Chapter 37

[137] These lines are very corrupt, and perhaps, as Dindorf thinks, spurious.

[138] Markland rightly reads ‛ιεροφυλακες.

[139] "dicam me daturam." MARKLAND.

[140] ‛οδ' is the correction of Brodæus.

[141] νεως πιτυλος seems not merely a periphrase, but implies that the oars are in the row-locks, as if ready for starting.

[142] But the Cambridge editor very elegantly reads ει τοι.

[143] Put φθεγξασθε in an inclosure, and join ταυτα with θελει. See ed. Camb.

[144] Schol. Theocr. Id. vii. 57. θρηνητικον το ζωιον, και παρα τοις αιγιαλοις νεοττευον. Cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1309, who perhaps had the passage in view.

[145] αγορος is a somewhat rare word for αγυρις.

[146] Cf. Hecub. 457 sqq.

[147] So Matthiæ, "locum ubi Latona partum edidit."

[148] Read κυκλιον with Seidler. On the λιμνη τροχοειδης at Delos, see Barnes.

[149] "I was conveyed by sailors and soldiers." ED. CAMB.

[150] The same scholar quotes Soph. Ph. 43. αλλ' η' πι φορβης νοστον εξεληλυθεν, vhere νοστος is used in the same manner as here, simply meaning "a journey."

[151] But see Camb. ed.

[152] I read ζηλουσα ταν with the same.

[153] The Cambridge critic again proposes μεταβολαι δ' ευδαιμονια, which he felicitously supports. Musgrave has however partly anticipated this emendation.

[154] Dindorf has shown so little care in editing this passage, that I have merely recalled the old reading, αερι δ' ‛ιστια προτονοι κ. πρ. ‛υπερ στολον εκπ., following the construction proposed by Heath, and approved, as it appears, by the Cambridge editor. Seidler's note is learned and instructive, but I have some doubts about his criticism.

[155] i.e. I wish I might become a bird and fly homeward.

[156] See ed. Camb.

[157] But see ibid. Dindorf's text is a hopeless display of bad readings and worse punctuation.

[158] Reading γεννας, I have done my best with this passage, but I can only refer to the Cambridge editor for a text and notes worthy of the play.

[159] I have recalled the old reading, ‛οσια.

[160] On these sort of prodigies, see Musgrave, and Dansq. on Quintus Calaber, xii. 497 sqq.

[161] "in eo, ut" is the force of εν εργωι.

[162] Perhaps a sly allusion to their escape.

[163] See ed. Camb.

[164] But we must read τοις τε with the Cambridge editor = "who know more than men."

[165] I can not too early impress upon the reader the necessity of a careful attention to the criticisms of the Cambridge editor throughout this difficult chorus, especially to his masterly sketch of the whole, p. 146, 147.

[166] φερεν ινιν is Burges' elegant emendation, the credit of which has been unduly claimed by Seidler.

[167] i.e. the place afterward called Inopus. See Herm., whose construction I have followed.

[168] On the ομφαλος see my note on Æsch. Eum. p. 180, ed. Bohn. On the Delphic priesthood, compare ibid. p. 179.

[169] See, however, the Cambridge editor.

[170] Read ες θρονον with Barnes and Dind., or rather επι Ζηνος θρονον with Herm.

[171] But see Dindorf.

[172] See Dindorf's note, but still better the Cambridge editor.

[173] I follow Seidler.

[174] So ed. Camb.

[175] i.e. what evil inspiration of the Gods impelled her to this act? Thoas, who is represented as superstitious to the most barbarian extent, naturally regards the infidelity of Iphigenia as proceeding from the intervention of heaven.

[176] Cf. Monk. on Hippol. 828.

[177] Cf. vs. 1197. ερημιας δει.

[178] Dindorf and the Cambridge editor follow Hermann, who would place this line after vs. 1394.

[179] So Musgrave.

[180] Seidler has deserved well of this passage, both by his correction τοιν ξενοιν for την ξενην, and by his learned and clear explanation of the nautical terms.

[181] Dindorf has adopted Markland's emendation, but I prefer ‛ωστ' εξαναπνειν with the Cambridge editor.

[182] i.e. capsize.

[183] But see ed. Camb.

[184] I have introduced the line above mentioned, and have likewise adopted Hermann's introduction of παλιμπρυμνηδον from Hesychius, in lieu of παλιν πρυμνησι'.

[185] See ed. Camb.

[186] "The obvious intent of these measures was to fasten the vessel to some point of the rocks, and thus prevent her being wrecked." ED. CAMB.

[187] "Our passage is thus to be understood, ‛η ‛αλισκεται προδουσα το μνημονευειν θεαι φονον." ED. CAMB.

[188] So Hermann rightly explains the sense. I agree with the Cambridge editor, that if Euripides had intended to use ‛οσιας substantively, he would hardly have joined it with θεας, thereby causing an ambiguity.

[189] There is another construction, taking κλιμ. θεας together. On the whole introduction of Minerva, see the clever note of the Cambridge editor, p. 158, 159.

[190] There is evidently a lacuna, as the transition to Orestes is worse than abrupt. The mythological allusions in the following lines are well explained in the notes of Barnes and Seidler.

[191] On these last verses see the end of the Orestes, with Dindorf's note.