Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/332

322 Journal of Philology. will be remorseful, when you have reached the term of your wrath." I more than doubt the correctness of this interpretation, (1) because I do not think fSapvs can be used in the sense ascribed, (2) because it appears, from the yielding of (Edipus, that his 6up6s is over, though it has left a-rvyos behind, and, if so, fiapvs cannot refer to his future feeling. I do not, therefore, interpret Bvpov n-epav "to come to the end of anger," but "to exceed in anger," " to be enraged beyond measure ;" and I render, " You shew yourself malignant when you yield, and violent, when you are enraged." For the sense of nepav, see (Ed. Col. 155, nepas yap nepas. In short, Ovpov ncpav = 6vpovcr6ai irkpa ftiKrjs. 688, rovpbv rrapieiy /cat KarapftXvvcov iceap. Wunder and Schneidewin concur in putting a comma after napicU, regarding rovpov and <eap as objects of the participles severally, but the former understands to <rbv neap (" neglecting my interest and weakening your affection"), the other, to ipbv Map ("neglecting my interest and taking off the edge of my feeling"). I unhesitatingly dissent from both, and render : " disregarding and deadening the feelings of my heart ;" i. e. " indifferent to, and disposed to suppress, my just resentment." That Ktap would be used by the poet so nakedly as the German critics imagine, I cannot believe. In every other place he has joined with it the pronoun. Track. 629, coot' K7rayrjvat rot pop Tjdovfj neap. 10. 1246, rovpbv et Tfpyjfcts Ktap. Aj. 686, rovpbv &v ipa Ktap. (Ed. Col. 655, rovpbv ovk 6kv(1 Kcap. 698, 'Ioac. 7rp6f $ea>v 8l8aov KapH ui>a, orov nore prjvtv Too-qvdc npdyparos o-rrjaas fxS'. Old. ipa>' o-c yap rSavh aJ yvvat, ir(ov <rc'/9a>* Kpcovros, old poi /Se/SoyXfVAcwy e^e*. Wunder prints these last two lines thus : epa> (<re yap rtovS' (s ifktov, yvvai, oV/Sat) Kpeovros oia pot /3^3ovXfVKo>r fy t * explaining the last verse as equal to Kpeovros povXtvpara, and as object of e'pcS. Schneidewin, though he does not print thus, seems to explain in the same way ; for he merely annotates on v. 701, KpeovTo: povXcvpara. A strange " nodus in scirpo." It seems evident, reading the four lines consecutively, that v. 701 is a direct answer