NOTES ON IPHIGENIA IN AULIS
[1] From the answer of the old man, Porson's conjecture, σπευδε, seems very probable.
[2] See Hermann's note. The passage has been thus rendered by Ennius:
AG. "Quid nocti" videtur in altisono
Cœli 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 passage 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 passage, there is little doubt that Ennius wrote "in altisono mundi clypeo," of which cœli 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 επι πασιν αγαθοις. The Cambridge editor aptly compares Hipp. 461. χρην σ' επι ‛ρητοις αρα Πατερα φυτευειν.
[4] The συννυμφοκομος 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] δρομωι for μορωι is Markland's, and, doubtless, the correct, reading. μονος is merely a correction of the Aldine edition.
[7] But read τας—δελτους with the Cambridge editor, = "in relation to my former dispatches."
[8] ταν should probably be erased before κολπωδη, 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 λεκτρον, uxorem, is better, with ed. Camb.
[10] It is impossible to get a satisfactory sense as these lines now stand. I have translated εξορμα. There seems to be a lacuna. The following are the readings of the Camb. ed. εν γαρ π. αντησηις, παλιν εξ. ς. χαλινους, επι κυκλωπων νιν ‛ιεις θυμ.
[11] But αγχιαλον is better, with ed. Camb. from the Homeric χαλκιδα τ' αγχιαλον. 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] ‛ηδομενους refers both to Πρωτεσιλαον and Παλαμηδεα, divided by the schema Alcmanicum. See Markland.
[15] Cf. Homer, Il. Β. 763 sqq.
[16] Cf. Monk on Hippol. 1229. I have translated συριγγας 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 θετον refer to αγαλμα understood?
[18] This part of the chorus is hopeless, as it is evidently imperfect. See Herm.
[19] The Cambridge editor would assign this line to Menelaus.
[20] I read ευ κεκομψευσαι, with Ruhnken. The Cambridge editor also reads πονηρα, which is better suited to the style of Euripides.
[21] The same scholar has anticipated my conjecture, σαφης for σαφες.
[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 το Πριαμου with Elmsley. See the Camb. ed.
[24] With the Cambridge editor I have restored the old reading εχοντες.
[25] But see ed. Camb.
[26] αυ is a better reading. See Markland and ed. Camb.
[27] There is little hope of this passage, unless we adopt the readings of the Cambridge editor, ‛ους λαβων στρατευμ'. ‛ετοιμοι δ' εισι. 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. ουτοι συνεχθειν, αλλα συμφιλειν εφυν.
[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 passage 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 προτελεια, both as a marriage and sacrificial rite. See the Cambridge editor, and my note on Æsch. Agam. p. 102, n. 2, ed. Bohn.
[31] "Auspicare canistra, id quod proximum est." MUSGR.
[32] I think this is the meaning implied by νυμφευσουσα, as in vs. 885. ‛ιν' αγαγοις χαιρουσ' Αχιλλει παιδα νυμφευσουσα σην. Alcest. 317. ου γαρ σε μητηρ ουτε νυμφευσει ποτε. 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 μετεστι σοι.
[35] This and the two following lines are condemned by Dindorf.
[36] Bœckh, Dindorf, and the Cambridge editor rightly explode these three lines, which are not even correct Greek.
[37] λησομεν, latebo faciens.
[38] παρα for παρον, ed. Camb.
[39] i.e. by the gift of Venus. For the sense, compare Hippol. 443.
[40] Read διαφοροι δε τροποι with Monk, and ορθως with Musgrave.
[41] But παιδευομενων is better, with ed. Camb.
[42] I have partly followed Markland, partly Matthiæ, in rendering this awkward passage. But there is much awkwardness of expression, and the notes of the Cambridge editor well deserve the attention of the student. εξαλλασσουσαν χαριν seems to refer to μετρια χαρις 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 passion.
[43] i.e. quiet, domestic.
[44] ενων is only Markland's conjecture. The whole passage is desperate.
[45] I read μυριοπληθη with ed. Camb. The pronoun ‛ο I can not make out, but by supplying an impossible ellipse.
[46] The Cambridge editor rightly reads ιου, ιου, 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 passage.
[49] But read ‛οι δ' with Dobree. The grooms are meant.
[50] Porson condemns these four lines, which are utterly destitute of sense or connection.
[51] These "precious" lines are even worse than the preceding, and rightly condemned by all.
[52] See Elmsl. on Soph. Œd. C. 273. The student must carefully observe the hidden train of thought pervading Agamemnon's replies.
[53] τα Μενελεω κακα must mean the ills resulting from Menelaus, the mischiefs and toils to which his wife led, as in Soph. Antig. 2. των απ Οιδιπου κακων, "the ills brought about by the misfortunes or the curse of Œdipus." But I should almost prefer reading λεχη for κακα, 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 ‛εστηξεις in vs. 675.
[56] οφθηναι κοραις, "non, ut hic, a viris et exercitu." BRODÆUS.
[57] Porson on Orest. 1090, remarks on that ‛ο κυριος 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 καλως ironically. But I think with Dindorf, that κακως, αναγκαιως δε.
[59] This verse is condemned by the Cambridge editor.
[60] Barnes rightly remarked that ηιξα is the aorist of αισσω, conor, aggredior.
[61] These three lines are expunged by the Cambridge editor.
[62] I have expressed the sense of η μη τρεφειν (= μη εχειν γυναικα), 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 Περγαμον is wrong, and that ερυμα should be introduced from vs. 792, where it appears to be quite useless.
[64] I have ventured to read δακρυοεν τανυσας with MSS. Pariss., omitting ερυμα with the Cambridge editor, by which the difficulty is removed. The same scholar remarks that δακρυοεν 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 και παιδας with Musgrave.
[67] But see ed. Camb.
[68] But see ed. Camb.
[69] But the Cambridge editor admirably amends, εις μελλοντα σωσει χρονον, 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 πελας μοι with Markland, in place of γελαι μοι.
[71] There is much difficulty in this passage, and Markland appears to give it up in despair. Matthiæ simply takes the first part as equivalent to ‛υψηλοφρον εστι, referring μετριως to both verbs. The Cambridge editor takes διαζην as an infinitive disjoined from the construction. Vss. 922 sq. are indebted to Mr. G. Burges for their present situation, having before been assigned 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 σοις τε μελλουσιν with Markland.
[76] The Cambridge editor would omit vs. 1022. There is certainly a strange redundancy of meaning.
[77] Read εστασεν with Mark. Dind.
[78] So called, either because he was carried off by Jove while hunting in the promontory of Dardanus, 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, Νηρηιδων with Heath, "first of the Nereids."
[81] The Cambridge editor would read νυμφοκομοι, Reiske νυμφοκομον. There is much difficulty in the whole of this last part of the chorus.
[82] Such is Hermann's explanation, but βεβηκοτος 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 προσουδισας, but I have some doubt about every other reading yet proposed.
[86] See Camb. ed., who suspects interpolation.
[87] Cf. Lucret. i. 94. "Nec miseræ prodesse in tali tempore quibat, Quod patrio princeps donarat nomine regum." Æsch. Ag. 242 sqq.
[88] The Cambridge editor clearly shows that μοι is the true reading, as in vs. 54, το πραγμα δ' απορως ειχε Τυνδαρεωι πατρι, and 370.
[89] There is much doubt about the reading of this part of the chorus. See Dind. and ed. Camb.
[90] I have partly followed Abresch in translating these lines, but I do not advise the reader to rest satisfied with my translation. A reference to the notes of the elegant scholar, to whom we owe the Cambridge edition of this play, will, I trust, show that I have done as much as can well be done with such corrupted lines.
[91] Achilles is supposed to lay his hand on his sword. See however ed. Camb.
[92] Obviously a spurious line.
[93] I have punctuated with ed. Camb.
[94] See ed. Camb.
[95] ευφημησατε here governs two distinct accusatives.
[96] The Cambridge editor here takes notice of Aristotle's charge of inconsistency, ‛οτι ουδεν εοικεν ‛η ‛ικετευουσα [Iphigenia] τηι ‛υστεραι. He well remarks, that Iphigenia at first naturally gives way before the suddenness of the announcement of her fate, but that when she collects her feelings, her natural nobleness prevails.
[97] Cf. Lucret. i. 88. "Cui simul infula virgineos circumdata comtus, Ex utraque pari malarum parte profusa est."
[98] Read παγας with Reiske, Dind. ed. Camb. There is much corruption and awkwardness in the following verses of this ode.
[99] On the sense of μεμονε see ed. Camb., who would exclude δι' εμον ονομα.
[100] Cf. Soph. Ant. 806 sqq. The whole of this passage has been admirably illustrated by the Cambridge editor.
[101] There is much awkwardness about this epithet πατρωιαι. One would expect a clearer reference to Agamemnon. I scarcely can suppose it correct, although I do not quite see my way in the Cambridge editor's readings.
[102] Porson, Præf. ad Hec. p. xxi., and the Cambridge editor (p. 228 sqq.) have concurred in fully condemning the whole of this last scene. It is certain that in the time of Ælian something different must have been in existence, and equally certain that the whole abounds in repetitions and inconsistencies, that seem to point either to spuriousness, or, at least, to the existence of interpolations of a serious character. In this latter opinion Matthiæ and Dindorf agree.
[103] An allusion to the celebrated picture of Timanthes. See Barnes.
[104] I have done my best with this passage, following Matthiæ's explanation, which, however, I do not perfectly understand. If vs. 1567 were away, we should be less at a loss, but the same may be said of the whole scene.