The Tragedies of Euripides Part 78

NOTES ON IPHIGENIA IN AULIS

[1] From the answer of the old man, Porson's conjecture, spe?de, seems very probable.

[2] See Hermann's note. The pa.s.sage has been thus rendered by Ennius:

AG. "Quid nocti" videtur in altisono Cli clupeo?

SEN. Temo superat stellas, cogens Sublime etiam atque etiam noctis Itiner.

See Scaliger on Varr. de L.L. vi. p.143, and on Festus s.v. Septemtriones.

All the editors have overlooked the following pa.s.sage of Apuleius de Deo Socr. p. 42, ed. Elm. "Suspicientes in hoc perfectissimo mundi, ut ait Ennius, clypeo," whence, as I have already observed in my notes on the pa.s.sage, there is little doubt that Ennius wrote "in altisono mundi clypeo," of which _cli_ was a gloss, naturally introduced by those who were ignorant of the use of _mundus_ in the same sense. The same error has taken place in some of the MSS. of Virg. Georg. i. 5, 6. Compare the commentators on Pompon. Mela. i. 1, ed. Gronov.

[3] Such seems the force of ep? pas?? a?a????. The Cambridge editor aptly compares Hipp. 461. ???? s' ep? ???t??? a?a ?ate?a f?te?e??.

[4] The s????f????? was probably a kind of gentleman usher, but we have no correlative either to the custom or the word.

[5] Hermann rightly regards this as a hendiadys.

[6] d???? for ???? is Markland's, and, doubtless, the correct, reading.

???? is merely a correction of the Aldine edition.

[7] But read ta?--de?t??? with the Cambridge editor, = "in relation to my former dispatches."

[8] ta? should probably be erased before ???p?d?, with the Cambridge editor. He remarks, "the sea-port, although separated from the island by the narrow strait of Euripus, is styled its _wing_." On the metrical difficulties and corruptions throughout this chorus, I must refer the reader to the same critic.

[9] But ?e?t???, _uxorem_, is better, with ed. Camb.

[10] It is impossible to get a satisfactory sense as these lines now stand.

I have translated e???a. There seems to be a lacuna. The following are the readings of the Camb. ed. e? ?a? p. a?t?s???, pa??? e?. ?. ?a??????, ep?

?????p?? ??? ??e?? ??.

[11] But a???a??? is better, with ed. Camb. from the Homeric ?a???da t'

a???a???. He remarks that this word, in tragedy, is always the epithet of a place.

[12] i.e. to exact satisfaction for her abduction.

[13] i.e. the tents containing the armed soldiers.

[14] ??d?e???? refers both to ???tes??a?? and ?a?a?dea, divided by the schema Alcmanic.u.m. See Markland.

[15] Cf. Homer, Il. ?. 763 sqq.

[16] Cf. Monk on Hippol. 1229. I have translated s?????a? according to the figure of a part for the whole. The whole of the remainder of this chorus has been condemned as spurious by the Cambridge editor. See his remarks, p.

219 sqq.

[17] Can ?et?? refer to a?a?a understood?

[18] This part of the chorus is hopeless, as it is evidently imperfect. See Herm.

[19] The Cambridge editor would a.s.sign this line to Menelaus.

[20] I read e? ?e???e?sa?, with Ruhnken. The Cambridge editor also reads p????a, which is better suited to the style of Euripides.

[21] The same scholar has antic.i.p.ated my conjecture, saf?? for safe?.

[22] Compare the similar conduct of Pausanias in Thucyd. i. 130, Dejoces in Herodot. i., with Livy, iii. 36, and Apul. de Deo Socr. p. 44, ed. Elm.

[23] I read t? ???a?? with Elmsley. See the Camb. ed.

[24] With the Cambridge editor I have restored the old reading e???te?.

[25] But see ed. Camb.

[26] a? is a better reading. See Markland and ed. Camb.

[27] There is little hope of this pa.s.sage, unless we adopt the readings of the Cambridge editor, ???? ?a?? st?ate?'. ?et???? d' e?s?. The next line was lost, but has been restored from Theophilus ad Autol. p. 258, and Stob.

xxviii. p. 128, Grot.

[28] Cf. Soph. Antig. 523. ??t?? s??e??e??, a??a s?f??e?? ef??.

[29] Dindorf condemns the whole of this speech of the messenger, as well as the two following lines. Few will perhaps be disposed to follow him, although the awkwardness of the pa.s.sage may be admitted. Hermann considers that the hasty entrance of the messenger is signified by his commencing with half a line.

[30] There seems an intended allusion to the double sense of p??te?e?a, both as a marriage and sacrificial rite. See the Cambridge editor, and my note on aesch. Agam. p. 102, n. 2, ed. Bohn.

[31] "Auspicare canistra, id quod proximum est." MUSGR.

[32] I think this is the meaning implied by ??fe?s??sa, as in vs. 885.

???' a?a???? ?a????s' ?????e? pa?da ??fe?s??sa s??. Alcest. 317. ?? ?a? se ?t?? ??te ??fe?se? p?te. The word seems to refer to the whole business of a mamma on this important occasion.

[33] The Cambridge editor on vs. 439, p. 109, well observes, "the actual arrival of Iphigenia having convinced Menelaus that her sacrifice could not any longer be avoided, he bethinks him of removing from his brother's mind the impression produced by their recent altercation; and knowing his open and unsuspicious temper, he feels that he may safely adopt a false position, and deprecate that of which he was at the same time most earnestly desirous."

[34] So Markland, but Hermann and the Cambridge editor prefer the old reading etest? s??.

[35] This and the two following lines are condemned by Dindorf.

[36] Bckh, Dindorf, and the Cambridge editor rightly explode these three lines, which are not even correct Greek.

[37] ??s?e?, _latebo faciens_.

[38] pa?a for pa???, ed. Camb.

[39] i.e. by the gift of Venus. For the sense, compare Hippol. 443.

[40] Read d?af???? de t??p?? with Monk, and ????? with Musgrave.

[41] But pa?de??e??? is better, with ed. Camb.