Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

012

[merged small][ocr errors]

in this reading, tacitly altered it to Ery' õios. But the sense of the
passage is not at all assisted by this alteration. “ The senate decreed
to hold a meeting --if there is leisure ;” rather, “ if there should be
leisure.” Neither could the herald be ignorant when lie proclaimed
this, whether they had sufficient leisure or not. The first edition (by
Junta) has my anos quiv oyoań. which approaches very near the true
reading restored to the text from the MS. ή μάλισθ' ημίν σχολή:
which day we are most at leisure.” The third day of the Thesmopho-
ria was a fast. (vid. Atheneum VII. p. 307. F.)

In the Pax, when Trygæus and the chorus are drawing the goddess
Irene out of the well, the chorus exclaims, v. 496. '$ mano ET TIVES
Biriv ev ruiv

. Mr. B's MS. had '125 nandy of Tines sioir ev quis. of wbiels, he says, he could make nothing for a long time, till he luckily found the true reading in Suitlas, V. κακόνοι· Ως κακόνοι τινές εισιν εν ημίν. “There are certainly some disaffected people among us.” And so the scholiast seems to have read in his copy, as one may conjecture from his explanatiou.

In the Equites, v. 1300, &c. the triremes are in great agitation: upon hearing that Hyperbolus is going to petition for a fleet, they vow that he shall never command them. But, says one, who had never come near man, if the Athenians consent to this motion

καθήσθαί μοι

δοκω
Σίς το θησείον πλεούσαις, ή 'πί των σεμνών θεών.
In which words there is neither sense por syntax.

Whoever has a mind to see what the critics have written about it and about it, may consult Pelit (Leg. Attic. p. 79.) D'Orville and Salvini (Miscell. Observat. Vol. III. p. 401,2.) Dawes (Misc. Crit. p. 252.) Mr. Brunek has restored from conjecture, boxei - T7.50ŪC25. referring to Vesp. 270. “ I advise that we sail either to the Theseum, or the temple of the Eumenides, and take refuge there.” The emendation is ingenious and certain, nor does it the less honor to Mr. Brunck's sagacity, that Reiske had already proposed the same in the Acta Lipsiensia for July 1750, p. 419.

Εφ. 751. Ουκ αν καθιζοίμην εν άλλων χωρίω. 'Αλλ' εις το πρόσθε χρήν παρείναι και την Πνύκα.

This Demus says to Agoracritus, who had requested him not to bear the cause in Pnyx. The commentators have been led into gross errors by a slight corruption in the text. Mr. B. lias elegantly restored, ws To triste, “as formerly."

Νub. 339. Κεστράν τεμάχη μεγάλαν αγαθών, κρέα τ' ορνίθια κιχλαν. The metre is defective by half foot. In Kuster's edition: reća op ogrifend ye ziyar, Mr. Brunck has throwu out ye, and replaced the true reading upon the authority of Athenæus and Eustathius, xeyrnar. It doubtless escaped his notice, that 11. Stephens had niade this emendation in his Ap. to Greek Thes.p. 1228. To the authorities mentioned, he might have added the testimony of the Etymologus M. whom Phavorinus has transcribed p. 1000. ed. Bazil. 1511.

Having qnoted at random these few instances, in which the test of the author is improved ; I now pass to the invidious and unpleasant task of marking some of those places where the learned editor has VOL. VII.

NO, XIII.

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

either made the text worse, or left it faulty. One great defect 1 cannot help remarking in Mr. B. which is, his being in general too sparing of liis explanations. As he has most unaccountably, and to the full success of his work fatally, omitted to publish the scholia together with the text, he ought to have made some amends for this defect in his notes, and also to have been more curious in noting the parodies of the tragedians and other authors in which Aristophanes so much judulges himself. These will appear to some grave omissions—but the oversiglits I am going to mention, Mr. B. would, without question, have entirely supplied or corrected, if he had allowed himself a little leisure for another revisal.

He bas publicly testified that he has a great dislike to the particle 7f, and accordingly has, with great justice, frequently expunged it; but he should have done it much oftener, and I will give a few examples where it ought to be thrown out, as perfectly useless both to the metre and sense.

Νub. 869. Και τον κρεμαυρών ου τρίβων των ενθάδε. Mr. B. inserts here after sür; to make the verse agree with Dawes's canon. I had rather read xca.O.OTÇ6v or the authority of Pollux 1. 157. and so perhaps the scholiast read, v. Peirson on Meris, p. 242. 1216. 'Ateçub ριάσαι γε μάλλον, η σχειν πράγματα. As tlie penultima of απερυθgiboo is long, the ye ought to be expunged. Ran. 1055. "Esri διδάσκαλος, όστις φράζει τοϊς δ' ήβσίν γε ποιηταί. The particle is interpolated by some later editor. Read Toidir ö ißwos--Equit

. 508. "Ηνάγκαζεν έπη λέξoντάς γ' ες το θέατρον παραβήναι. Read 'Ήνάγκαζει ÉTON TEESE setyov, as it is quoted by the author of the argument to the Nubes. Acharn. 629. Otw Tape Br postè arcoy mégwy. Pac. 735. Aυτόν επήνει προς το θέατρον παράβας. There is anotlier passage in Aristophanes whereços is to be restored instead of toti Acharn. 392. 'Dis ouruby on dyer GÚtos oux & acéčETAL. This Mr. B. quotes in a note upon Nub. 465. (where r. grobou.on for oval from Suidas, v. acc. ys) to show that the particle dv may be joined with a future indicative, a point I shall not at present dispute, but the validity of this example to prove it. If the learned critic liad looked into any of the three first editions of Suidas, v. Lloucos, or P. Leopard. Emendat

. xiii. 8. he would have found it tbus quoted, as ornuty dywy gúros ou TERCVÉTETOI, which is the true reading, changing only cywy into ayur, or, as Mr. Brunck would write it, wywr.

Eccles. 701. Aeliarm. 18. Ούτες έδεχθην υπό κονίας γε τας οφρύς. As the penultima of xovias may be made long, vid. Lysistr. 470. the ye may be sately ejected on the authority of the scholiast and the first editions of Suidas, v. CUTTOP. .

Av. 1478. TGŪTO Úér yerços aici-Mr. B. is not quite satisfied with this verse, and therefore proposes Tobro Lévt'-äg-The connon reading is TOŪTo uży gos aici--read, TGŪTO TOJ MEY of pos, which answers to what follows, Tol CÈ MEN.coros

Tois EUT CEWECHY ŅaxonouGoÜytes, ye is of the editor's insertion. Read Toίς ευπρεπέσιν δ'.

Thesmoph. 225. Ου γαρ, μα την Δήμητρά γ, ένταυθοί μενω. The particle is here of no force, nor is it in the earlier editions, at least it is not in the Basil. 1532. There can scarcely be a doubt, I think, but

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

we must read, ου γαρ, μα την Δήμητρ, έτ' ενταυθοί μενώ, to any one who will consult Nub. $14. Vesp. 1442. Av. 1335. I shall quote the middle example. Oύ τοι, μα την Δήμητρ', έτ' ενταυθοί μενεις. Το show of what signal use it is sometimes to compare ao author with himself, I will give another example. Thesmoph. 630.06€?*7w, Ti, tad uTCY 1v; Tirguay; Mr. B. has aptly quoted Nub. 787. d.g'idw, Ti Mevrou 350784 7v; zi tipūrov vr ; but, what is surprising, did not see that the verse in question was to be amended thus: Dég éw, i perron WTOY Yv; as it is quoted by Suidas, V. TEGOTİVEL.

Ibid. 443. Όλίγων ένεκα γ αυτή παρήλθον ρημάτων. Why does Mr. B. follow that bardus, stipes, fungus, &c. Bergler with his ye. Why not ένεκα καυτή. -- Lysistr. 82. Γυμνάβδομαί γε και ποτί πουγαν άλλομαι. Mr. B. reads yo Laconice. I should prefer Topracdouo.i te.- as it is quoted by Eustathius, p. 1570.

Mr. B. sometimes quits the editions, at least those which I have, to wit, Aldus, Basil. 1532. and Kuster, without giving his reader notice, as for instance, Nub. 826. 1302. Ran. 390. 376. 1406. Probably lie does this on the authority of MSS. (perhaps of other edd.) but such variations ought to be accounted for in the notes.

He sometinies erroneously follows Kuster's edition; as e. g. Plut. 197. "Η φησιν ου βιωτόν αυτό τον βίον. In the preceding editions it is tlius ; "Η φησιν, ουκ είναι βιωτόν αυτό τον βίον, where αυτού not ειναι ought to have been omitted.

Nub. 1329. A' for o1c9', from Kuster.

Eq. 787, Tcūró nye rougyov 0. 7.70 cm5 écriv--In Aldus, Tottó cé goy τουργον αληθως--read, Τούτι γέ τοι σου τούργον αληθής --vide infra 1054.

Mr. Brunck generally shows a great respect for Dawes, and follows his emendations; but I think he sometimes rejects then without reason, and sometimes does not give them all the support they might have, e. g. the emendation on Acharn. 271. is confirmed by Suidas, v. daudzwy. that on Pac. 183. by Suilas, v. unacce. Of the first I give but

instance. Plut. 392. as a MŠ. bias tromov, it ought to have been inserted in the text. The assertion of Mr. B's, that there are an hundred exceptions, is rash; I do not believe there are six. I remember one in the Rhesus, but easily to be altered. The verse from the Phænissæ is no proof at all; that from the Bacche very little; in the example from the Acharn. 903. read 'O moios oitos Aduayos.--v. Nub. 1970. Tà troia taūta zehas'; so far from O troins not being admissible here, it is almost necessary, on account of the apodosis, o teros, -I will give two instances of Aristophanes's exactness in this particular. Ran. 1200. Atò armullou tous cows Taggróyous 81a8ecco. So a MS. has it; rightly, as appears from the next verse, "ATÒ 272 bisu συ τους έμούς.-Aves 1419. 'όδι πάρεστιν· αλλ' ότου χρή, δεί λέγειν. Įregáv

, rreçwv deữ. It is plain that in the first versée, we must read rovdi za nyelv, not only for the reason above given, but also because zes never governs a genitive case in the Attic poets. The only example, I believe, that can be produced to the contrary, is Euripides Orest

. 667. Ti xshi qiawv; but that is to be altered into dei biar on the authority of Plutarch. Op. Mor. p. 68.-E. Aristotle. Ethic.

[ocr errors]

shall

one

is. 9.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

Εφ. 400. γενοίμην εν Κρατίνου κωδιον. I must question whether this can signify una de pellibus Cratini. L. Bos's einendatiop ir Kgarirou (Animadv. p. 8.) seems to me to admit of no doubt.

1b. 456. Mr. B. seems somewhat uncertain about the word xorã. There is no reason for change. The Attics only use the middle future of this verb. xonWW.évous ought to have been restored, Vesp. 244. instead of xonovussous, which cannot possibly come from xozouw, or indeed any other word. Theopompus apud Suidam v. "Attis. Konds. ομαί γε σε, Και τον σύν"Αττιν.

Thesm. 149. Xç? :08 Tour, Tivar oso Tiens ràogey. gra-when dviç is joined with a substantive, it is not,' I believe, capable of the article. The cor is, I believe, the insertion of a later editor, without any authovity; I would therefore read, X7 Tonnon which connects beller with the preceding verses.

In so long a work, it is impossible but some little inaccuracies, respecting the niceties of metre, inust escape an editor, however diligent or sagacious.

El. 569. Kodels de tot airwv.-It is astonishing that Mr. Brunck should let the spondee pass in the first place, and not alter it to Κούτις. [Read with the Ravenna MIS. ου γαρ ουδείς πωποτ' αυτών.]

Ibid. 1256. Ows yévwai cu baràs UTEOMÇU Deùs dixūv. The metre of this line is redundant (the first syllable of Paras being long) though Valesius (on Harpocration, p. 298.) and D'Orville (on Chariton, p. 5.) quote it without suspicion. Amend it froin Suidas, v. pavús. "OTW's έσομαί σοι.

Pac. 185. Τί σοι ποτ' εστί τούτου, ουκ έρείς και μιαρώτατος. an iambic with seven feet. Correct it Ti gol Tot Gt Grou' o'z égeis; as Suidas quotes it v. pagoi. I will take this occasion to observe, that a little above, instead of 2 pagè xai tonuzçè.- We must read on the same authority 2 Baenuçà, to avoid tautology. Compare Ran. 465, 466.

Λν. 385. 'Αλλά μήν ουδ' άλλο σου πω πράγμ' έναντιώμεθα. A spondee in the fiful place. The first editions have εναντιώμεθα, read ενηντιώμεθα.

bid. 1997. Συρακουσίω δε Κίττα: Μειδίας δ' εκεί. A cretic in the second place, - r. Luçaxo51. Eupolis quoted by the Scholia. Eupaxiσιος δ' έoικεν, ηνίκ'' αν λέγη Τοίς κυνιδίοισι τοίσιν επί των τειχέων. Ια Kuster's edition it is corrupted into Eucaxoúcios,

Thesm. 234. Bohren Gescarbai cautóv; si goxet, cége. A syllable too much, correct it slightly, Boóñet beão $21.-Eccles. 369. Lysistr

. 742. '12 TótnieEinaiduia---without an elision ; that the first syllable in grótula may not be made long contrary to the author's custom. To çosp.orów zyje visoy usiku ToLED. If any thing is to be altered, I should rather suppose 'AXX' ought to be supplied at the beginning of tie verse. A similar omission has happened in the Aldine edition of Euripid. Phiceniss. 1806. and in many editions of our author; Av. 1693. Aarà pausuriy xiavica dów tiś CEūgé flob. (ita leg. ex Schol

. in v. 1565.)

The Index is a repetition of Kuster's, but very much improved and enlarged. The Latin interpretation, which the learned 'editor has altered and corrected in an infinity of places, is as far as I have con

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sulted it, perspicuous and accurate. In the fragments, perhaps something more might have been done. But I shall only just observe, that in the Gerytades, part of the 21st fragnient is repeated in the Incerta, No. 41. where instead of ¢ýuari-zubartóuevos, we must read ρημά τι-έμβαπτόμενον from Allieneus, p. 367, and that in the 3d fragment of the Aaitaars, whoever will compare Nub. 865. 1242. will think it ought probably to be corrected thus, 'H urin bows xarataayyosi tu xpóvw. Fragm. incert. 133. is a parody of Euripides apud Plutarch. de Isid. et Osirid. p. 379. D.

Jets

Reply to an Article on Bentley's Callimachus.

To The EpirOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.

The man

.

belief, are,

In the Ninth Number of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL is a short
article, purporting to show, that the edition of Callimachus, printed
at London in 1741, along with Theognis, and a selection from the
Anthologia, and generally understood to have been published by
Dr. Richard Bentley, did not come from the hands of that cele-
brated scholar.
The three principal reasons, upon which the author founds this

1. That, since Dr. Bentley died at the age of 30, and but one year after the publication of the volume, he “ would hardly have published an edition of any classic at that period anonymously.

2. That “the manner, in which he is praised in the notes, is such, as to make it quite impossible that he should have written them himself. In p. 8. of the Notes, the Editor says, “Profectò ultima in noi non potest corripi, ut luculentissime demonstravit magnum literarum humaniorum decus, Rich. Bentleius.'--Thus again, p. 35. Ex notis eruditissimi Bentleii;' and so in many other places; as hæc perspicacissimus Bentleius,' p. 41.”

3. That “this Editor tells us that he had been at Rome, which Dr. Bentley never was, unless I am much mistaken. cum Rome essem, et consului, partim etiam contuli, codicem Vaticanum Bibliorum,' &c. p.

xvi.” Why your correspondent should be led to suppose it unlikely that Dr. Bentley should have published an edition of any classical author anonymously, merely because he was advanced'in years, does not immediately appear. Be that as it may, the passages so complimentary to the Doctor, do not directly furnish us with a reason why they should not have been written by an anonymous editor, even though he himself should be the subject of them.

Vidi ipse,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« EdellinenJatka »