μῶν τ' ὀφρὺν de irato, ut συνάγοντα τάς οφρύς Soph. inc. fr. 752, et de Hectore irato : τὼ δὲ οἱ ὄσσε λαμπέσθην βλοσυρῇσιν ὑπ ̓ ὀφρύσιν Hom. Il. xv. 608. Ira in superciliis remanet, dum os ridet, ib. 102. ¿øpûs exovra dicuntur ipsa Æschyli verba Aristoph. Ran. 925." At the same time we may observe that the expression is more appropriate to some such eldwλa kaμóvтwv as we have referred this line to, than as Professor Scholefield supposes, to the general tenor of the preceding declarations of the Delphic Oracle—and further, that the mention of ev σKórą so naturally introduces the term σkotewòv in v. 277, that it is not probable, as two learned Prelates have conjectured, that v. 276., as it now stands, has been corrupted or misplaced.

προσ

277. Tò yàp σKоtelòv K.T.λ.] For the dark (unseen) missile of the infernal deities aimed by suppliants that have fallen (in their family) by a kindred hand, it may be (as in the case of Orestes vv. 1003-6. 1038.) madness, it may be (as in the case of Clytemnestra vv. 30-33. 510.) visionary fear o' nights-disturbs, confounds; and with a brazen scourge the wasted body is chased out of the city. On the construction of ek трожаíшν v. 278.-which the Scholiast (except that his interpretation is too limited, as again, when he explains τὸ σκοτεινὸν βέλος by : ἡ νόσος) well interprets : ἐκ τοῦ ̓Αγαμέμνονος ἱκετεύοντος τοὺς θεοὺς ἐκδικήσεως τυχεῖν -see the note on Ag. 989., and, for πроσтрóжаis, the note on Ag. 1558.; with reference to which passage the Bishop of Lichfield here observes: "IIpooтрóπaιos pro supplice adhiberi notissimum est Ag. 1569. Sed, ubi pro scelerato ponitur, sensum habet secundarium, ab illo primario supplicationis derivatum. Qui enim supplex est ob cædem admissam, is pro scelerato habendus est, donec expietur homicidium. Hinc igitur πроoтpóñaιos pro scelerato ponitur. Eum. 237. 445. Apposite vero ad hunc locum Eum. 233, δεινὴ γὰρ ἐν βροτοῖσι κἀν θεοῖς πέλει ἡ προστροπαίου μῆνις, εἰ προδῶ σφ' ἑκών., ubi προστρόπαιος non potest non esse supplex." Stanley translates v. 278: qui consanguineorum sceleratorum manu ceciderunt, (which would compel us needlessly to restrict the application of τῶν ἐνερτέρων), and adds : “ Οἱ ἐν γένει sunt οἱ ἐγγενεῖς sive συγγενεῖς. Soph. (Ed. Τ. 1016, ὁθούνεκ ̓ ἦν σοι Πόλυβος οὐδὲν ἐν γένει [Angl.a-kin]. Eur. Alc. 904, èpoi tis ĥv ev yéveɩ k.t.λ.-to which Abresch has added (Ed. Τ. 1430, τοῖς ἐν γένει γὰρ τἀγγενῆ μάλισθ' ὁρᾶν ... εὐσεβῶς ἔχει κακά., and Blomfield Eum. 606, ἐγὼ δὲ μητρὸς τῆς ἐμῆς ἐν αἵματι ; Unless, however, we would translate with Stanley, it were more apposite to compare below vv. 631.945-7. 1049. Ag. 1451. (where see the note) ἰόντ ̓ ἐκ τῶνδε δόμων, ἄλλην γενεὰν τρίβειν θανάτοις αὐθένταισιν. ib. 1546, ἀλληλοφόνους μανίας μελάθρων ἀφελούσῃ.

Klausen on this passage aptly compares Plat. Legg. ix. p. 865: ó

θανατωθεὶς ἄρα βιαίως θυμοῦταί τε τῷ δράσαντι νεοθνὴς ὤν, ... ὁρῶν τε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ φονέα ἐν τοῖς ἤθεσι τοῖς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ συνηθείας ἀναστρεφόμενον, δειμαίνει καὶ ταραττόμενος αὐτὸς ταράττει κατὰ δύναμιν πᾶσαν τὸν δράσαντα, μνήμην ξύμμαχον ἔχων, αὐτόν τε καὶ τὰς πράξεις αὐτοῦ : and again ib. p. 866 : ἐὰν δ ̓ ὁ προσήκων ἐγγύτατα μὴ ἐπεξίῃ τῷ παθήματι, τὸ μίασμα ὡς εἰς αὐτὸν περιεληλυθὸς τοῦ παθόντος προστρεπομένου τὴν πάθην, ὁ βουλόμενος ἐπεξελθὼν τούτῳ δίκην πέντε ἔτη ἀποσχέσθαι τῆς αὑτοῦ πατρίδος ἀναγκαζέτω κατὰ νόμον: as also Demosth. c. Theocrin. p. 1331 : τελευτήσαντος αὐτῷ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ βιαίῳ θανάτῳ, τοιοῦτος ἐγένετο περὶ αὐτὸν οὗτος, ὥστ ̓ ἀναζητήσας τοὺς δράσαντας καὶ πυθόμενος, οἵτινες ἦσαν, ἀργύριον λαβὼν ἀπηλλάγη. Compare also Cicero pro Rosc. Amerin. c. 24. which Schütz has noticed, and Juvenal Sat. xiii. 217-32.

279. ἐκ νυκτῶν] " Usitatius fuisset νυκτός, sed multa exempla alterius locutionis attulit Blomf. Nescio an hic vʊKтôv posuerit, quod omni nocte terror incutiendus esset." S.L. The familiar English translation of the phrase that has already been given, occurs in Shaksp. Julius Casar, Act i. Sc. 2 : Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights"; i.e. every night, as the learned Prelate interprets ἐκ νυκτῶν.

66

Blomfield has : “ Εκ νυκτῶν. Noctu. Homer. Od. Μ'. 286, ἐκ νυκτῶν δ ̓ ἄνεμοι χαλεποί, δηλήματα νηῶν. Theogn. 452, ἀποῤῥήξασα δὲ δεσμά, Πολλάκις ἐκ νυκτῶν ἄλλον ἔχει λιμένα. Incert. Rhes. 13, ἐκ νυκτῶν τὰς ἡμετέρας κοίτας πλάθουσι. Aristoph. Eccl. 668, οὐκ ἀποδύσουσ ̓ ἄρα τῶν νυκτών. Hæc et plura congessit Jacobsius in Anthol. Palat. Τ. iii. p. 332” : to which he further adds Sappho fr. xxviii. δέδυκε μὲν ἁ σελάνα καὶ Πληϊάδες ̇ μέσαι δὲ νύκτες. Herodot. viii. 76. ἐπειδὴ ἐγένοντο μέσαι νύκτες. Thucyd. viii. 101. πρῳιαίτερον μέσων νυκτῶν. Xenoph. Anab. I. vii. 1. περὶ μέσας νύκτας. Cyrop. v, p. 28 : ἡνίκα δ ̓ ἦν ἐν μέσῳ νυκτών. And the peculiarity is no doubt to be explained on the same principle (abstractum pro concreto), as that familiar designation of the particular person under the general relation, instances of which occur in vv. 36. 73. 164. 225. 282: compare Klausen on Ag. 1541 (1596), τοὺς ἥκοντας : “ Pluralis pro singulari ponitur, ubicunque designandum est esse universi aliquid in conditione ejus de quo sermo fit, ut Eur. Herc. F. 455.” Μέσαι νύκτες then is Mid-night, or the hour at which nights, whether long or short, are half gone ; and in like manner μεσημβριναὶ κοίται Ag. 546. denotes Siesta-time, or the time of lying down for a meridian nap.

280. διώκεται] Aldus, and the MSS. Med. Guelf., have διώκεσθαι, which Klausen retains, observing : " proprie dicendum erat κινεῖν, τα ράσσειν : ibi vero indicativus pro infinitivo positus, ut amant Græci ex

L

indirecta oratione transire in directam, ex qua tamen revertendum est in illam ; ubi error oriri posset." Every other editor, except Porson who reads diwkábel-on which see Elmsley on Eur. Med. 186-has preferred the reading of Turnébe and Vettori, dióκerat, the obvious nominative to which is the subject of the preceding persecution; and from the indefinite generality of the terms (Avμavoèv déμas) in which he is described, occasion is taken by means of roîs toloútois v. 282which we may render in such a case, or unto such-an-one-to return, as from the general to the individual case (vv. 284-6.), so from the direct remarks (vv. 277-81.) with which Orestes follows up his first observation (v. 276.) upon vv. 274-5., to the indirect recital, begun there, of the threatening oracles of Apollo.

281. πλάστιγγι] " Εtym. Μ. p. 674, 20: Πλάστιγξ· ἡ μάστιξ, ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήσσειν. παρ' Αἰσχύλῳ. Usitatior sensus est lanr, de quo Spanhem. ad Aristoph. Ran. 1420." Blomf. Hence Hesych: Πλάστιγξ μάστιξ, ἤ τοῦ ζυγοῦ τὸ ἀντίῤῥοπον, καὶ τὸ νῦν λεγόμενον λίτρα, καὶ τὸ πρὸς τοὺς κοττάβους πινάκιον, καὶ μέρος τι τοῦ αὐλοῦ καὶ σύριγγος, τὸ ζύγωμα. Even in Æschylus it is årag λeyóμevov: for in Prom. 682, which Klausen compares, we find μáσтiуɩ beíα yêν прò yns éλavvoμaι, as also in Theb. 608, πληγεὶς θεοῦ μάστιγι. Ag. 623, διπλῇ μάστιγι, τὴν ̓́Αρης φιλεῖ.

282. OйTE KрATĥрos μépos] “кparepòs Med. Ald. cod. Rob., qui ex οὔτε κρατῆρος conj. dedit κρατῆρος. μέρους Rob: μέρος μετασχεῖν non intellexerunt interpretes, quare alii male post eiva interpungunt, ut Pauw. probante Buttlero, alii locum inepte explicant, ut Heath. et Schütz. μépos ex abundantia est additum, ut Ag. 507, μεθέξειν φιλτάτου τάφου μέρος. Similiter Eur. Suppl. 1079, μeréλaxes rúxas Oidimóda pépos. Iph. T. 1299, μéteσtiv vμîv тŵv пeñрayрévwv μépos: cf. Schæf. ad Lamb. Bos. p. 278, Heind. ad Plat. Soph. 42. Etiam in oυte offenderunt Heath. et Schütz., quorum ille, quia oure non sequitur, ovdè legendum putat, hic copulam in Boμv тe reperit; sed respondent sibi ovre et où; vid. Schæf. ad Lamb. Bos. p. 228. et ad Soph. Ed. C. 972." Well. On the peculiarity observable in Soph. Ed. C. 972., see Elmsl. on Eur. Heracl. 615. Matth. Gr. Gr. § 609., but in the present instance Schütz cannot be far wrong in connecting oure with the Te that follows in v. 284. (Matth. Gr. Gr. ib. p. 1080.): unless, indeed, with Elmsley on Soph. Ed. T. 817. we were to read ẞoμŵv d'àñeípyew k.t.λ. ; or unless, as (for reasons which will be given on v. 284.) seems most probable, that Te serves merely (as in v. 86.)2 to string two sentences

Add Matth. Gr. Gr. § 325. Obs. 1.

2

Compare Appendix to Notes on the

Agamemnon Note C. p. 383. foot-note (c).

together, as portions of one connected series of oracles, extending from v. 271. to v. 288.

On the interdiction imposed by the laws of Athens on the homicide (and hence, at second hand, on him who should neglect the duty of avenging his kinsman's blood) Klausen aptly compares Demosth. c. Aristocr. p. 633 : ὅσων τῷ παθόντι ζῶντι μετῆν, τούτων εἴργει τὸν δεδρακότα πρῶτον μὲν τῆς πατρίδος, καὶ τῶν εν ταύτῃ πάντων, καὶ ὁσίων καὶ ἱερῶν, εἶτα τῶν ἱερῶν τῶν ἐν ̓Αμφικτύοσι· καὶ γὰρ τούτων, εἴπερ ἦν Ἕλλην ὁ παθὼν, μετῆν αὐτῷ· καὶ ἄθλων. διὰ τί ; ὅτι κοινοὶ πᾶσίν εἰσιν οἱ κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἀγῶνες, κατὰ δὲ τὴν πάντων μετουσίαν μετῆν καὶ τούτων τῷ παθόντι· καὶ τούτων οὖν ἀπεχέσθω : and this, with v. 889. and Eum. 653-6, τὸ μητρὸς αἷμ' ὅμαιμον ἐκχέας πέδῷ, ἐπεῖτ ̓ ἐν"Αργει δώματ' οἰκήσει πατρός ; ποίοισι βωμοῖς χρώμενος τοῖς δημίοις : ποία δὲ χέρνιψ φρατόρων προσδέξεται ; may serve to explain the circumstance which Stanley has noticed: Obiter vero notandum, interdictionem hanc ab ædibus propriam fuisse Argivis: nam aliorum in ædes receptum fuisse Orestem ante expurgationem constat ex Eum. 451, πάλαι πρὸς ἄλλοις ταῦτ ̓ ἀφιερώμεθα οἴκοισι, καὶ βοτοῖσι καὶ ῥυτοῖς πόροις :” to which we may add ib. 238, προστετριμμένον τε πρὸς ἄλλοισιν οἴκοις καὶ πορεύμασιν βροτῶν. Compare further with this passage Soph. Ed. T. 236-41. Eur. Orest. 46-7. Iph. T. 947-52.

283. λιβός] “ Vox dicta de omni quod guttatim profuit : de lacrimis Eum. 54, ἐκ δ ̓ ὀμμάτων λείβουσι δυσφιλῆ λίβα [βίαν Dind.] : Heliad. fr. 65, ἀφθονεστέραν λίβα : de libatione hic et Epig. fr. 49, τρίτον Διὸς Σωτῆρος εὐκταίαν λίβα.” Klaus. Hesychius has : Λίψ' ἐπιθυμία. πέτρα, ἀφ ̓ ἧς ὕδωρ στάζει : whence Stanley proposed to read λιπός, but compare ν. 434, λίβη (from λίβος), and see the note on Ag. 1398.

284. " Quæ sequuntur, obscura sunt et variis modis a viris doctis tentata. Hermann de metr. Pind. p. 201. post μῆνιν interpunxit, et δέχεσθαι δ ̓ οὔτε συλλούειν reposuit, quam rationem probavit Erfurdt ad Soph. Ant. 251. ed. maj. et recepit Schütz. Eodem modo interpungit Elmsl. ad Ed. Τ. 817., qui tamen συλλύειν retinet, et explicat συγκαταλύειν una deversari, ut δέχεσθαι οὔτε συλλύειν positum sit pro οὔτε δέχεσθαι

'Thus interpreted, Aly would seem to be somehow or other connected with the verb λίπτω, I desire, and with the participle λελιμμένος Theb. 355. 380. Etym. Μ. p. 566 : Λίπτω σημαίνει τὸ ἐπιθυμῶ οἷον, λίπτοντα γάλακτος [Apoll. Rhod. iv, 813]. Suidas : Λίπτω· τὸ ἐπιθυμῶ. καὶ λελίφθαι, ὁμοίως. ἐξ οὗ καὶ τὸ λελιημένος [Hom. Il. iv. 465. &c.] Can the etymology of this verb have been, from the root ΛΙΠ-, λελιπμένος οι λελιμμένος (λίπα

ἠλιμμένος, Thuc. i, 6. iv, 68.) besmeared with fat, and so, as an athlete, prepared for the contest (μάχης ἐρῶν Theb. 392.), eager; whence, by an inverted process, the present λίπτω, unknown to Homer and the Attic poets? Compare ἴκμενος Hom. Il. i, 479. (where see Heyne), which may in like manner have sprung directly from IK, the root of tkw and κίω. On the Homeric λελιημένος, see Buttmann's Lexilogus, art. 77. § 5.

οὔτε συλλύειν.

Hanc rationem nunc probare videtur Hermann in Classical Journal xxxviii. p. 277., eandemque proponit Blomfield ad Agam. 515. Both. legit : δόμῳ τ ̓ ἀπείργειν οὐχ ὁρωμένην πατρὸς μῆνιν δέχεσθαί σφ ̓ οὔτε συλλύειν τινά, et συλλύειν interpretatur de navi simul cum eo solvenda, allato Hor. Od. iii, 2. 29. Pors. denique ad Morelli Lex. p. 249. ita legendum putat : βωμῶν τ ̓ ἀπείργειν οὔτε συλλύειν τινά. πάντων δ ̓ ἄτιμον οὐχ ὁρωμένην πατρὸς μῆνιν δέχεσθαι, κἄφιλον θ. χ. Quavis ratione obscuri aliquid et incommodi remanere, negari non potest; et mihi quidem locus mancus videtur; quod et ed. Rob. confirmat, in qua asteriscus post παTpòs ponitur, et hiatus déxeσdai, oure—in quo libri omnes consentiunt. Quare vulgatam intactam reliqui.” Wellauer: and so Dindorf also has edited. The reading of the present text has been adopted on the authority of Klausen, who writes: "Dedi emendationem Hermanni, quam pro certa habeo. Libri μîvɩv déxeodaι, ovre—hiatu intolerabili. Ingeniosa, sed dictioni tragicæ minus apta videtur conjectura Mülleri :1 TOû TE σvλÚEW. E sequenti ovre intelligitur où ad prius re”: but I do not altogether assent to Klausen's punctuation and construction of the passage, as set forth in the following note: "Post aπeipуew comma in T.V. et recentioribus, quod omnem sententiam turbat, et abest in G.A. Aquabiliter enim in singulis comparata est structura : οὔτε μέρος εἶναι μετασχεῖν τοῖς τοιούτοις, καὶ οὐχ ὁρωμ. π. μ. ἀπ. β. δέχεσθαι (τοιούτους), μήτε Ovλ. T. (TOLOÚTOLS) : iram arcère ab aris ne suscipiantur. Solet in tali re addi μý, sed abest interdum, velut Soph. Aj. 70: oμμátwv avyàs åñeipέw σn жрóσо eloideiv. Cf. Matth. Gr. § 534. Obs. 4. 3. Monk. et Wüstem. Eur. Alc. 11."

Were it our object, indeed, to make the sentence run more smoothly, perhaps the simplest mode of getting rid of the hiatus in v. 285. would be to read μnre-for which oʊre may have been substituted, through a misconstruction of the preceding clause, as it stands in the old Edd., οὐχ ὁρ. π. μ. δέχεσθαι—in which case ἀπείργειν would be virtually followed (see note on Ag. 512.) by μýriva déxeodai μýte ovdλúew. But the whole recital comprised in vv. 271-87. is made up of so many disjointed fragments (as the Poet would have us believe) of metrical χρησpoí (v. 288.), which we must suppose Orestes to have wildly and incoherently cited, just as they might suggest themselves to his memory, that I prefer to make déxeσbai ... Tivá a separate clause, and yet, on δέχεσθαι

1 See Diss. on the Eumenides II. A. b. note to p. 132: "In v. 292 (285.). I read τοῦ τε instead of οὔτε, and construe thus : μῆνιν ἀπείργειν βωμῶν,-namely (ὡς) δέ

χεσθαί τινα αὐτοὺς εἰς βωμούς τοῦ τε συλλύειν τινὰ αὐτοῖς. Συλλύειν τινὶ stands for σύν τινι καταλύειν, as in Pindar λύσις for κατάλυσις.”