CRITICAL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES. 66 1. Ὦ κοινὸν αὐτάδελφον Ισμήνης κάρα.] The version: 'Ismene, dear in very sisterhood," conveys the full force of this periphrastic greeting, so far as the English language can express it without straining. It is well known to scholars that koos is frequently used to signify consanguinity'; the Scholiast on Eurip. Phon. 1565 renders it ovyyevikos, and it is employed in the same sense in other passages of this play. I have pointed out an extension of this use of the word in a note on Pind. O. II. 49, 50. For its combination here with autádeλpos, (lit. “from the self-same womb," i. e. of the same mother, N. Crat. p. 236,) commentators have aptly compared Æsch. Eum. 89: où d'avтádeλpov αἷμα καὶ κοινοῦ πατρὸς Ερμῆ. The circumlocution Ισμήνης κάρα (κασίγνητον κάρα infr. 874, 890, similarly δέμας,) is very common in Greek, and is not without its parallel in other languages. Perhaps our nearest approach to it in English is our old-fashioned address "dear life," and our combinations "no-body," "some-body:" compare also the frequent use of lip (leib) in the Nibelungen Lied, and the word poll, "an individual," in polling, catch-poll, &c. The termination hood in sisterhood, is originally "head;" but of course 1 Properly speaking, Kowòs implied any sort of society or communion, but relationship implied communion in the highest degree: ἔστι δ ̓ ἀδελφοῖς μὲν καὶ ἑταίροις πάντα κοινὰ, ἑτέροις δὲ ἀφωρισμένα. Arist. Eth. Nic. IX. 9, 10. the compound is not used here for the purpose of expressing the Greek periphrasis. 2, 3. ἆρ ̓ οἶσθ ̓ ὅτι—τελεῖ;] This reading is now established in the favour of critics. Hermann, Böckh, Wunder, and Dindorf, have all adopted it, and there appears to be little reason to doubt that it is better than the old ů, TI. The sentiment is that which is expressed in Eurip. Troad. 792: τί γὰρ οὐκ ἔχομεν, τίνος ἐνδέομεν μὴ οὐ πασσυδίᾳ χωρεῖν ὀλέθρου διὰ παντός; In the passages quoted in support of the construction, we have τί κακὸν οὐχὶ πασχόντων (Dem. De Coronâ, p. 241); тíva où ρμτóvтr (id. Fuerg. et Mnesib. p. 1152, 12); τίν' οὐ δρῶν, ποῖα δ ̓ οὐ λέγων ἔπη (Eurip. Phαn. 892); ᾧ τίς οὐκ ἐνὶ κηλὶς κακῶν ξύνοικος; (Soph. Ed. Col. 1135); ὅπου τίς ὄρνις οὐχὶ λayyaive (Fr. apud Strab. XV. 687): and this is the natural form of the exclamation. But Heindorf has pointed out instances in which the correlatives oπws and oлóτЄρоs are substituted for Tws and Tóтeрos (ad Plat. Lys. p. 212, c. § 21); and oπolov is here put for Tolov by a sort of anticipative attraction to the oπolov of v. 5. Emper suggests the following explanation of the construction: ap' oîσl ő, TI [τοιοῦτόν ἐστι] ὁποῖον, κ τ. λ. No doubt the transition from the interrogative to the correlative presumes some sort of antecedent, but we do not mend the matter by merely stating this: for ἆρ' οἶσθ' ὅ,τι equally presumes ἆρ ̓ οἶσθα τοῦτο ὅ,τι. ETL τελεῖ. τ.λ. 3. vwv ěti (woair.] Schäfer, Seidler, Wex, Dindorf, Wunder, and Böckh, consider these words as genitives: Hermann, following the Scholiast, takes them as datives dependent on Teλe. The addition of er shows that the poet is speaking here emphatically of the accomplishment of all these misfortunes in the life-time of the two sisters, and not of the limitation of their effects to the sisters themselves: so in the passage which the commentators quote, Soph. Trach. 305: μηδ' εἴ τι δράσεις τῆσδέ γε ζώσης ἔτι. At the same time it is clear that Antigone is made to speak of these misfortunes as particularly belonging to herself and her sister, (ν. 6: τῶν σῶν τε κάμῶν κακῶν) and that which takes place in our life-time does take place, in a certain sense, for us. Accordingly, as Teλeiv is properly construed with the dative, (cf. Ed. Col. 1437: Táď ei Teλeîté uoi,) I agree with Hermann and the Scholiast that rv is dative here. Böckh has introduced uns into his version, as a dativus incommodi “auf welcher kein starker Ton fällt." This is all that is required, but this is inconsistent with the position that Sophocles has not used the dative here. 46. οὐδὲν γὰρ—κακῶν.] We have here the main difficulty of this introductory speech. Hermann, Gaisford, Böckh, and Dindorf, think that the difficulty may be surmounted by a liberal interpretation of the accumulated negatives. I cannot permit myself to doubt that άrns arep is corrupt. Schäfer, Wunder, and Emper, acquiesce in Coray's emendation of ayns for aτns; but it appears to me that the proper opposition is between the aλyos and the arn. The former is the inward pain of the individual, the latter is the principle of mischief which makes his misfortunes objective. There is the same antithesis between the airxpov and the Tuоv in the next line: the former implies the sense of shame which results from disgraceful conduct (aioxúvn), the latter is the outward degradation, the humiliation in the eyes of the world, the loss of civic franchise and social privilege, which is another and concomitant effect of the same cause (arquía). We have abundant exemplifications of these antitheses in the play before us. Not to go farther than Ismene's answer: she has had no μῦθος, whether ἡδὺς or ἀλγεινός (ν. 12): she does not know that she is more εὐτυχοῦσα οι άτωμévŋ (v. 17), where she gives the contraries as well as the synonyms of the adjectives in v. 4. fore, that Porson came near to the that ἄτερ arose from the gloss άτηρ for ατηρόν, written over the words in the text as an explanation of some periphrase with ärη only I do not agree with him that the lost reading was aτns exov, which I should have some difficulty in explaining. Supposing that the word, which was used with άτn, in some degree resembled the gloss ȧrnp"-and this is It seems to me, theretruth, when he surmised |