« ZurückWeiter »
with his learning. The third example from Æschylus is this, Cho€ph. 654.
Ειπερ φιλοξενος εστιν Αιγισθα βια: where the professor substitutes oino famn, but corroborates this feminine termination of the compound adjective by no passages of sufficient congruity and certainty. But, should we grant the word to be unexceptionable, the passage contains an incivility of infinuation disparaging to the poet, nor consonant to the situation of the speaker. We are inclined to prefer a suggestion of our own:
Eite! Qiaočava polux Alyoote Bix; The address is abrupt and incomplete, in conformity with the affected impatience of Orestes; and accordingly Evdov ev dovois must be tacitly supplied from the preceding verses. In another passage from the Supplices, ver. 800,
Προς ον νεση δι' υδρηλα γιγνεται χιων: the editor proposes the reading of Aldus and Robertellus vegn di copmaa. We thould rejoice to have been told what poflible force or propriety can be ascribed to the de in this connection. In yɛ we could discern the customary power of the particle, and the spirit of these writers : ubi fcilicet: in that substitution, therefore, it sems most adviseable and secure to acquiesce ; otherwise we should propose:
Προς ον νεξη ΔΙΥΓΡΑ γιγνεται χιων : or possibly still nearer dindpa, though this word be not extant in our lexicons : but these niceties are left to the decition of the reader.
But we have ventured on these hesitations at the professor's mandates with'fear and trembling. The professor himself, and his squire, the critic militant, have inscribed over the critical throne, in characters that flash intimidation in the eyes of all who presume to controvert their supremacy, the maxim of the poet:
Our ayajor Tohumouco.nr. cis youçavos 857W,
Exyfitcov: and, frightful to think, and forinidable to relate ! this fcepire is exercised in the style of true classical antiquity on every presumptuous opponent :
Σκηπτρα ταχ’ αρα σον καθαιμαξω καρα; We shall now go forward to a furvey of some passages in be Hecuba itfelf.
Ar ver. 11, the comma should have been preserved, as in Beek's edition:
pamp, iv, El Fore: but these defects of punctuation, fufficiently numerous, where not injurious to the verse, we shall forbear to notice, as such remarks may be esteemed frivolous ; though, in our opinion, this species of accuracy is a capital excellence in any writer.
In ver. 15, ojos ar nu is very improper. If the profeffor joins such words as EiTEP, OUXETI, &c. surely ther', which is inseparable from vios in this acceptation, is disunited with no propriety whatever.
At ver. 28, the professor, with all former editors, misconceives the sense and construction of the passage, when he supposes a foriner 4210tk to be omitted. We will give a much simpler and more elegant representarion of the verses, after the follow, ing punctuation :
χειμαι δ' επ' ακταις αλλοτ'; εν ποντα σαλα,
arnau OTOS, Q72°05' YOU OOTIES, The contrast lies between arlotę and ruv: “At other times my position is on the borders of the shore, among the breakers; but now I ain flitting in a state of separation from the body-.' Ποντα σαλα is explanatory of ακταις: and this exactly correfponds to Homer's inquire Jaracons--the breakers. Compare vv. 699, 700. Compare Helen. 1285. Iph. Taur. 253.
An imitation of these elegant verses by a poet of great merit in other respects, besides that of an unequaled purity in iambic verse, but very undefervedly neglected, may prove not unacseptable to the reader :
Τονδ', οία δυπτην κηρυλον, δια στενά
Διπλων μεταξυ χοιραίαν σαρεμενον.
In ver. 41, we find an error of orthography, very common indeed in such words, and venial in editors of ordinary magnis tude, but inexcusable in so accurate a scholar as Mr. Porion, προσφαγμα, intead of Tροςσφαγμα; τvhich is the proper word here, and of a different fignincation from the former.
Ver. 112. The editor judiciously prefers ore to óti, but his reason is inaccurate: • Plus enim eft, fi quis fimul et rein ipsam et rei teinpus quani fi rem folam mcmorat.' In truth ¿Te comprehends and implies the other; the professor therefore thould have said;": Significantius est ote: nam, qui tempus nofcat, haud dubie rem ipfam tencat necefle est.'
A very remarkable passage, and of much difficulty, occurs at V. 243, on which the profeffor's exertions are wholly supetficial and inefficient :
0169'yir' ya des IN18 XIT 20XGTIS,
çova claraquoi onu xateria Gox yavur;' For Govov Musgrave recommends dorov, our editor @ofov, which comes indeed nearer in appearance to covou, but is not well adapted to the supposed fact of a man voluntarily undertaking this adventure. This word, however, constituies but a trivial particle of what is puzzling and exceptionable in the verses: they are destitute of legitimnate construction. The former ti, according to the regularity and accuracy of these writers, connects something similar, preceding or subsequent; but taTATKOTOS, an agent, forms no proper correspondence with kuoppos dusznainą, a mere external variation. Belides, the forms ήνικο ηλθες and σταλαγμοι κατεσταζον are not fuitably confecutive, nor agreeable to the genius of Greek compofition. These niceties are not easily pointed out by words, and are rather to be felt than explained; but no reader, we will venture to lav, well versed in the subject, will not be aware of this illegiti. macy and harshness after our admonition and appeal to his sensations. In short, whoever will take the trouble of comparing the parallel passage in Rhes. 712, and the original in Homer's Od. A. 214, must be inclined to conclude that a fisti. tious madness, or idiotism, was adopted by Ulysses on this occaTion. For these reasons we will venture to propose, under a due impression of awe and reverence, with the professor's permission and the permission of his critical friends, the following correction and conception of the passage, which would leave also a regular and unexceptionable construction:
0:69', 77% 7,70€s I7.18 XaTAOXOTOS,
ΑΦΡΟΥ σταλαγμους στην ΚΑΤΑΣΤΑΖΩΝ γενν; The second verse now means disguised both in dress AND countenance: and how easily the s in otarayuoss might be lost in that position, every body fees: but that alteration of the subftantive would readily superinduce the corruption of its verb. Compare with the Rhesus a very apposite passage in the LXX, i Reg. xxi. 13. Compare allo allo Iph. Taur. 308-Herc. fur. 934–Plut. vi. 62. im, ed. Reiske; for we are unwilling to multiply our quotations beyond necessity in the course of our remarks.
At ver. 448, the professor has excogitated an alteration of a nature so subtile and recondite, as would alouc fuffice to carry
down his fame with unrivaled glory to posterity. Other editions have, with most lamentable and fatal incorrectness:
Aðga, Tortiàs aðga: . he substitutes, with incomparable acuteness and most edifying restoration:
Aüça Tortiàs aiça. But we wrong the reader whilst we prevent our learned critic from communicating the discovery in his own words : ' Mutavi accentum, cuin fecunda hujus vocis producatur.' In the mean time we are reminded of some lines in Butler:
• For he a rope of sand could twist
That's empoy, when the moon is full.' What an union have we here! Such rare talents with such despicable trilling.
What our editor feenis to blame, and with justice, in Brunck, at ver. 464, he comınits himself at ver. 487, where he adopts Aida, a conjecture of Mulgrave’s, instead of the authorised reading Apoc, unnecessarily, as both constructions are in use: see Troad. 351, and Elect. 89 is in fact an apposite example.
We are surprised, that the professor at ver. 513, which by an error of the press is put 509, should not have accepted readily, as more fignificant, the reading of the Harleian MS. because Talthybius does not merely ustacl1XE1—-come afterHecuba, to find her, as in Supp. 99, Theseus after Evadne and her company; but with a view also of conducting her to another place, ver. 512, On this account we thould have thought it impoffible for any competent judge to belitate a moment between the readings at Phænisl. 1328.
-εγα δ' ήκω μετα ΣΤΕΛΩΝ αδελφην-. Noting can be more infipid than yepwv in this place. Comparc Hec. 725.
At ver. 515 we think the prełent editor mistaken with his predecessors in placing an interrogation at the clause: • Obl, To 2.5$Els; Oum. Qo' us Sausiry
μετήλθες ημας, αλλα σημαναν κακα και Put a period at nana' and understand the sentence'as the language of despair. SO THEN you are not come atter me to put me to death, but to signify calamities !' Apa, when interrogative, has the former fyllable long, being put for mpą. The (choliast might have instructed shein bester . see ver. 519. But poflibly the professor looks for his remedy in those little con. jurers, the magic tribe of curve and circle and inclined plane; . which he places above his words; whose prodigious achievements we have commemorated with due respect at ver. 448. Instances, we know, may be adduced to the contrary of our supposition here, and of such exceptions the scholiast also was aware: but they are either great fingularities, or liable to much suspicion of integrity.
Ver. 912. oux iria s', do' avexta. The professor observes, that one MS. has y'instead of ple and certainly the former particle would be preferable with oude : buc we should read in reality : .
Our cola s', OTT' avexta. Brunck has advanced some positions on this point, both in his notes on Apollonius Rhodius and Æschylus, which are by no means accurate. Of an elegant verse, 754,
ορας νεκρoν τoνδ', ου κατασταζω δακρυ και the professor seasonably points out an imitation by Ennius, preserved in the collections of Nonius : . " Vide hunc meæ in quem lacrumæ guttatim cadunt.' But it is remarkable that his fagacity should have overlooked a flight error in the Latin verse, when thus brought into comparison with its original. Read interrogatively, as in Euripides:
• Viden hunc meæ in quem lacrumæ guttatim cadunt ?' Nor, on this subject of imitation, would he have acted unprofitably to his studious youth had he furnished them with an opportunity of contemplating and admiring the superior majesty of Roman poetry in some verses of the Mantuan, adumbrated from ver. 770 just below, and v. 21, 22, of the prologue tm this play:
• Ille, ut opes fra&tæ Teucrûm, et Fortuna recelit,
Vi poritur.' What a contrast between the fimplicity and tenuity of the Athenian, and the magniticence and splendour of the Latin bard : a bard, without a rival for poetic language and majestic numbers among the favourites of the Muses !
In ver. 768, our editor justly excepts to the ' in Tivos y'um' ans, and for your proposes #pos. But how this latter word could ever be supplanted by the foriner, it is difficult to com. preliend: the poet wrote, we think, Tivos CAP anaovu. When the