or ποῦ δὴ μέθυ ἤδη γέγονε καὶ πίνοντες ἤδη πόῤῥω. Prometh. V. 235,6. ἐγὼ δε τίλμαις ἐξερυσάμην βροτοὺς τοῦ μὴ διαῤῥαισθέντας εις Αΐδου μολεῖν. 235. Me quoque vexari fateor asyndeto verborum iτóðμno” (v. enim legitur εγώ δ' ἐτόλμησ') et ἐξερυσάμην, nec quid reprehendatur Victorii et Canteri lectio τολμῆς i.e. τολμήεις, video, qua proxime ad codicum scripturam accedit. Prætuli tamen rónμais.' First, let us see the variations. dè timung Ald. Rob. MSS. Turnebi et Stephani, MS. unus de Toλuns Turn. Steph. Cant. Stanl. quidam apud schol. ♪'étéλuno' quidam apud Schol. edd. Brunck. Schutz. 1. 2. It appears, then, that rinuno', which from the note would be concluded to be the MS. lection, is supported by no authority but the various reading of the scholiast.-Nec quid reprehendatur Tókuns video, quod proxime ad codicum scripturam accedit. Why then reject it? Is it because it approaches to the MS. reading? [M. BOTHE should have said which was in part of the MSS.] It is for this reason, or for none. Why is Tano', after it had been eagerly adopted by the other editors, driven out of this Eschylus?-On account of the asyndeton; the very thing which gives life and vigour to the passage. Schutz very properly observes, In ἐτόλμησα ἐξερυσάμην asyndeton est, fervorem animi ex merito gloriantis prodit. "Such unconnected sentences sometimes occur; and commonly afford the transcribers [and editors] an opportunity for blundering. In Hecuba, 1194, is the following verse: σε κακῶς απώλοντο, κοὔτις ἐξήλυξέ πως "The following is surely the true reading: σε κακῶς ἀπώλοντ ̓ οὔτις ἐξήλυξέ πω. Ν. 353,4. Εκατόγκαρηνον πρὸς Είαν χειρούμενον Τυφώνα θρῦρον, πᾶσ ̓ ὡς ἀντέστη θεοῖς. Thus M. BOTHE.-ixaтoyxaρnov is Pauw's emendation for ἑκατοντακάρηνον ; and παρ' is Stanley's alteration for πᾶσιν. No mention is made of either variation.—ixaroyncpnvov is certainly true, and had been printed by Dr. Morell, Mr. Porson, Article Glasse's Sampson * Monthly Rev. July 1789, p. 15. Agonistes. and and M. Schutz in his second edition. In his first, he fellows Brunck, who in course retains the double anapæst. There are two passages of Aristophanes, in which precisely the same error has been corrected from MSS.-Nub. 336. ed. Brunck, πλοκάμους θ' ἑκατομεγαλα Τυρώ, πρημαινούσας τε θυέλλες. Ran. 473. *Εχιδνα θ' ἑκατογκέφαλος, ή τα σπλάγχια σου. The old editions have ἑκατοντακέφαλα and ἑκατοντακίβαλος against the metre ή in both places. As for πάσι, it is certainly wrong. The icta in the dative plural is never elided by the Attic Poets. See Prof. Person's Appendix to Toup's Emendations, p. 450, and Monthly Rev. Sept. 1789, p. 244, article Glasses Samson Agonistes. • 416. (421. Pors.) Arabia commemorationem ceterorum, qui hic nos minantur, situi locorum haud convenire, recte monuit Char Schützius. Equidem una literula του Αραβίας mutata reponendoque πύλωμα pro πόλισμα *Brunck is silent respecting the present verses in his notes to Aristophanes. In his note to Prometh. 265. he says, In v. 353. scribere potuisset βορια ἑκατοικάρηνον vel ἑκατοντάκρανον : Sed sic inierpolati versus nihilo gratius aures meas accidunt. This is not very consistent with the concession made by this critic, that the Tragic Poets avoided the anapaests as much as they could : for, if so, Æschylus did avoid the anapas in this verse. + M. Herman, in his edition of the Nubes, prints ἑκατοντακέφαλα, perhaps from inadvertency.The verse from the Rane is wrong, because an anapæst follows a dactyl. Dawes, p 250. ed. Ox. It is equally true that an anapæst cannot follow a tribrach.-This latter rule M. Herman, De Metris, p. 158. attempts to controvert, by quoting thirteen instances from Brunck's Aristophanes: but there are scarcely three of the whole number that M. Herman, as we believe, has not by this time given up. In the expected republication of the Metres, no such instances as the following will, we trust, be pro duced : Αν. το ποδαπῶ τὸ γένος ; — ἔθεν αἱ τριήρεις αἱ καλαί. Equit. 134. κρατεῖν, ἕως ἂν ἕτερος ανὴρ βδελυρώτερος. Equit 328. Αλλ' ἐφάνη γαρ ΑΝΗΡ ΕΤΕΡΟΣ πολὺ ΣΟΥ ΜΙΑΡΩΤΕΡΟΣ. restituere restituere poëta manum videor. Apias, formatum ut aivobius sonat fortissimum, quod pulcre convenit "Apsov. Intelliguntur autem proculdubio Sauromata,' &c. 1. All the agreement of pillas with pesov is that it makes a tautology. 2. It is not so much as pretended that dilaç is Greek, but only that it might have been Greek; and even this is not proved: for duotas, a compound of Gia with an adjective, will not justify pilías, a compound of Cla with a particle. 3. If apßlas did exist, it was masculine; as divolas, súpubas, Taubles;-joined therefore to avos, it makes the grandest solecism that can be conceived. 4. As if these outrages on sense and language were not sufficient, two adjectives, ap.ias and perov, one masculine, the other neuter, are made to agree with the same substantive. V. 543. ίδια γνώμη σέβει Θνατοὺς ἄγαν, Προμήθεῦ. B. εüfuigraμos EC-i. e. benevolus, sincerus. A Such a word as voyrapos never did nor could exist. compound of εὐθὺς and γνώμη would have been εὐθύγνωμος. The old reading is defended by V. 402,3. dμíyxpтa rip Tade Ζεὺς ἰδίοις νόμοις κρατύνων, which expression is synonymous with παρ' ἑαυτῷ τὸ δίκαιον ἔχων Ζεὺς, V, 186. V. 637. ὡς τὰποκλαῦσαι καποδύρεσθαι τύχας ἐνταῦθ ̓, ὅπη μέλλει τὶς οἴσεσθαι δάκρυ πρὸς τῶν κλύοντων, αξίαν τριβὴν ἔχει. 637. us aπouλaisal. Ald. Rob. Steph. Canter. Stanl. WS TATTON. Turnebus, MS. Stephani. ως is nanox. Schutz. e MS. Vitcberg. et Stanleii conjectura. Mr. Porson's raπonλaucat is an emendation so neat and certain, that in course M. BOTHE rejects it, and blunders on with καποκλαῦσαι. V. 652,3· ἔξελθε πρὸς Λέρνης βαθὺν λειμῶνα, ποιμνας βουστάσεις τε πρὸς πατρός.] . Β. βαρὺν Λ. ποίμνης, βουστάσεις τε πρὸς πατρός. • 644. (652. Pors.) V. Λέρνης βαθὺν λ., ποίμνας β. etc. merito hærentibus in App. in Calvv, accedit prava conjunctio verborum. A. Capuv жo μvas, pratum grave armentis, i. e. oppletum. Cf. Eurip. Phan. 1635. Ovid. Heroid 9, 116.' The verse of the Phoenissæ is this: οὐ γὰρ τὸ μέν σοι βαρὺ κακῶν, τὸ δ ̓ οὐ βαρύ. which in course is brought to prove that Caps governs a geni tive; so that M. BOTHE construes it, op Tò Mév 001 ¿CTì 'Capi nanwv, To' d'où Capt nanny, tibi enim non aliud quidem plenum plenum malis est, thoroughly wrong. ἐστὶ, τὸ δ ̓ οὐ βαρύ. aliud autem non plenum malis, which is The sense is, κακῶν γὰρ οὗ τὸ μέν σοι βαρύ Non enim aliud malum tibi grave est, aliud non grave. The quotation from Ovid is very facetious : «s Femina tela tulit Lernais atra venenis, Ferre gravem lana vix satis apta colum." That the words βαθὺν λείμωνα have puzzled the interpreters is true but explanation and not correction was required.βαθὺς λειμών means, a rich or fertile pasture. Ful. Pollux, I. 227. Περὶ γῆς ἀγαθῆς. Γῆ δὲ ἐρεῖς, εὔφορος, εὔπορος, εὔσπορος, εξήρατος, βαθεῖα. Eurip. Androm. 637. ed. Beck. πολλάκις δέ τοι ξηρὰ βαθεῖαν γῆν ἐνίκησε σπορά. (σπορά Brunck. ex ed. Lasc. et membr.) νειὸς βαθεῖα. 1. Κ. 353. Σ. 547. λήϊον βαθὺ, Ι. Β. 147. Odyss. I. 134. ὕλη βαθεῖα, Π. Ε. 555. Ο. 606. Π. 766. Υ. 491. Od. P. 316. βάθος ύλας. Τheocrit. VIII. 49. ξύλοχος βαθεῖα, Ι. Λ. 415. Φ. 573. ἄγκεα βαθέα, Π. Υ. 490. Eurip. Hippol. 1137. ἀστέφανοι δὲ κόρας ανάπαυλαι Λατούς βαθεῖαν ανα χλόαν. Homer Il. I. 151. 293. Φήρας τε ζαθέας, ἠδ ̓ Ανθείαν ΒΑΘΥΛΕΙΜΟΝ. Pindar, Pyth. Χ. 23. has ΒΑΘΥΛΕΙΜΩΝ. Etymol. Μ. p. 185, 35. Βαθύλειμος, ΒΑΘΕΙΣ [male vulgo Hesychius. Βαθύλιμον. βαθὺν λιμένα ἔχον. Alberti rightly corrects Λέρνης ἄκρην τε. -- Β. Κεγχρείας, and ἄκραν τε Κεγχρείας is in Aldus, four manuscripts, and the Scholiast. ἄκροντε, Ald. Rob. Brunckii codex B. pro v. lect. ἄκρην τὲ (vel τε) Turn. Steph. Canter. Stanl. Brunckii codex B. in textu. ἄκραν τε Brunck. e codice A. Schutz, Canter conjectures Λέρνης τε κρήνην. Brunch remarks: cile cuivis in mentem venire potuit Λέρνης κρήνην τε (read Λέρνης τε xpvn]. Sed potuit etiam hic fluvius, seu rivus perennis aqua e vicine et cognomine monte delabi. Nescio an Geographus aut Historicus aliquis montis meminerit. Sed sic se rem habere neganti non credam, nisi qui locorum naturam et situm ipse inspexerit. Λέρνης βαθὺς λειμών [ν. 652.] convallem designare videtur, cui mons imminere debuit."-The argument from v. 652. has been already considered. This conjecture about the topography of Lerna is, however, confirmed by Pausanias, II. 36. p. 198. ed. Kuhn. quoted by Schutz. The position of 7 seems to point out a corruption; and the words ἄκρην τε are marked with an obelus in Mr. Porson's edition. Canter's correction is supported by the Scholiast, whose paraphrase runs thus: ἧσσον, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἤΐσσον, ὥρμων καὶ ἐκινούμην, πρὸς τε τὸν ῥοῦν τῆς Κεγχρης, ἥτις κρήνη ἐστὶν ̓́Αργους, καὶ πρὸς τὴν Λέρνην ΤῊΝ ΠΗΓΉΝ.—16 Λέρνης τε κρήνην was the original reading, the syllable may easily have been written once instead of twice; in which case τε ἄκρην, ἄκρην τε, &c. will be the successive supplements of unskilful correctors. Let this, however, and every thing else respecting Æschylus, be left undecided till Mr. Porson's notes appear. V. 788. "Οταν περάσης ῥεῖθρον ἠπείρων ὅρον, πρὸς ἀντολὰς φλογωπος ηλιοστιβείς αν πόντου περῶσα φλοῖστον, ἐστ ̓ ἂν ἐξίκη Β.— Οταν, κ. τ. λο ποντοπορέουσα φλοῖστον, αἷστ ̓ ἂν ἐξίκη πρὸς Γοργόνεια πεδα καὶ στενοῖς, ἵνα κ. τ. λ. which is thus translated :- Tranans fluctus marinos qua via pervenire queas ad lucentes solis ortus, diverso itinere ibis versus Gorgonios campos angustiasque, ubi, &c. 1. ποντοπορέουσα, an Ionic form, is most ignorantly introduced into Attic iambics. 2. αὥστ ̓ ἂν ἕξικη, qua via pervenire queas, is a solecism: ἄν never governs the subjunctive. 3. αλλοιοστιθεῖς is a word fresh coined in M. BOTHE's inexhaustible mint. 4. στενοῖς is probably to be construed by some new syntax: for by the old systems it cannot belong to any thing in the sentence. V. 1084. στρόμβοι δὲ κίνιν εἰλίσσουσι.] Β.σμ' εἱλίσσουσι. -κόνισμα, again, is a word of Bothbian fabrication. -This verse has given Brunck and Heath unnecessary trouble. Brunck imagines that ελίσσουσι was pronounced as if it had an Eolic digamma at its beginning. Heath uses his panacea, the particle γε, and reads κόνιν γ' είλ. Bentley, on Phalaris, Ρ. 135. |