V. 511. Έξαρχίσας ήν Ζεύς και τιμωρούμενος Υμάς δ' ύβρίζειν ουκ έχρήν Torcévde ößgor. In the old editions, these verses conclude the speech of the Theban herald. Markland has attributed them to Adrastus, with the consent of one MS. In our opinion, they ought to be given to the Chorus, which commonly interposes a pair of iambics between two long speeches. See vv, 193, 250, 332, 463. To Adrastus we give only the words a wayxcxvote, as in the common editions. As he is intere rupted by Theseus, that interruption is made more properly after two words, than after two lines and a half.

V. 573. Πολλους έτλην δη χατέρους άλλους πόνους. Am Graece dicitur itégous äraous? Credam cum exemplum indubitabile videro. M. Aristophanes Θεσμοφοριαζούσαις B. Fr. 3. "Αλλα τε τοιαύθ' έτερα μυρί εκιχλίζετο.

V. 6ι. Ω φίλτατ', εύ μεν νόστον αγγέλλεις σέθεν, Τήν τ' αμφί Θησέως τάξιν (βάξιν Reiskius). ει δε και στρατός Σως έστ' Αθηνων, πάντ' αν αγγέλλους φίλα. There are two difficulties in.this passage which the editors have nut noticed. In the first place, we suspect that orçatós 'Aonvêr is not quite so legitimate an expression in Greek, as the army of Athens is in English. Perhaps this difficulty might be removed by reading orqat's 'Abavas, authority for which alteration may be found in v. 601. Ergáτευμα μεν Παλλάδος κριθήσεται. But another difficulty remains, from which we are unable to extricate ourselves by so simple a process. When the news of a victory is brought, instead of expressing apprehensions for the safety of the victorious army, we should rather have expected the old ladies of the Chorus to inquire after certain individuals, in whose safety they might be supposed to take a particular interest. Thus, in the lleraclida, when the messenger brings the account of the defeat of Eurystheus, Alcmena immediately asks whether her grandchildren are safe. V.790. It is needless to inultiply examples of a practice, which has been regularly trausmitted from the days of Hercules to those of Lord Wellington. In the present instance, il appears to us that it was incumbent on the Chorus to appear very anxious respecting the fate of Theseus. These things being premised, we venture to prognosticate that in the edition of Mr. Bothe, the words in question will be thus represented: si dè xoiçavos Eūs ést'Abnvwr. The answer of the "Ayyenoç agrees much better with this reading, than with that which extends the question of the Chorus to the whole army: Ews. xai nétique γεν ως "Αδραστος ώφελε Πράξαι, ξυν 'Αργείοισιν ως απ’ Ινάχου Στείλας, επεotputovce Kadusiwe módor. The comparison between Adrastus, who is present, and Theseus, is just and proper, if not polite. Mr. Bothe will not fail to remark, ibat Theseus is addressed by the title Koigas' 'Abruāri by Sophocles, (Ed. Col. 1759. We hope that Mr. Bothe will be able to satisfy his readers respecting the process by which the letters KOIPANOE were corrupted into KAILTPATOE. No conjectural emendation is perfectly satisfactory, unless the origin of the common reading can be made apparent. We are afraid that the frequent corruption of zoigavos into rúgarros, of which one instance occurs in v. 1080 of the Iphigenia in Tauris, will hardly be accepted as a confirmation of Mr. Bothe's emendation, which we have taken the liberty to anticipate. V. 732. Θεούς νομίζω, και δοκώ τας ξυμφορας "Εχειν έλασσον, τωνδε τισαντων.

δίκης, The adverb έλασσον seems to require us to read της ξυμφοράς or των ξυμφορών, according to the well known expressions, άλις έχει του δυστυχείν, ραον έχεις της νόσου, εύ έχειν των φρενών, &c. See Valckenaer ad Hippol. 462, Brunck ad Ed. Tyr. 709, &c. So Heracl. 379. Μή μου δορί συνταράξης Τάν εύ χαρίτων έχουσαν Πόλιν, αλλ' ανάσχου. The modern editions reud, from the emendation of Brodeus, ταν ευχαρίστως έχουσαν. The reading of Aldus, ταν ευχαρίστων έχουσαν, approaches nearer to the truth,

V. 739. 'Ετεοκλεους τε σύμβασιν σοιουμένου, Μέτρια θέλοντος, ουκ έχρήζομεν λαβείν. Mr. Gaisford has admitted into the text Μarkland's conjectural emendation, μέτρια τα δόντος. Notissimus est usus, says Markland, dóvros pro dare volente vel offerente. It may be so: but we could have wished for a better example of this notissimus usus than the words of Plutarch, Πολλάκις αυτού πολλά και διδόντος, και δεομένου λαβείν, ουκ ήθέλησεν. 'Erdou, indeed, frequently signifies he offered, but we believe that tèxt generally, if not always, signifies he gave. In the present instance, we are inclined to retain the common reading. We are not partial to unnecessary alterations of the text, except when proposed by ourselves, in which case we regard them with great complacency: It may be observed, that the tragedians love to join together participles, as in the two verses now before us, without the conjunctive particles. So v. 884 of the same play: Aγρούς δε ναίων, σκληρά τη φύσει διδούς. "Εχαιρε προς σανδρείον είς τ' άγρας ιών. Phoen. 77. ο δ' *Αργος ελθών, κηδος 'Αδράστου λαβών, Πολλήν αθροίσας ασπίδ' 'Αργείων, άγει. Ιph. Taur. 695. Σωθείς δε, σαΐδας έξ έμής ομοσπόρου Κτησάμενος, ήν έδωκά σοι δάμαρτέχειν, "Ονομά τ' εμού γένοιτ' ών, ούτ' άσαις δόμος Πατρώος ούμός εξαλειφθείη ποτ' άν. In this passage, both Markland and Musgrave conjecture έκ τ' έμής ομοσπόρου.

V.763. Ουδείς έπίστη τώδε δούλος ών τόνω. Φαίης αν, ει σαρώσθ', ότ' αγάσα νεκρούς. In all the editions, these two verses are given to the 'Αγγελος. We believe, rightly: but we also believe, that a verse is wanting, which ought to be interposed between them, and to be given to Adrastus. Of the two succeeding verses, the second alone ought to be given to the messenger, as in the common editions. AΔ. "Ενιψεν αυτός των ταλαιπωρών σφαγάς; ΑΓ. Κάστρωσί γευνας, κακάλυψε σώματα. Markland in his notes, and Mr. Gaisford in the text of the present edition, assign both these verses to the Messenger. It could hardly have occurred to Adrastus,' says Markland, ‘ to ask whether Theseus himself had washed the wounds of the dead bodies. We apprehend that the next preceding question of Adrastus, which we suppose to be lost, would make every thing clear, if it were preserved.

V. 882. Παίς ών, ετόλμησευθύς ου προς ηδονάς Μουσών τραπίσθαι, προς το μαλθακόν βίου. One MS. reads Bicy. See our cbservation on v. 87. Markland mentions, although not with approbation, the einendation of Reiske, πρός τι μαλθακόν βίον. There can be little doubt, we think, that the poet wrote και το μαλθακόν βίου, and that the present reading is formed from και προς το μαλθακόν βίου, a very natural corruption of the original reading. The propensity of transcribers to add the prepositions without necessity, and also to omit the wrong word in verses which have more than the proper number of syllables, is well known.

V. 916.

[ocr errors]

V. 916. “Αδ' αν μάθοι παίς, ταύτα σώζεσθαι φιλεϊ Προς γήρας.

år páon waīs. Porson. The same correction is necessary in two pasSages of the second Iphigenia. V. 19. Πρίν αν κόρην σην Ιφιγένειαν "Αρτεμις λάβη σφαγείσαν. V. 1302. Ού πρίν γ αν είπη τoύπος ερμηνεύς τόδε. So Soph. Trach. 415. Ού πρίν γάν είπης ιστορούμενος βραχύ. No less than three examples of the same fault occur in the play just mentioned. Ι. ν. 2. Ως ουκ αν αιών εκμάθοις βροτών, πριν αν Θάνοι τις. The Florentine edition of 1547 reads θάνη, which reading is also exhibited by Stobeus, Tit. cv, p. 562. ΙΙ. ν. 164. Χρόνος προτάξας ως τρίμηνον, ηνίκ αν Χώρας απείη, κάνιαύσιον βιβώς. Read ηνίκα without the particle, which ought to be retained, if the Alaine reading, χώρας απίη, were correct. ΙΙΙ. ν. 6s6. Kάμοι τάδ' ήν πρόρρητα, και τοιαύτ' έδρων, Το φάρμακον τούτ' άπυρον, ακτινός τ' αεί Θερμής άθικτον, έν μυχούς σώζειν έμε, “Έως άν αρτίχριστον αρμόσαιμί που. Re: 1, "Εως NIN αρτίχριστον.

V. 928. Τον Οιδίπου τε παίδα, Πολυνείκην λέγω. V. 1917. Τυδέως, δν ωνόμαζε Διομήδην πατήρ. Read Πολυνείκη and Διομήδη. If the Attic form of these accusatives admitted the N, it is probable that some verses would be found in which the N could not be expunged without producing an unlawful hiatus. The old editions are very inconstant on this subject, as may be observed from the followiug examples, which we believe to be nearly all that are contained in the forty-four remaining Greek plays. I. Esch. Theb. 1075. Τους κλάοντας Πολυνείκην. This verse ends an anapestic system. II. Soph. (Ed. Col. 375. Tòr ngócbe γεννηθέντα Πολυνείκη θρόνων. ΙΙΙ. Αnt. 198. Τον δ' αυ ξύναιμον τούδε, Πολυνείκην λέγω. 1V. Eurip. Phen. 72. Φεύγειν εκόντα τήνδε Πολυνείκην χθόνα. V. Ιbid. 76. Φυγάδα δ' απωθεί τήσδε Πολυνείκην χθονός. VI. Ιbid. 297. Καλεί δέ Πολυνείκης με Θηβαίος λεώς. VΙΙ. Ιbid. 639. "Εξιθ' έκ χώρας. αληθώς δ' όνομα Πολυνείκην πατήρ. VΙΙΙ. Ιbid. 1472. Οι μεν πατάξαι πρόσθε Πολυνείκην δορί. ΙΧ. Cycl. 578. "Αλις Γανυμήδην τόνδ' έχων αναπαύσομαι. Χ. Αristoph. Νub. 355. Και νύν ότι Κλεισθένη είδον, ορας, διά τούτ' εγένοντο yuvaixes. Here we may observe, that the addition of the N would vitiate the metre. XI. Vesp. 1280. Είτ’ 'Αριφράδην, πολύ τι θυμοσοφικώτατον. XII. Αν. 513. ο δ' άρ' είστηκαν τον Λυσικράτη τηρών ότι δωροδοκoίη. ΧΙΙ. Ibid. 1077. "Ην αποκτείνη τις υμών Φιλοκράτη τον Στρούθιον. ΧΙV. Lys. 1099. Ουκ έσθ' όπως oύ Κλεισθένη βίνήσομεν. ΧV. Thesim. 848. Ου τον Παλαμήδην ψυχρών όντ’ αισχύνεται. XVI. Ran. 425. Τον Κλεισθένη δ' ακουω. XVII. Eccl. 366. Αντισθένην τις καλεσάτω πάση τέχνη. We subjoin Brunck's note: Αντισθένη. Sic alter Reg. ut Suidas η χεζητιάων. Vulgo 'Αντισθένην. We add an eighteenth example from tlie Κρόνος of Phrynichus, quoted by the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Av. 988. Botes Διοπείθη μεταδράμω και τύμπανα.

V. 1044. Φράζετ' εί κατοίδατε. Read κατείδετε. There is no such word as xatoidate in the Attic dialect. The second person plural of oida is always ίστε. In the present passage, xatidor is on all accounts better than rátorda. Tell me if you have seen her.

V. 1066. Ω θύγατερ, ου μη μυθον επί πολλούς έρείς. Omnino lege είς πολλούς. PoRSON. When ου μή is prefixed to the future, in the sense of prohibition, we conceive that a note of interrogation ought to be added. In the preceding verse, the words ου μη έρείς, the literal trans

lation of which is will you not not speak, are equivalent to Messins, in the same manner as the words oůx épzīs, when pronounced interrogatively, signify simi*

Vi1123–1163. There can be no doubt, that Narkland is quite right in depriving Iphis and Evadne of all participation in this dialogue, and quite wrong in permiting Adrastus to open his lips in it. The verses onght to be distributeal between XOPOE and HAIAEE, but it is not easy to assign exactly the parts of the grand-mothers and the grand-children, as ti ey frequently interrupt each other. So ν. 159. ΠΑΙ. "Έτ' είσοραν σε, πάτερ. επ' όμμάτων δοκω. ΧΟ. Φίλον φίλημα παρα γένυν τιθέντα σόν. ΠΑΙ. Λόγων δε παρακέλευσμα σων. ΧΟ. Αέρι φερόμενον οίχεται. ΠAI. Δυουν

άχη, ματέει τ' έλιπες. ΧΟ. Σε τ’ ούποτ' άλγη πατρώα λείψει. V. 79. Τι δήποθ' υμϊν άλλ' υπουργήσαι με χρή; Read, Τι δήτ' 29' υμίν.

V. 195. Ενώ δε τέμνειν χρή σφάγιά σ', άκουέ μου. Although we are satisfied that Milion wrote, And Tiresias, and Phineus, prophets old, not, And Phineus, and Tiresius, prophets old, we suspect that Euripides wrote, 'Εν ώ δε τέμνειν σφάγια χρή σ', άκουέ μου. So ν. 1205. Η δ' άν διοίξης σφάγια, και τρώσης φόνον. Ιph. Taur. 40. Κατάρχομαιωμέν, σφάγια δ' άλλοισιν μέλει. Tid. 280. Θησαν τε τη θεα σφάγια τάπιχώρια. Heracl. 373. Και δη παρηκται σφάγια ταξεων εκάς. We wish that it were in our power to improve the rhythm of the following verse by any transposition of the words : Iph. Taur. 566. Κακής γυναικός χάριν άχαριν απώλετο.

V. 1921. Πικροί γαρ αυτούς ήξετ', εκτεθραμμένοι, Σκύμνοι λεόντων, πόλεος εκπερθήτορες. We prefer the old punctuation, εκτεθραμμένοι σκύμνοι λεόντων, which Markland has silently altered. Portus, however, whose version is retained by Barnes, agrees with Markland: Ubi enim creveritis, renietis acerbi ipsis tanquam catuli leonum, expugnatores urbis.t These in


* For examples of this kind of negative imperative, see Asch. Theb. 252, Soph. Trach. 980, Εurip. Med. 1151, Hippol. 213, 606, Androm. 7:58, Bacch. 343, 791, ΕΙ, 383, 982, (Ου μη κακισθείς εις ανανδρίαν πεσεί;) Aristoph. Ach. 166, Nub, 296, 567, 505, V sp. 397, Thesm. 1108, Ran. 298, 462, 524. Whien of two futures in the same sentence, the first is preceded by cú, and the second by pain, the first commands and the secord prohibits. So Hippol. 498. Ω δεινά λέξασ', ουχί συγκλήσεις στόμα, και μη μεθήσεις αύθις αισχίστους λόγους ; So also Soph. Gl. Tyr. 637, Trach. 1185, Αj. 75, Eurip. Ηel. 44f5. Alstople. Eccl. 1144. On the other band, we believe that où per prefixed to the subjunctive is equivalent to a negative future, as in Iph. Aul. 1465. ΚΛ. Ω τέκνον, οίχει ; 1Φ. και πάλιν γ' ου μή μόλω. Yes, and I shall never return. So also Iph. Tanr. 18. 'Αγαμεμνον, ου μή ναύς αφορμίση χθονός, Πρίν αν κόρην σην Ιφιγένειαν Αρτεμις Λαβη σφαγείσαν. Mr. Gaisford reacts αφορμίσει. The future 1s αφορμιεί. Notwithstanding the authority of Dawes and others, we believe that in this sense the subjunctive is more proper than the future, and that there is no difference between the subjunctive of the firsi aorist and that of the second. We must not conceal, however, that in the forty-four remaining Greek plays, there are th ee passages which we can weither correct, nor reconcile w th our notion of the two different uses of the particks ei un. I. Soph. (Ed. Col. 176. Ούτοι μήποτέ σ' έκ τώνδ' εδράνων, "Ω γέρον, άκοντά τις άξει. Here we cannot read άξη, because, as we have already olserved, αγα has no ollier aorist than ήγαγον. 'Αγάγη, the rearting of the Vatican Nis, is incompatible with the metre. We have sometimes suspected dipon to be the true reading. Compare v. 264, 358. Π. ΕΙ. 1059. 'Αλλ' εισιβ'. ού σοι μη μεθεψομαι ποτε, Οιδ' ήν σφόδρ' εμείρουσα τυγχάνης. The aorist μετάσπαμαι is too unlike the future 10 bi substituted for it on mere conjecture. III. Aristoph. Ran. 508. μα τον Απόλλα, ου μη σ' εγώ Περιόψομαπελθόντ'. + We observe that Markland constantly attributes this Latio version to Canter.


nutiæ are very apt to escape the attention of an editor, particularly when a tolerable sense is produced by the punctuation which he finds already established. The following passage of Sophocles, for instance, is printed in every edition with a comma after the word duoosiotator : Αj. 1293. 'Ατρέα δ', δς αν σ' έφυσι, δυσσεβέστατος Προθέντ' αδελφω δείπνον οικείων κρεών. .

IPHIGENIA IN AULIDE. V. 46. Ση γάρ μ' αλόχω τότε Τυνδάρεως Πίμπεν Φερνήν, Ξυννυμφοκόμον τε Sirator. Nota máu Tev sine augmento, quod nescio an in anapæsticis legitime factum. G. Compare Med. 1413. Olls phot' byw quoas peror (piros Bentleius) Teos ocü poopévous eoidectar. Mr. Borson has received Musgrave's emendation, ώφελος 'Εκ σου. Can πρός σου be considered as a gloss for ix coù ? Bentley's emendation derives support from Æsch. Pers. 917. E70' operes (vulgo :), Zū, xaue uetárdgwr. Perhaps, however, the true reading is, "S20EMES, W Zü. The augment is certainly omitted in Agam. 1561. TOūTO. após nuwu xáoToJe, xárdave. In the passage now before us, we read náumen without hesitation.

V. 73. άνθηρός μεν ειμάτων στολή, Χρυσώ τε λαμπρός, βαρβάρω χλιδήματι. Scrihi posset , ob præcedens piv; sed Clemens retinet ti. M. Mey is very significant in this expression, and has no corresponding de. Compare Bacch. 453. 'Ατάς το μεν σώμ' ούκ άμορφος εί, ξένε. Read λευκών τε Bacch. 457

V. 171. 'Αχαιών στρατιάν ως ίδοιμ' άν. V. 192. Κατεύδον δε δύ' Αίαντε opvédzw. Heathius legút ás är idag äv, propter antistrophen. Verum puto, às är idosav, pro idobumu. M. Neither the emendation of Heath, nor that of Alarkland can be admitted, as is år, in order that, always governs the subjunctive. Read therefore, is todospar. In v. 649 of this play, read with Barnes sioogão instead of opwr. In the edition of Aldus, v. 617 of the Phænissæ is thus represented : "Essues. Ta tiga do


dos idtñv. cúr döv túxois. Mr. Porson reads öžupay from the conjecture of Musgrave, and sioideñv on the authority of many MSS. In the edition of Barnes we find the following most harmonious tetrameter trochaic, of

Markland was deceived by the title-page of the Geneva edition of 1602: Euripidis Tragediæ quæ extant. Cum Latina Gulielmi Canteri interpretatione. The Latin translation, which appears in this edition, is copied verbatim from the edition of Commelinus, which was printed at Heidelberg five years before. In the title-page of the Heidelberg edition the following words occur : Latinam interpretationem M. Aemilius Portus, F. P. C. F. passim ita correait et expolivit ut nova facie nitidoque cultu nunc primum in lucem prodeat. The Latin version which Portus corrected and polished, was that of Gaspar Stiblinus, printed in the Basil edition of 1562. The Geneva editor has also suppressed poor Portus's dedication, in which he mentions the translation as his own work. It may be presumed, that the name of Canter was introduced by the Geneva bookseller, in order to promote the sale of the edition. In the Geneva edition of Stobaeus, printed in the year 1609, the name of Gesner is carefully suppressed, probably with the intention that Canter, who really translated the Ecloge, might pass for the translator and editor of the whole work. We see, therefore, that the booksellers knew the value of a name two hundred years ago quite as well as at present. Here we may remark, that the tradesmen of Geneva have long been celebrated for finesse. •The public justice of the city is quick and goud, and is more commended than the private justice of those that deal in trade: a want of sincerity is much lameuted by those that know the town well. --Burnet's Travels, p. 9, ed. 1724

« VorigeDoorgaan »