moce: mapes xoXov, 
a line which, being palpably unlike the production of this inter- 
polator, Elmsley (on Heracl. 906) judged to have been taken from 
some lost drama of Euripides. It is impossible that it could have 
had a more appropriate place any where than in Diana’s address 
to Clytemnestra.* 


* In an edition of the Iphigenia in Aulis, published at Erlangen in 1837, by 
J. A. Hartungus, fragments of the speech of Diana taken from the spurious narra- 
tive are appended to the quotation preserved by Hlian. These supposed reliques 
of the lost scene are found in vv. 75, 78, 79, 80, 86. 

My acquaintance with Hartung’s edition has been too late to enable me to 
make any use of it. I have however looked over his text while this last sheet 
is passing through the press, in order to discover in what cases he may have 
anticipated my emendations : this 1 find he has done in only three instances—v. 919, 
partially, xal dn +d yen {ov éwiber’. 1047. wpocwpicas. 1258. dtaBdnOy. Not 
having perused either the prefatory matter, which occupies about 100 pages, or the 
notes, I am not qualified to explain the views of this editor; but the text pre- 
sents a specimen of greater violence than I almost ever remember to have seen 
inflicted upon an ancient author. He embraces the greater part of Hermann’s 
most daring alterations, adding many of his own of a still harsher character. He 
makes a total change in the arrangement of the verses in several scenes, as for 
instance in the first, which begins with Agamemnon’s speech, v. 47, deprived 
however of vv. 109—113. The final scene is totally dislocated, presenting an an- 
tistrophic chorus differing materially from those of Seidler and Hermann. The 
licence of moving passages backwards and forwards at his pleasure is indulged in 
without compunction ; and while he can find no fault in such verses as the three 
printed at the foot of p. 32, he marks for proscription the two vv. 654, 655, and 
822—825, along with several other passages, which contain as strong and cha- 
racteristic features of the style of Euripides as any that can be found in his works. 
Sed manum de tabula. 


IPHIGENIA IN AULIS. 231 


If this opinion of the fate experienced by the concluding scene 
of the Iphigenia in Aulis be correct, I think it may be added that 
few literary losses are less to be regretted. For although the ~ 
introduction of a Divinity at the end of his plays was a frequent 
practice with our author, and although he might in this case 
wish to reconcile the fable with that of his Iphigenia in Tauris, 
yet such a conclusion must have inevitably weakened those feelings 
of pity and admiration which he had already so powerfully excited. 
The Tragedy, as we now have it, stands in need of no addition 
whatever ; its whole ceconomy maintains a sufficient conformity with 
the rules of Aristotle, as well as with the more liberal requisites 
of modern criticism, and presents to the reader one of the most 
engaging and beautiful specimens which have been preserved of 
the Attic Theatre. 


ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA. 


IN IPSA TRAGCEDIA. 


251. To 

326. Taras ; 
399- GAN 

445- ouK 

70g. evvidas 
760. yap 

968. efovopaCev 


981. kapa 

999- e&nABov 
1018. yoews p 
1169. BapBapwy 
13$4- éXeTTOAW 
1384. Erepoy 


IN COLLATIONE ED. ALDINZ. 


389. ov cuveTa 

613. 4 prog 

706. WUAGS pro mweAas 

735. aldovpeD’ av 

764. Waid’ pro taicd 

777+ THY pro.THS 

79°: Saxpvovt’ 

811. pos yeverados, wpos ons 6. 


894. ixérny 


897. tavrTa...céBev. sine interr. 
913. weBeopel 

1195. “Hpa te 

123 5- nAvbov 

1322. ri dat ro Ovjoxew sine interr. 

1326. Sa} pro 57 

1328. Eos Ti 

1382. Deest o 


IN NOTIS. 


p. é. 

83. 27. adpordaxéeoy 

89. 24 et 28. xeyapnuevov 

gO. 3 et2afine, Tas and we 

97- 6. objectionable 

98. | 13. a@deAgov 

99- 27. perabecBa 
101. 6. cvocwdpovely cor 
104, J. Tad 
10g. 15. is to be found 
10g. 17. but that is 


118. add to Note on v. 520. “‘ Her- 
mann substitutes vn for yveun, and in 
v. 522, rexvep’ for réxvov. For the ex- 
istence of the first word he has no autho- 


rity ; for that of the latter, he quotes Do- 
siades in Secunda Ara.’’ 

p. 158. 14. _ otnous 

p- 161. 1. 23. “Moreover I do not admit 
that pos yoovyy ido would have 
been used by a Tragedian to signify grata 
amicis.” While writing these words I did 
not recollect Asch. Prom. 503. daipoow 
mpos 1iSovriv. 

p-174. l 4. a fine. Cov. 

p. 182. Note on v. 1105. I was not 
aware that this verse had been corrected 
in the same way by Burges, Pref. ad 
Tro. p. xv. 

p- 192. 1. 16. Sovpt is also the reading 
of Burges ad Tro. p. 192. D. 


i 


o- 








s 





