156.), may perhaps remind the reader of Falstaff's exclamation, Ah!" whorson caterpillars ! bacon-fed knaves! they hute us youth. We believe that this line is infested with the same error as v. 355. and that we ought to read, 'Artoi te modo *.7. a. Compare v. 442. Και μην όπου γε δήμος αυθέντης χθονός, Υπούσιν άστοϊς ήδεται yeaviars. Mr. Hermann's punctuation of the last line, Mérpimo Génoytos, oủx éxsusojeev naßsīv, is a needless refinement. The sense 1s, μέτρια θέλοντος δούναι. Greek writers not unfrequently leave a word to be supplied in one member of the sentence from a word of a contrary signification in another member of the sentence. Another ellipsis of this kind occurs in the present scene. V. 699. Και ξυμπατάξαντες μέσον πάντα στρατόν, 'Εκτεινον, εκτείνοντο. και παρηγγύων Κελευσμών αλλήλοισι συν πολλή βοή, Θεϊν', αντέρειδε τοις Egegebeldans dégu. As these lines relate to both armies, the last verse is to be interpreted as if the poet had written, Ocive tous Kasμείους, αντέρειδε τοις 'Ερεχθείδαις δόρυ. In consequence of missing this interpretation, Markland has applied the three preceding verses exclusively to the Theban army, and in consequence of this misapplication, has proposed to remove vv. 697. 693. from their present situation, and to place them after v. 706. See bis note on v. 699. It appears by the two last lines of Swift's verses on his own death, that this kind of ellipsis prevailed in Dublin as well as in Athens. That kingdom he hath left his debtor, 1 wish it soon inay

have a better. He means, a belter creditor. V. 745. Tótov értSivutes Ws xangoû négo. Sic MSS. in Ald. £XTELYOYTES. HERMANN. The Quarterly' Reviewer proposes, oi TOE ÉTEYTELYOVTss. There is no occasion for this alteration, as TEON in the singular number is found several times in the remains of the tragic poets. See Soph. Trach. 266. Phil. 289. 1128. Eurip. Bacch. 1064.

V. 752. 'Επεί ταραγμός πόλιν εκίνησεν δορός, Πύλας διήλθον, ήπερ sisje otgatós. Vulgatum &ogi in dogos mutavi. HermANN. Read also eioji. Some vestiges of this form still remain in the writings of the scenic poets. I. Eurip. Androm. 26. Kai agiu pèr év xaxoios κειμένην όμως, 'Ελπίς μ' αεί προσήγε, σωθέντος τέκνου, 'Αλκήν τιν εύρειν, κάπικούφισίν (vulgo καπικούρησιν) κακών. For ΠΡΟΣΗΓΕ read TIPOHIE. II. Aristoph. Plut. 696. 'O 8è Deos únav goojew; ouderw. The vü, which is wanting in Brunck's membranæ and some other manuscripts, was added for the purpose of removing the hiatus, which was occasioned by changing the ancient form agerja, into the modern form a gooyes. The reading of the Ravenna manuscript, a gooyse y', is another mode of accomplishing the same purpose." II. Antiphanes apud Athen. p. 15. A. Palvivêx naitwy

t; # E Tou. Valckenaer (ad Phan. 1089.) corrects, daiκινδα παίσων δεν ές Φαινεστίου. Schweighäuser reads, Φαίνινδα παίLov jer és Pasvertlou. Rectius fortasse facturus eram, says Schweighäuser, și, quod Casaubonus suaserat, že és Davver thou scripsissem.

[ocr errors]

We suspect that in most places, in which the metre would not
admit yes, the transcribers have substituted fags. So Aristoph.
Ρlut. 678. μετά τούτο δε Περιήε τους βωμούς άπαντας ένα κύκλω, Εί
που πόπανον είη τι καταλελειμμένον. 'Επειτα ταύθ' ήγιζεν είς σακτών
τινα. The common reading is περιήλθε, but περιήει is exhibited in
a grammatical fragment published by Hermann at the end of his
treatise de Emendanda Ratione Græcæ Grammatice, p. 356.
Περιήε agrees much better than περιήλθε with ήγιζεν. The relation
of περιήε το περιήλθε is exactly the same as that of ήγιζε το ήγισε.
The most ancient form of this imperfect preterite was, ñia, rias,
nie, hitny, nöuev, fire, nay. The Attics made no other alteration
than the contraction of the two first syllables into one, ja, jas, šs,
pony, juev, šte, pouv. See Photius and Suidas v. Hic clouzießws,
and the Etymologist w. 'Arğusv, Elonusy, Herr. The later Greeks
invented a new form, nav, jers, pai, &c.; which, however, has
not so universally supplanted the more ancient form, as to pre-
vent us from finding fic or a very frequently in our present copies
of the Attic writers. See, for instance, Plato Apol. Socr. pp.
21. D. E. 22. A. C. &c. The second person singular, jas, ap-
pears to have been converted into yoia, by the same process which
converted oidas into olola. We find én? Einola in the Euthyphron
of Plato (p. 4. B.), which is probably a corruption of énetzola.
The three persons of the plural number, puev, Te, oav, are fre-
quently confounded with the corresponding persons of the substan-
tive verb, juev, yte, nouv. See Eurip. Androm, 1103. Cycl. 40.
El. 775. Aristoph. Eccl. 490. Plut. 659. &c.

V.763. ΑΓ. Ουδείς επέστη τώδε δούλος ών πόνω. ΑΓ. Φαίης άν, ει
Fagãos", çr' nyána vexgous. Excidit Adrasti tersus. Neque enim ausim
cum Lobeckio ad Ajacem p. 228. versum 764. ut spurium delere.
HERMANN. The Quarterly Reviewer is of the same opinion as
Mr. Hermann. Instead of cộv rovco Mr. Hermann proposes to
read év tróvo.

V. 772. 'Αλλ' είεν. αίρω χείρ', απαντήσας νεκρούς, Αίδου τε μολπάς éxzém daxpupbóovs. Tragici nunquam scribuni áix' elev, sed eisy solutm. Lego, 'Αλλ' εί', αναίρων (vel επαίρων) χείς, απαντήσεων yexpoñs. MARKLAND. Mr. Hermann silently adopts aparthow, but defends axx' clev in a long note, which contains nothing which is much to the purpose. In Attic prose, the future of anavtő is always starthrouai. See Thucydides iv. 77. vii. 2. 80. Xenophon 1Jellen. I. 6, 3. Lysias pp. 96. 923. Demosthenes p. 1043. schines pp. 163. 170. 'This fact, however, is not a decisive objection to úpartýown in the passage under consideration. We «4, 'Αλλ' ειμ'. επαρώ χείρ', απαντήσας νεκρούς. 'Απαντήσας is right, isso the action described by the words atartýpus vexpois is supd to precede that described by the words énagã xeige. The sense I will meet the dead bodies, and salute them. The following

« of the Alcestis, which is quoted by Markland, is the best

[ocr errors]

Commentary on the words επαρώ χείρε. V. 771. Ουδ' εξέτεινα χείρ', άποιμώζων εμήν Δέσποιναν. With regard to αλλ' ειμι, if ille reader will take the trouble of consulting the following passages, we believe that he will prefer our emendation to thai of Markland. Æsch. Agam. 1390. Choeph.779. Pers. 851. Soph. Ed. C.503. Trach. 38). Αj. 654. Eurip. Phen. 1016. Alc. 207. Audrom. 89. Heraci. 678. Εί. 1132. Aristoph. Pac. 232. &c. The future et cepū needs no illustration, after what has been said by Porson, ad Med. 848. Ia the next verse, Markland wishes to alter éxxéw into éxyew. The future of χέω, like that of γαμώ, καλώ, τελώ, and some other verbs, is the same as the present.

We subjoin three examples of it, in which xéw is connected with other futures. I. Euripides Theseo. fr. 1. Κάρα τε γάρ σου ξυγχέω κόμαις ομού, Ρανεί τε * δ' εγκέφαλος, όμμάτων δ' άπο Αιμοσταγεί πρηστηρε ρεύσονται κάτω. ΙΙ. Aristoph. Ρac. 166. Απολείς μ', απολείς, ου κατορύξεις, | κάπιφορήσεις της γης πολλών, | κάπιφυτεύσεις έρπυλλος άνω, | και μύρον επιχείς ; ΠΙ. Ρlato Comicus apud Αthen. p. 665. C. Τί ου τρέχων συ τας τραπέζας έκφέρεις; εγω δε Λίτρoν παραχέων έρχομαι, κάγωγε παρακοφήσων.

V. 782. 'Εμοί δ' έμών παίδων μεν εισιδείν μέλη Πικρόν. Sic scripsi pro εμοί δε των παίδων. ΗΕ: MANN. The Quarterly Reviewer proposes, 'Εγω δε δή παίδων. We prefer Mr. Hermann's emendation.

V. 811. Προσάγετε των δυσπότμων | σώμαθ' αίματοσταγή. Αld. προσάγετ' ώ δυσπότμω. Cod. Α. προσάγετε δυσπότμο. Μarklandus προσάγετε τη δυσπότμα. HERMANN.

Vv. 824—837. This epode, for so it is, affords the only conspicuous example to be found in this tragedy, of that antistrophic mania, which rages so violently in the north of Germany, but which has been prevented by the war from making its way into England. In Mr. Hermann's edition, these fourteen short verses are divided into three strophes and three antistrophes, besides the following little epode of three lines : "Ερημά σ' απολύστoνος | Οίδιπόδα δώματα λιπούσ’ | ήλθ' 'Εριννύς. Mr. Hermann informs us, that it is to Mr. Seidler that we are indebted for this arrangement, which does not appear in his book de Versibus Dochmiacis Tragicorum Græcorum. Perliaps Mr. Seidler, when his hand was in, might as well have divided the preceding little epode into a fourth strophe and antistrophe, in the following manner : (STR.) "Epnué σ' α πολύστoνος Οιδίπου (ANT.) λιπούσ'Εριννύς ήλυθε δώματα. The measure is Alcaic.

V. 833. Πικρούς εσείδες γάμους. ( πικράν δε Φοίβου φάτιν | έγημας. απολύστoνος | Οιδιπόδα δώματα | λιπούσήλθ' 'Εριννύς. - The common copies differ from each other only in punctuation. Mr. Hermann places a full stop after φάτν, and reads έρημά σ' for έγημας, menioning that Μarkland proposed έρημα δ'. Although it is dangerous to tamper with passages of which the metre is uncertain, we venture to propose the following arrangement of these words. Ta

the chorus we give the words, Πικρούς εσείδες γάμους, [ πικράν δε poisou pátiv [ñxousas]. See our remark on v. 504. (Class. Journ. No. XVI. p. 438.) Adrastus answers, ’Es juãs Torúc TOVOS *. 5. a. The words és ötãs ads appear to mean came to my house. We may also read fo' quãs. So Or. 86. 20 en Maxapia, μακαριός θ' ό σος πόσις, "Ηκετον εφ' ημάς αθλίως πεπραγότας. In a preceding passage of the Orestes (v. 60.), we find the words eis Eospel huétegov employed in the same sense.

V. 838. Μέλλων σέρωτάν ηνίκ' εξήντλεις στρατώ, Γόους αφήσω τους εκεί μέν εκλιπών Εις τα σά γε μύθους. νύν δ' 'Αδραστoν ιστορώ. So Aldus. In the modern editions, the punctuation is as follows: Μέλλων σέρωτάν, ηνίκ' εξήντλεις στρατώ Γόους, αφήσω, τους έχει μεν ÉXAITWY X. 7. 2. Mr. Hermann has a note upon this difficult passage, which does not throw much light upon it. Without dwelling on the objections to the common reading, we will propose our own correction. Μέλλων σέρωτάν, ηνίκ' εξήντας στρατώ, Γόους αφήσων, τους εκεί μέν εκλιπών Eίασα μύθους, νύν δ' *Αδραστoν ιστορώ, 7. t. d. Being about to ask you the following question, when You came to meet the army for the purpose of bercuiling the dead (v. 772.), I desisted from my intention, and omitted what I meant to say. But now, Adrastus, I ask you, &c. The violence of Adrastus's grief probably convinced Theseus, that it would not be advisable to put him upon making an elaborate oration at that moment, The delay, too, would be advantageous in another respect, as it would enable the spectators to hear that oration. There are five things to be considered in our representation of this passage. I, ΕΞΗΝΤΑΙΣ for ΕΞΗΝΤΛΕΙΣ, is a very slight alteration. The edition of Brubach reads Ehres; a fact which is mentioned by Markland, but which was not present in our recollection, when atles occurred to us. We must not dissemble, that this correction is liable to one objection, which is, that there is no authority, as far as we know, for the compound Euras. The common form ÅTXTÝsas occurs above, v. 772. We do not think, however, that this objection is very serious. "Απαξ λεγόμενα of this kind are very abundant in the tragedies. Unusual combinations of prepositions and verbs, and usual coinbinations in an unusual sense, give variety and novelty to the diction of tragedy, although they frequently render it obscure. II. rówus acúow. Compare El. 59. rớous ' apinje' aillég' eis péyay axtgí. In this sense isyo is more cominonly used than & Plévels. In v. 1022. of the Orestes, ápiévas yóous means to leave of lamentation : Ου σίγο αφείσα τους γυναικείους γόους, Στέρξεις τα xgavlévt'; In v. Ul. of the play before us, this sense is expressed by the words réges gyóov. 111. Perhaps the poet wrote, tous êxember

xhirós. 'Excidey frequently signities éxeī. We have observed an instance of the corruption of exsiðev into éxsi yèv, but we cannot refer to it at present. IV. We do not propose sícou for eis ys with intire confidence, although we have no doubt that some

terb is concealed under the letters ÉIÈTAXA. We boldly reject the ye, as an interpolation made on account of the metre. The pleonasm εκλιπών είασα, in which the participle and the verb have hearly the same signification, may be compared with aceis έα, έφη λέγων, &c.

V. The words νύν δ' "Αδραστoν ιστορώ have induced Reiske, Markland, and the present editor, to consider the preceding words as addressed to the chorus. It would be easy to propose, νύν δ', 'Aδραστ', ανιστορώ, or, νύν δ', 'Aδραστέ, σιστορώ, if we were certain that the common reading is inconsistent with our interpretation. But the use of the third person instead of the second is common in Greek, as well as in most other languages. Compare Herc. 140. Τον Ηράκλειον πατέρα και ξυνάορον, Ει χρή μ, έρωτώ. χρή δ', επεί γε δεσπότης Υμών καθεστηχ', ιστορείν ά βούλομαι. Before we leave this passage, we have to mention, that ropárepos, in the next line but one, meatis copótepos &uoũ. See vv. 928-981.

V. 857. 'Απουε δή νύν (al. δή νυν). και γαρ ουκ άκοντί μοι Δίδως έπαιφον των έγωγε βούλομαι Φίλων αληθή και δίκαι' ειπείν πέρι. Mr. Hermann is silent. If the reader wishes to kuow what Pierson, Markland, and Musgrave, have said concerning this passage, and more particularly concerning the use of tūv for úv, he kuows where to find their annotations. We believe that it is now generally understood, that tűy cannot be used for tv after a consonant, except in the lyric parts of the drama. In the Basil edition of 1562. v.858. is thus represented, Δίσως έπαινον, τώνδ' έγωγε βούλομαι. The same reading is proposed by Markland. Perhaps Euripides wrote: Δίδως έπαινον τόνδ'. εγω δε βούλομαι κ. τ. λ. You commit this funeral oration to me.

V. 881. Ο δ' αυ τρίτος τώνδ', Ιππομέδων, τoιόσδ' έφυ. Παίς ών ετόλμησευθύς ου προς ηδονάς Λουσών τραπέσθαι, προς το μαλθακόν βίου. 'Aγρούς δε ναίων, σκληρά τη φύσει διδούς 'Εχαιρε, πρός τάνδρείον, είς τ' άγρας των, Ιπποις τε χαίρων, τόξα τ' εντείνων χερoϊν, Πόλεί παρασχεϊν σώμα χρήσιμον θέλων. Reiskius non male πρός τε μαλθακόν βίον. Εt πρός τε jam alii, Barnesio teste. Βίον autem cod. C. Vulgato respondet προς τανδρείον. Η ERMANN. Mr. Hermann is the first editor, who seems to have understood this passage. The Expressions προς το μαλθακόν βίου, and πρός τάνδρείον, are elliptical, and may be compared with προς βίαν, προς ευσέβειαν, προς έχθραν, προς ηδονήν, προς οργήν, προς χάριν, &c. ΑΕsch. Prom. 212. Ως ου κατ' ισχύν, ούδε προς το καρτερόν Xρείη, δόλω δε τους υπερσχόντας κρατεϊν. The complete expression is προς το καρτερόν ιόντες, but the participle is suppressed. In the passage of Euripides, therefore, there is no occasion for the emendation proposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, και το μαλθακόν βίου. The sense is, προς το μαλθακόν βίου ιών. In the same manner, the words είς τ' άγρας των might be omitted without injuring the sense of the expression agès tåvågerov. Perhaps it may not be snperfluous to observe, that the character of Hippomedon, as drawn in this passage, was afterwards expan

« 前へ次へ »