p. 135. rightly observes that the final syllable of κίνεν is long. Æschyl. Suppl. 177. ὁρῶ κόνιν, ἄναυδον ἄγγελον στρατ ϋ. The icta is long in the nominative, V. 780 of the same play: κόνις άτερθε πτερύγων ὀλοίμαν. which answers to V. 788. πρόπερ θανούσας δ' Αίδας ανάσσας. Suppl. 310. Thus Stanley: ΒΑ. Τ οὖν ὁ διος πόρτις εύχεται βούς; Λιβύη μέγιστον τῆσδε γῆς καρπουμένη. καὶ τοῦ γε Δαναοῦ τοὔνομ ̓ εὐφώνῳ λόγῳ ν. 312. λιβύη μέγιστον γῆς καρπουμένη. Ald. λιβύη μέγιστον τῆσδε γῆς καρπουμένη. Τurn. Steph. Canter. In Aldus, the speeches are not divided: in Robortellus, V. V. 311, 312. are given to Danaus, in the other editions to the Chorus. Stanley ; " Versus hic deesse videtur, in quo quæsiverat Pelasgus quæ fuit Epaphi proles." Schutz takes the hints and prints, ΧΟΡΟΣ. Επαφος κ. τ. λ. ΧΟΡΟΣ. Λιβύη, μεγ· τῆσδε γῆς κ. Still all is not right: for, first, τήσδε is the supplement of some corrector; secondly, the verse will hardly construe; and lastly, if it could, it would bring Libye, the daughter of Epaphus, to Argos which would be false as to fact.-From these difficulties Mr. Porson has freed the text, by an emendation which is very far above all praise: : ΒΑΣ * * * * ΚΟ. Λιβύη, ΜΕΓΙΣΤΗΣ ὌΝΟΜΑ γῆς καρπουμένη. The contraction for ὄνομα is ov, with or without an omicron written over; for 15, a final sigma written over the preceding letter: so that, if we write Mr. Porson's corrections in contractions, it will be Λιβύη μεγίστ' ον γῆς καρπουμένη ; which differs from the reading of Aldus & Robortellus only by the superscribed sigma. M. BOTHE M. BOTHE does indeed condescend to accept ropa: but, with his usual scorn of all compromise with the MSS. he thus re-writes the speech:- ΧΟΡΟΣ. Ἔπαφος ἀληθῶς ρυσίων ἐπώνυμος, Λιβυης μέγιστον ὄνομα γης καρπούμενος. This note is given: V. abest roua sententia et metro mancis; addidit verbum, e codd. MSS haud dubie petitum, Portonus, itaque locum sanavit, non per sanavit, vulgata quippe μεγίστης et καρπουμένη non tangens, όνομα βασί phrasi ut passim inservit, neque igitur aliud sonant péyorov čropia yãs qu im μεγίστην γῆν, Ægyptum. The text and the note may very safely be trusted with their own refutation. Observe, however, the accuracy of the writer; vulgatum peyoτng non tangens. The common reading was not μεγίστης but μέγιστον ;—which Mr Porson has touched most effectually! How well is that man calculated for the office of an editor, who sets himself to correct a text without knowing what it is, and, like the Andabata, lays about him the most fiercely when he goes blindfolded! With regard to the fancy that roua is a MS. reading we shall briefly observe that M. BOTHE has clearly the advantage over our Greek Professor: no future editor will ever rob him of his conjectures, in order to give them to the MSS.-As for Schutz, he qualifies ova with an optime in his first edition: in his second, he puts it into the text with this note:-μέγιστον τῆσδε γῆς] μεγίστης ὄνομα γῆς St. i. e. my text has piyiorov añade ys;-the very reverse of which is true, and might possibly be meant to be written:but Mr. Porson's name should have been mentioned.— Throughout his second edition, Schutz unblushingly pillages. the Glasgow text of its best readings. One instance, only, shall be given at present: but it is a decisive instance-Sept. contra Theb. 803. ΧΟΡ. Τί δ' ἐστὶ πράγος νείκοτον πόλει παρόν; XOP. *Ανδρες τεθνάσιν ἐκ χερῶν αὐτοκτόνων. Tives;- V. 804 is thus bracketed, as spurious, in the Glasgow folio; on which Schutz, in his second edition, says " Hunc versionlam spurium esse, jam olim, monueramus. ASSENSIT PORSONUS, versiculum uncis includendo." An assertion so roundly made ought to be true:-but what is the fact? Simply this; M. Schutz, in his first edition, says not one word of the spuriousness of the verse, but writes on it with every appearance of believing it to be as genuine as any verse in Eschylus.-His notes shall be transcribed, at full length; length; and the reader is requested to verify our quotation by looking into the book itself: for, without actual inspection, it is not easy to believe that a writer can be so infatuated with the love of falsehood, as to indulge in it at the price of certain detection. "VARIETAS LECTIONIS. V. 86 (804 Pors.) Catinées] CATINET Ald. Casines Rob. Mosqu. 1. 2. Guelf." COMMENTARIUS. Clarius jam nuntius quod acciderat eloquitur: Urbs quidem servata est, reges autem fratres ipsi se invicem suis manibus occiderunt. Abreschius contulit Sophocli Antig. v. 177ἐκεῖνοι πρὸς διπλῆς μοίρας μίαν Καθ ̓ ἡμέραν ὤλοντο, παίσαντες τε καὶ In the collation of the Glasgow folio, Schutz's Eschylus, III. p. 362. is this statement: V. 806. [804. Pors.] nncis inclusus, ut spurius." [Not a word of ut ipsi monueramus.] M. BOTHE'S note shall be also quoted, that we may secure an opportunity of giving him just and unqualified praise: 754 (803. Pors.) Post bunc versum v. legitur: Πόλις σέσωσαι, βασιλέες δ ̓ ὁμόσποροι άνδρες, etc. que a dumbrata ex versu 822. (i. e. ed. Schutz. 820. Pors.) boc autem loco ineptissima sunt. Uncinis inclusit Porsonus. To return to the Supplices. V. 316. Δαναΐς. ἀδελφὸς δ ̓ ἐστὶ πο Scaliger apud Abresch. Stanleius. 317. καὶ τοῦ δαναοίγε, Ald. Rob. καὶ τοῦ γε Δαναού, Turn. Steph. Canter. døwvw Ald. dobóry Rob. spwvw Turn. Steph. Canter. In all the editions, V. V. 316, 317. are given to the same speaker.Schutz very rightly publishes Stanley's and Scaliger's emendation: but still the passage is corrupt: for how can Danaus's name be Egyptus? Scaliger therefore farther corrects, nai rod y' adexpoü,-very well as to the sense :-Sed emnia præ PORSONIANA lectione sordent ; Κ. Δαναός. ἀδελφὸς δ ̓ ἐστὶ πεντηκοστόπαις. Β. Καὶ ΤΟὟΔ' ΑΝΟΙΓΕ τοὔνομ ̓ ἐυφώνῳ λόγῳ Κ. Αἴγυπτος. davoye being once changed by a very common error into davays, the a, which was written over the word or in the margin as a correction, was taken into the text as if it had been intended for an addition. This mixture of an error and its correction is not unfrequent: in the Choëphoroe, V. 997, where Robortellus has δρύτης and Turnebus δροίτης, Aldus gives δρυοίτης, i. e. dpurns, tacente, ut solet, Schutzio. Schutz, Schutz, in his Commentary, says, "Vulgatam lectionem-etsi Stanleius videri poterat sic satis bene emendasse ;- -Multo tamen præstabilior est ea, quam Porsoni textus exhibet, sive eam ex codice aliquo hauserit, sive sua aut alius Critici nescio cujus con- · jectura indagatam receperit." If this editor had deigned to inspect Aldus and Robortellus, which he boasts of having diligently collated, he might have guessed the source whence roud' voye was drawn: but such is his diligence, that he has not given a single variation of the editions in this verse.-M. BOTHE publishes V.V. 316, 317 exactly as Mr. Porson, but without a word of a note. Two verses previously, he prints avapour, a word of his own making, for mavropov, and remarks; V. mavoopov, nimis absurde, nam si Danai nomen ignoret Pelasgus, ignorat autem, quomodo significationem verbi sciat." This leaden shaft is levelled. at Stanley; who had said, quasi Aavais a darval, scire :-but here is no ignorance, except in the present editor. Pelasgus questions the Chorus, to know, from their account of transactions with which he is himself acquainted, whether they are the persons whom they profess to be. V. 673. Thus Stanley's text: μηδέ τις ανδροκμής βοάν τε δήμων ἔξω παιζων. 873. μὴ θέτις Ald. μήτε τις Turn. μηδέ τις Rob. Steph. Cant. 675. daiZwv Ald. Turn. Sattwv Rob. Steph. Cant. 676. x.lapis Ald. Rob. Steph. Cant. png Turn. 677. "Apn Ald. Turn. Steph. Cant. "Apny Rob. 678. Shucv Ald. dawv Rob. Turn. Steph. Cant. The first critic who contributed to the restoration of this miserably depraved passage was Stanley :-"Omnino levi To A in ▲ permutatione veram hiç restituimus lectionem, legendo scil. iowv. Ita enim et infra loquitur, V.710. (696 Рors.) πpiv ikonníZev "Apn. et hujus Tragadia, V. 103. (97. Pors.) Είαν δ ̓ οὔτιν ἐξοπλίζει.” This correction is approved, certatim, by Pauw, Heath, and Schutz, who adopt it.. Next comes Pauw.-Vs. 691. (678 Pors.) faceris prefer rente Schol. bene restituit Pauwius, pro βοάν τε δήμων scribens βοών τ' ἔνδημον. ABRESCH. Heath approves, and Schutz adopts. Schutz, however, takes no notice of Aldus's δημον. The words of the Scholiast are, Βοάν τε δέμων] ἐμφύλιον μάχην, τήν [f. leg. ἢ τὸν] ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀπολωλόσι τοίν. Now let Heath be heard: "Neque metrum hujus versus satis constat nec sententia. Proculdubio legendum est, Αχορος ακίθαρις Emendationem hanc plane stabiliunt ista Sophoclis in Edip, Colon. v. 1286, 1287. Οτε μοίρ' ανυμεναίος αλυρος άχορος αναπέφηνε. Αλυρος apud Sophoclem idem prorsus valet ac hic ακιθαρίς.” Schutz adopts this remark, with very great reason, although Heath should have gone farther, as will appear from the Glasgow text: μηδέ τις ανδροκμής λοιγὶς ἐπελθέτω, *ΑΧΟΡΟΝ, ΑΚΊΘΑΡΙΝ, Εάν τ ̓ ἔδημον ἐξοπλίζων. Now indeed Eschylus speaks; and it would not be easy to shew any passage in which conjectural criticism is more signally triumphant: for thus writes Plutarch: ἡ δὲ ἀρειμάνιος αὕτη λεγομένη καὶ πολεμικὴ [μανία] παντὶ δῆλον ὅτι τῷ θεῷ ανίεται και βακχεύεται; *Αχαριν, οἰκίθαριν, εκ * και το γόνον άρ * * * τοτε δήμον εξοπλ ζουσαν. Erotico p. 758 F.-Read, ΔακΡΥΟγόνον ἄρΗΝ ΒΟΝ Νδημον ἐξοπλίζουσα. The quotation was pointed out by Prof. Porson, in his note to Phenisse 800 *. It would seem that the exquisite beauty of the verses, as they stand in the Glasgow edition, might have disarmed even M. BOTHE of his rage: but no such thing: thus he attacks them: *Αχορος, ακίθαρις, δακρυογόνον αρν Βοάν τ ̓ ἔνδημον ἐξεπαίρων. As for this passage in Plutarch, it never entered even into the dreams of Schutz! His note thus states his opinion: « Pro ἄχορος et ακίθαρις Porsonus ἄχορον et ακίθαρον in textum recipit, ut ad"Agn referatur. Quod quamquam per se haud ineptum est, tamen vul gata quoque codicum lectio habet quo se tueatur." The |