The Tragedies of Euripides Part 79

[42] I have partly followed Markland, partly Matthiae, in rendering this awkward pa.s.sage. But there is much awkwardness of expression, and the notes of the Cambridge editor well deserve the attention of the student.

e?a??a.s.s??sa? ?a??? seems to refer to et??a ?a??? in vs. 555, and probably signifies that the grace of a reasonable affection leads to the equal grace of a clear perception, the mind being unblinded by vehement impulses of pa.s.sion.

[43] i.e. quiet, domestic.

[44] e??? is only Markland's conjecture. The whole pa.s.sage is desperate.

[45] I read ????p???? with ed. Camb. The p.r.o.noun ?? I can not make out, but by supplying an impossible ellipse.

[46] The Cambridge editor rightly reads ???, ???, as an exclamation of pleasure, not of pain, is required.

[47] Dindorf condemns this whole paragraph.

[48] The Cambridge editor thinks these two lines a childish interpolation.

They certainly are childish enough, but the same objection applies to the whole pa.s.sage.

[49] But read ??? d' with Dobree. The grooms are meant.

[50] Porson condemns these four lines, which are utterly dest.i.tute of sense or connection.

[51] These "precious" lines are even worse than the preceding, and rightly condemned by all.

[52] See Elmsl. on Soph. d. C. 273. The student must carefully observe the hidden train of thought pervading Agamemnon's replies.

[53] ta ?e?e?e? ?a?a must mean the ills resulting from Menelaus, the mischiefs and toils to which his wife led, as in Soph. Antig. 2. t?? ap ??d?p?? ?a???, "the ills brought about by the misfortunes or the curse of dipus." But I should almost prefer reading ?e?? for ?a?a, which would naturally refer to Helen.

[54] This line is metrically corrupt, but its emendation is very uncertain.

[55] I have endeavored to convey the play upon the words as closely as I could. Elmsley well suggests that the proper reading is ?est??e?? in vs.

675.

[56] ?f???a? ???a??, "non, ut hic, a viris et exercitu." BRODaeUS.

[57] Porson on Orest. 1090, remarks on that ?? ?????? was the term applied to the father or guardian of the bride. We might therefore render, "Jove gave her away," etc.

[58] If this be the correct reading, we must take ?a??? ironically. But I think with Dindorf, that ?a???, a?a??a??? de.

[59] This verse is condemned by the Cambridge editor.

[60] Barnes rightly remarked that ???a is the aorist of a?ss?, _conor_, _aggredior_.

[61] These three lines are expunged by the Cambridge editor.

[62] I have expressed the sense of ? ? t?efe?? (= ? e?e?? ???a??a), rather than the literal meaning of the words.

[63] I must inform the reader that the latter portion of this chorus is extremely unsatisfactory in its present state. The Cambridge editor, who has well discussed its difficulties, thinks that ?e??a?? is wrong, and that e??a should be introduced from vs. 792, where it appears to be quite useless.

[64] I have ventured to read da????e? ta??sa? with MSS. Pariss., omitting e??a with the Cambridge editor, by which the difficulty is removed. The same scholar remarks that da????e? is used adverbially.

[65] There is obviously a defect in the structure, but I am scarcely pleased with the attempts made to supply it.

[66] Read ?a? pa?da? with Musgrave.

[67] But see ed. Camb.

[68] But see ed. Camb.

[69] But the Cambridge editor admirably amends, e?? e????ta s?se? ??????, i.e. "it will be a long time before it preserves them," a hit at the self-importance of the old gentleman.

[70] I have little hesitation in reading pe?a? ?? with Markland, in place of ?e?a? ??.

[71] There is much difficulty in this pa.s.sage, and Markland appears to give it up in despair. Matthiae simply takes the first part as equivalent to ??????f??? est?, referring et???? to both verbs. The Cambridge editor takes d?a??? as an infinitive disjoined from the construction. Vss. 922 sq.

are indebted to Mr. G. Burges for their present situation, having before been a.s.signed to the chorus.

[72] I have closely followed the Cambridge editor.

[73] See the notes of the same scholar.

[74] Dindorf has rightly received Porson's successful emendation. See Tracts, p. 224, and the Cambridge editor.

[75] Read s??? te e????s?? with Markland.

[76] The Cambridge editor would omit vs. 1022. There is certainly a strange redundancy of meaning.

[77] Read estase? with Mark. Dind.

[78] So called, either because he was carried off by Jove while hunting in the promontory of Darda.n.u.s, or from his Trojan descent.

[79] I have adopted Tyrwhitt's view, considering the words inclosed in inverted commas as the actual words of the epithalamium. See Musgr. and ed.

Camb. Hermann is strangely out of his reckoning.

[80] Read, however, ?????d?? with Heath, "first of the Nereids."

[81] The Cambridge editor would read ??f?????, Reiske ??f?????. There is much difficulty in the whole of this last part of the chorus.

[82] Such is Hermann's explanation, but e???t?? can not bear the sense.

The Cambridge editor suspects that these five lines are a forgery.

[83] The Cambridge editor rightly, I think, condemns this line as the addition of some one "who thought that something more was wanting to comprise all the complaints of the speaker." I do not think the sense or construction is benefited by their existence.

[84] "Verum astus hic astu vacat." ERASMUS.

[85] Dindorf has apparently done wrong in admitting p??s??d?sa?, but I have some doubt about every other reading yet proposed.

[86] See Camb. ed., who suspects interpolation.

[87] Cf. Lucret. i. 94. "Nec miserae prodesse in tali tempore quibat, Quod patrio princeps donarat nomine regum." aesch. Ag. 242 sqq.

[88] The Cambridge editor clearly shows that ?? is the true reading, as in vs. 54, t? p?a?a d' ap???? e??e ???da?e?? pat??, and 370.