166.), may perhaps remind the reader of Falstaff's exclamation, Ah! whorson caterpillars! bacon-fed knaves! they hate us youth. We believe that this line is infested with the same error as v. 355. and that we ought to read, 'Arroi Te Todλoì X. T. λ. Compare v. 442. Καὶ μὴν ὅπου γε δῆμος αὐθέντης χθονός, Υποῦσιν ἀστοῖς ἥδεται Veavías. Mr. Hermann's punctuation of the last line, Merpix, θέλοντος, οὐκ ἐχρήζομεν λαβεῖν, is a needless refinement. The sense 15, μέτρια θέλοντος δοῦναι. 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. Καὶ ξυμπατάξαντες μέσον πάντα στρατὸν, Εκτεινον, ἐκτείνοντο. καὶ παρηγγύων Κελευσμὸν ἀλλήλοισι σὺν πολλῇ βοῇ, Θεῖν, ἀντέρειδε τοῖς 'Egexbeldais dogu. As these lines relate to both armies, the last verse is to be interpreted as if the poet had written, Olive Tous Kadμείους, ἀντέρειδε τοῖς ̓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 his 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 may have a better. He means, a better creditor.

V. 745. Οἱ τόξον ἐντείνοντες ὡς καιροῦ πέρα. Sic MSS. in Ald. EXTEίVOVTES. HERMANN. The Quarterly Reviewer proposes, o ἐκτείνοντες. τόξ' ἐπεντείνοντες. There is no occasion for this alteration, as τόξον in the singular number is found several times in the remains of the tragic poets. See Soph. Trach. 266. Phil. 288. 1128. Eurip. Bacch. 1064.

V. 752. Επεὶ ταραγμὸς πόλιν ἐκίνησεν δορὸς, Πύλας διῆλθον, ᾗπερ εἰσῄει στρατός. Vulgatum δορὶ in δορός mutavi. HERMANN. Read also ions. Some vestiges of this form still remain in the writings of the scenic poets. I. Eurip. Androm. 26. Kaì ngìv μèv èv xanoïoi κειμένην όμως, Ελπίς μ ̓ ἀεὶ προσῆγε, σωθέντος τέκνου, ̓Αλκήν τιν εὑρεῖν, κἀπικούφισιν (vulgo καπικούρησιν) κακῶν. For ΠΡΟΣΗΓΕ read ΠΡΟΣΗΙΕ. II. Aristoph. Plut. 696. Ο δὲ θεὸς ὑμῖν οὐ προσjev; ouderw. The v, which is wanting in Brunck's membrana and some other manuscripts, was added for the purpose of removing the hiatus, which was occasioned by changing the ancient form προσῇς, into the modern form προσῄει. The reading of the Ravenna manuscript, gorges, is another mode of accomplishing the same purpose. III. Antiphanes apud Athen. p. 15. A. Paluvda Tailwy HEIS EV PALECTION. Valckenaer (ad Phan. 1082.) corrects, Daiνινδα παίσων ᾖεν ἐς Φαινεστίου. Schweighäuser reads, Φαίνινδα παί Swv yev és PaiveCTiou. Rectius fortasse facturus eram, says Schweighäuser, si, quod Casaubonus suaserat, is Paweσriou scripsissem.

We suspect that in most places, in which the metre would not admit, the transcribers have substituted 20s. So Aristoph. Plut. 678. μετὰ τοῦτο δὲ Περιῇς τοὺς βωμοὺς ἅπαντας· ἐν κύκλῳ, Εἴ που πόπανον εἴη τι καταλελειμμένον. Επειτα ταῦθ ̓ ἡγιζεν εἰς σακτάν TIVO. The common reading is περιῆλθε, but περιῄει is exhibited in a grammatical fragment published by Hermann at the end of his treatise de Emendanda Ratione Græca Grammatice, p. 356. Περιε agrees much better than περιῆλθε with ἥγιζεν. The relation of περιῇε to περιῆλθε is exactly the same as that of ἤγιζε το ἥγισε. The most ancient form of this imperfect preterite was, a, as, ἤϊε, ήίτην, ἤμεν, ἤῖτε, ἦσαν. The Attics made no other alteration than the contraction of the two first syllables into one, a, as, e, την, ἦμεν, ἦτε, ἦσαν. See Photius and Suidas v. Ηΐα δισυλλάβως, and the Etymologist vv. 'Annμev, Elousy, His. The later Greeks invented a new form, hev, yes, ei, &c.; which, however, has not so universally supplanted the more ancient form, as to prevent us from finding ia 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, as, appears to have been converted into ota, by the same process which converted οίδας into οἶσθα. We find ἐπεξίησθα in the Euthyphron of Plato (p. 4. B.), which is probably a corruption of neola. The three persons of the plural number, uev, TE, Tσav, are frequently confounded with the corresponding persons of the substantive verb, ev, Tε, hoav. See Eurip. Androm. 1103. Cycl. 40. El. 775. Aristoph. Eccl. 490. Plut. 659. &c.

V. 763. ΑΓ. Οὐδεὶς ἐπέστη τῷδε δοῦλος ὢν πόνῳ. ΑΓ. Φαίης ἂν, εἰ παρῆσθ ̓, ὅτ' ἠγάπα νεκρούς. Excidit Adrasti versus. 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 v óv Mr. Hermann proposes to read ἐν πόνῳ.

V. 772. Αλλ' εἶεν. αἴρω χεῖς, ἀπαντήσας νεκροῖς, Αΐδου τε μολπὰς ἐκχέω δακρυῤῥόους. Tragici nunquam scribunt ἀλλ ̓ εἶεν, sed εἶεν solum. Lego, Αλλ' εἴ, ἀναίρων (vel ἐπαίρων) χεῖς, ἀπαντήσων νεκροῖς. MARKLAND. Mr. Hermann silently adopts απαντήσων, but defends aλx' elev in a long note, which contains nothing which is much to the purpose. In Attic prose, the future of anavra is always anarhoopai. See Thucydides iv. 77. vii. 2. 80. Xenophon Hellen. I. 6, 3. Lysias pp. 96. 923. Demosthenes p. 1043. Eschines pp. 163. 170. This fact, however, is not a decisive objection to navrhowv in the passage under consideration. We «, 'Αλλ' εἶμ'. ἐπαρῶ χεῖρ ̓, ἀπαντήσας νεκροῖς. ̓Απαντήσας is right, ause the action described by the words ἀπαντήσας νεκροῖς is suped to precede that described by the words trag zeige. The sense I will meet the dead bodies, and salute them. The following e of the Alcestis, which is quoted by Markland, is the best

commentary on the words ἐπαρῶ χεῖρε, V. 771. Οὐδ' ἐξέτεινα χεῖς, ἀποιμώζων ἐμὴν Δέσποιναν. With regard to ἀλλ' είμι, if the reader will take the trouble of consulting the following passages, we believe that he will prefer our emendation to that of Markland. Asch. Agam. 1322. Choëph. 779. Pers. 851. Soph. ŒEd. C. 503. Trach. 389. Aj. 654. Eurip. Phoen. 1016. Alc. 207. Audrom. 89. Heraci. 678. El. 1132. Aristoph. Pac. 232. &c. The future ἐπαρῶ needs no illustration, after what has been said by Porson, ad Med. 848. In the next verse, Markland wishes to alter ἐκχέω into ἐκχεῶ. The future of χέω, like that of γαμῶ, καλῶ, τελῶ, and some other verbs, is the same as the present. We subjoin three examples of it, in which xew is connected with other futures. I. Euripides Theseo. fr. 1. Κάρα τε γάρ σου ξυγχέω κόμαις ὁμοῦ, ̔Ρανεῖ τε * δ' ἐγκέφαλον, ὀμμάτων δ ̓ ἄπο Αἱμοσταγεῖ πρηστήρε ρεύσονται κάτω. II. Aristoph. Pac. 166. ̓Απολεῖς μ', ἀπολεῖς, οὐ κατορύξεις, | κἀπιφορή σεις τῆς γῆς πολλὴν, | καπιφυτεύσεις ἕρπυλλον ἄνω, | καὶ μύρον ἐπιχεῖς ; III. Plato Comicus apud Athen. p. 665. C. Τί οὐ τρέχων σὺ τὰς τραπέζας ἐκφέρεις ; ἐγὼ δὲ Λίτρον παραχέων ἔρχομαι, κἄγωγε παρακορήσων.

V. 782. 'Εμοὶ δ' ἐμῶν παίδων μὲν εἰσιδεῖν μέλη Πικρόν. Sic scripsi pro ἐμοὶ δὲ τῶν παίδων. HERMANN. The Quarterly Reviewer proposes, Εγὼ δὲ δὴ παίδων. We prefer Mr. Hermann's emendation. V. 811. Προσάγετε τῶν δυσπότμων | σώμαθ' αἱματοσταγή. Aid. προσάγετ ̓ ὦ δυσπότμῳ. Cod. A. προσάγετε δυσπότμῳ. Marklandus προσάγετε τῷ δυσπότμῳ. HERMAN Ν.

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' ὁ πολύστονος | Οἰδι πόδα δώματα λιποῦσ ̓ | ἦλθ ̓ 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 Gracorum. Perhaps 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.) "Ερημά σ ̓ ὁ πολύστονος Οἰδίπου (ΑΝΤ.) λιποῦσ ̓ Εριννὺς ἤλυθε δώματα. The measure is Alcaic.

V. 833. Πικροὺς ἐσεῖδες γάμους. [ πικρὰν δὲ Φοίβου φάτιν | ἔγημας. ὁ πολύστονος | Οιδιπόδα δώματα | λιποῦσ ̓ ἦλθ' Εριννύς. The common copies differ from each other only in punctuation. Mr. Hermann places a full stop after φάτιν, and reads ἔρημά σ' for ἔγημας, mentioning that Markland proposed ἔρημα 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, Πικροὺς ἐσεῖδες γάμους, [ πικρὰν δὲ Poißou páriv [xouras]. See our remark on v. 504. (Class. Journ. No. XVI. p. 438.) Adrastus answers, 'Es pas à OλÚTOVOS κ. τ. λ. The words ἐς ἡμᾶς ἦλθε appear to mean came to my house. We may also read 'pas. So Or. 86. Zd8' paxapía, μακαριός θ ̓ ὁ σὸς πόσις, Ἥκετον ἐφ' ἡμᾶς ἀθλίως πεπραγότας. In a preceding passage of the Orestes (v. 60.), we find the words els δῶμ' ἡμέτερον employed in the same sense.

V. 838. Μέλλων σ ̓ ἐρωτῶν ἡνίκ ̓ ἐξήντλεις στρατῷ, Γόους ἀφήσω τοὺς ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐκλιπών Εἰς τὰ τά γε μύθους. νῦν δ' Αδραστον ἱστορῶ. 5ο Aldus. In the modern editions, the punctuation is as follows: Μέλλων σ' ἐρωτῶν, ἡνίκ ̓ ἐξήντλεις στρατῷ Γόους, ἀφήσω, τοὺς ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐκλίπων κ. τ. λ. 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 σ ̓ ἐρωτῶν, ἡνίκ ̓ ἐξήντας στρατῷ, Γόους ἀφήσων, τοὺς ἐκεῖ μὲν ἐκλιπών Εἴασα μύθους, νῦν δ' *Αδραστον ἱστορῶ, 2. T. λ. Being about to ask you the following question, when you came to meet the army for the purpose of bewailing 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 res; a fact which is mentioned by Markland, but which was not present in our recollection, when

vras 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 ras. The common form άлvýσas occurs above, v. 772. We do not think, however, that this objection is very serious. "Ana λeyoueva of this kind are very abundant in the tragedies. Unusual combinations of prepositions and verbs, and usual combinations in an unusual sense, give variety and novelty to the diction of tragedy, although they frequently render it obscure. II. Γόους ἀφήσων. Compare El. 59. Γόους τ ̓ ἀφίημ αιθέρ' εἰς μέγαν πατρί. In this sense ιέναι is more commonly used than apiva. In v. 1022. of the Orestes, apiévai yoous means to leave of lamentation : Οὐ σίγ ̓ ἀφεῖσα τοὺς γυναικείους γόους, Στέρξεις τὰ xgavlévt'; In v. 111. of the play before us, this sense is expressed by the words πάρες γόον. 111. Perhaps the poet wrote, τοὺς ἐκεῖθεν ἐκλιπών. Εκεῖθεν frequently signifies ἐκεῖ. We have observed an stance of the corruption of exeidev into exei μèv, but we cannot fer to it at present. IV. We do not propose aoa for eis τà σá with intire confidence, although we have no doubt that some

verb is concealed under the letters ΕΙΣΤΑΣ Α. We boldly reject the ye, as an interpolation made on account of the metre. The pleonasm ἐκλιπών εἴασα, in which the participle and the verb have nearly the same signification, may be compared with ἀφεὶς ἐα, ἔφη λέγων, &c. V. The words νῦν δ' Αδραστον ἱστορῶ have induced Reiske, Markland, and the present editor, to consider the preceding words as addressed to the chorus. It would be easy to propose, νῦν δ', *Αδραστ ̓, ἀνιστορῶ, or, νῦν δ', "Αδραστέ, σ ̓ ἱστορῶ, 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 καὶ ξυνάορον, Εἰ χρή μ', ἐρωτῶ. χρή δ', ἐπεί γε δεσπότης Ὑμῶν καθέστηχ', ἱστορεῖν ἃ βούλομαι. Before we leave this passage, we have to mention, that σοφώτερος, in the next line but one, meanis σοφώτερος ἐμοῦ. See vv. 928 -931.

V. 857. "Ακουε δὴ νῦν (al. δή νυν). καὶ γὰρ οὐκ ἄκοντί μοι Δίδως ἔπαι· μον τῶν ἔγωγε βούλομαι Φίλων ἀληθῆ καὶ δίκαι ̓ εἰπεῖν πέρι. Mr. Hermann is silent. If the reader wishes to know what Pierson, Mark land, and Musgrave, have said concerning this passage, and more particularly concerning the use of rv for v, he knows where to find their annotations. We believe that it is now generally understood, that T cannot be used for v after a consonant, except in the lyric parts of the drama. In the Basil edition of 1562. v.858. is thus represented, Δίδως ἔπαινον, τῶνδ ̓ ἔγωγε βούλομαι. The same reading is proposed by Markland. Perhaps Euripides wrote, Δίδως ἔπαινον τόνδ'. ἐγὼ δὲ βούλομαι κ. τ. λ. You commit this funeral oration to me.

V. 881. Ο δ' αὖ τρίτος τῶνδ ̓, Ιππομέδων, τοιόσδ' ἔφυ. Παῖς ὢν ἐτόλμησ ̓ εὐθὺς οὐ πρὸς ἡδονὰς Μουσῶν τραπέσθαι, πρὸς τὸ μαλθακὴν βίου. ̓Αγροὺς δὲ ναίων, σκληρὰ τῇ φύσει διδοὺς Εχαιρε, πρὸς τἀνδρεῖον, εἴς τ' ἄγρας των, Ιπποις τε χαίρων, τόξα τ' ἐντείνων χεροίν, Πόλει παρ ρασχεῖν σῶμα χρήσιμον θέλων. Reiskius non male πρός τε μαλθακὸν βίον. Ει πρός τε jam alii, Barnesio teste. Βίον autem cod. C. Fulgato respondet πρὸς τἀνδρεῖον. ΗERMANN. Mr. Hermann is the first editor, who seems to have understood this passage. The expressions πρὸς τὸ μαλθακὸν βίου, and πρὸς τἀνδρεῖον, are elliptical, and may be compared with πρὸς βίαν, πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, πρὸς ἔχθραν, πρὸς ἡδονὴν, πρὸς ὀργὴν, προς χάριν, &c. Asch. Prom. 219. Ως οὐ κατ' ἰσχὺν, οὐδὲ πρὸς τὸ καρτερὸν Χρείη, δόλῳ δὲ τοὺς ὑπερσχόντας κρατ τεῖν. The complete expression is πρὸς τὸ καρτερὸν ἰόντες, but the participle is suppressed. In the passage of Euripides, therefore, there is no occasion for the emendation proposed by the Quarterly Reviewer, καὶ τὸ μαλθακὸν βίου. The sense is, πρὸς τὸ μαλθακὸν βίου ιών. In the same manner, the words εἴς τ' ἄγρας των might be omitted without injuring the sense of the expression πρὸς τἀνδρεῖον. Perhaps it may not be superfluous to observe, that the character of Hippomedon, as drawn in this passage, was afterwards expan