kind in a hurry? Mr. B. I believe, is not in that unfortunate situation, which some learned men have experienced, to be obliged to publish as fast as the avarice or tyranny of booksellers required. There have too been some writers who, in publishing a book, have had a provident eye to the future, and taken care to reserve a sufficient quantity of additions to adorn the second impression. But this gentleman's character and circumstances will not suffer us to entertain the slightest suspicion, that he will ever change from Mr. Brunck into Simonides. (Vid. Aristoph. Pac. 697.)—Mr. Brunck, in his notes, is frequently engaged with the Parisian Professor, and the flower of the French critics, as he calls them, (to wit) Messrs. Vauvilliers and Dupuy, the former of whom lately published an edition of Sophocles, the latter has passed some censures upon Mr. Brunck's critical works. Thus far perhaps, he may be readily excused, Ὡς οὐχ ὑπάρχων, ἀλλὰ τιμωρούμενος : but I am at a loss to account for the asperity with which he treats Kuster and Bergler, to the latter of whom he is scarcely more merciful than he was to Mr. Shaw in his edition of Apollonius. Bergler with him is fungus, stipes, bardus, and what not. If Mr. B. is better qualified than Kuster and Bergler to publish Aristophanes (as doubtless he is by far,)“let him give God thanks, and make no boast of it;" but why triumph over men who are not in a condition to return the attack? Παῦε, παῦ ̓, ὦ δέσποθ ̓ Ἑρμῆ, μὴ λέγε· Αλλ' ἔα τὸν ἄνδρ' ἐκεῖνον, οὔπες ἔστ' εἶναι κάτω. I now proceed to give some instances of the improvements made in this edition. The plan of the Lysistrata is as follows: the women, grieved at the long continuance of the war, seize the acropolis, where the public money was kept, and resolve to keep the men at a distance till a peace shall be concluded. Upon this a dialogue ensues between Lysistrata and Probulus, the heroine and hero of the play. V. 487. Ὅτι βουλόμεναι τὴν ἀκρόπολιν ἡμῶν ἀπεκλείσατε μοχλοῖς. In some other editions it is printed τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ἀπεκλείσατε τοῖς pois. Mr. Brunck has inserted very justly Dawes's emendation in μοχλοῖς. the text, Ότι βουλόμεναι τὴν πόλιν ἡμῶν ἀπεκλείσατε τοῖσι μοχλοῖσιν. The corruption no doubt arose from the explanation of the scholiast being written above the text: Tous of itself signifies the acropolis. I cannot help submitting it to Mr. Brunck's judgment, whether in Plutus 772, instead of the vulgar reading xvov Tédov, we should not read x Toy from Stephanus Byzant. v. 'Ava. But perhaps Hemsterhuis has sufficiently defended the other reading; for I must own, though with the utmost fear of incurring Mr. Brunck's displeasure (vid. not. in Plut. 327.) that I am not possessed of Hemsterhuis's edition. V. 493. Ημεῖς ὑμᾶς σώσομεν, ΠΡ. ὑμεῖς; Λ. ἡμεις μέντοι. Π. σχέτλιόν γε 4. Αλλ' ἀποδεκτέα ταῦτ ̓ ἐστὶν ὅμως· Π. Νὴ τὴν Δήμητρ', αδικόν γε. Αλλ' ἀποδεκτέα is a conjectural emendation, first inserted in the Venetian edition; ingenious enough, but wrong. The first edition has 'AXX' άTOXTEα which comes nearer the true reading, restored by Mr. B. from two MSS. 'Aλλà Toréa.-But the MS. not only amends but supplies the text: for Mr. B. has inserted the following verse upon the authority of the MS, after verse 498. Α. Ως σωθήσει κἂν μὴ βούλῃ. Π. Δεινόν γε λέγεις. Λ. ̓Αγανακτεῖς, Αλλά π. &c. Mr. Brunck is not in general very gracious to Kuster when he finds him negligent in smaller matters. But what would he have said had he known, that in the very manuscript which Kuster used, not only the true reading of the 3d verse was preserved, but the second verse fairly and plainly written ?-Though he might have guessed something of the kind from the Scholiast, to whose words a part of the verse in question is prefixed. V. 519. "Ο δέ μ' εὐθὺς ὑποβλέψας ἔφασκεν· κ' εἰ μὴ τὸν στήμονα νήσω. -Mr. Brunck rightly observes, that the copula has no business before εἰ ; he therefore reads, Ὁ δ ̓ ἔμ ̓ εὐθὺς ὑποβλέψας φάσκεν ἄν· Εἰ μὴ τὸν στήμονα νήσεις (νήσεις from a MS.) I should rather read, Ὁ δ' ἔμ' εὐθὺς ὑποβλέψας ἂν ἔφασκ ̓· Εἰ μὴ, &c. V. 599, seq. Λ. Σιώπα. Σίγ' ώ κατάρατε, Π. σιωπῶ 'γω. Α. Καὶ ταῦτα καλύμματα φέρε Περὶ τὴν κεφαλήν· μή νυν ζῴην· ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τοῦτ ̓ ἐμπόδιόν σοι. Παρ ̓ ἐμοῦ τουτὶ τὸ κάλυμμα λαβὼν, ̓́Εχε, καὶ περίθου περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν,-Κατα σιώπα. To enter into an examination of the tautology, the absurdity, the metrical defects, and the want of syntax in this sentence, as it now stands, would waste too much time and paper. Suffice it to say, that the editor has happily restored the genuine text by the aid of MSS. *Λ. Σιώπα. Π. Σοί γ', ὦ κατάρατε, σιωπῶ ἐγὼ καὶ ταῦτα κάλυμμα Φορούσῃ Περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ἢ μὴ νῦν ζῴην. Λ. Αλλα εἰ τοῦτ' ἐμπόδιόν σοι, &c. In the Nubes, after v. 969. Mr. B. has inserted a verse, which Mr. Valckenaer first discovered to belong to this place (from Suidas, v. χιάζειν.) Εἰ δέ τις αὐτῶν βωμολοχεύσαιτ', ἢ κάμψειέν τινα καμπὴν, [Αὐτὸς δείξας, ἔν θ ̓ ἁρμονίαις Χιάζων ἢ Σιφνιάζων.] &c. Instead of this latter fragment, Kuster's edition has, Καί σοι τὸ περὶ τούτων δὴ μάχεθαι. These Mr. Brunck has restored to sense and metre by slightly altering the reading of the MS. II. Οὐχὶ μαχοῦνται. Β. Περὶ τοῦ; Π. Θάρρει, μὴ δείσης οὐχὶ μαχοῦνται. Β. Περὶ τοῦ; Π. τοῦ μὴ ξυγκαταδαρθεῖν· καί σοι τοιοῦτον ὑπάρξει. In the Thesmophoriazusæ, the women are gathered together to consult about some method of punishment for Euripides, who had so grossly traduced and scandalised them on the stage. When the assembly is met, the herald speaks to this effect, (v. 372.) "Hear every one; the female senate decreed (Timoclea was president, Lysicla clerk, Sostrata speaker) to hold an assembly early in the morning, on the middle day of the Thesmophoria: Εκκλησίαν ποιεῖν ἕωθεν τῇ μέση τῶν θεσμοφορίων, ἢν ἅλις ἔσθ' ἡμῖν σχολή. So Kuster's edition. Davies (on Cicero de Legg. I. 10.) and Spanheim (on Callimach. H. in Jov. 84.) quotes the latter verse to prove that as may be joined with a nominative. - Dawes (Misc. Crit. p. 235.) perceiving a solecism . in this reading, tacitly altered it to ary's.-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 he proclaimed this, whether they had sufficient leisure or not. The first edition (by Junta) has ἦν ἅλιθ' ἡμῖν σχολή. which approaches very near the true reading restored to the text from the MS. ή μάλισθ' ἡμῖν σχολής which day we are most at leisure." The third day of the Thesmopho-ria was a fast. (vid. Athenæum VII. p. 307. F.) on In the Pax, when Trygaus and the chorus are drawing the goddess Irene out of the well, the chorus exclaims, v. 496. Ως κακὸν εἴ τινες εἰσὶν ἐν ἡμῖν. Mr. B's MS. had Ὡς κακὸν οἵ τινες εἰσὶν ἐν ἡμῖν, of which, he says, he could make nothing for a long time, till he luckily found the true reading in Suidas, ν. κακόνοι· Ὡς κακόνοι τινές εἰσιν ἐν ἡμῖν. "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 καθῆσθαί μοι δοκῶ Εἰς τὸ Θησεῖον πλεούσαις, ἢ ἐπὶ τῶν σεμνῶν θεῶν. Whoever has a mind to see what the critics have written about it and about it, may consult Petit (Leg. Attic. p. 79.) D'Orville and Salvini (Miscell. Observat. Vol. III. p. 401,2.) Dawes (Misc. Crit. p. 252.) Mr. Brunck has restored from conjecture, doxe - Auσ25. 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. Eq.751. Οὐκ ἂν καθιζοίμην ἐν ἄλλῳ χωρίῳ. Ἀλλ ̓ εἰς τὸ πρόσθε χρὴν παρεῖναι ἐς τὴν Πνύκα. This Demus says to Agoracritus, who had requested him not to hear the cause in Pnyx. The commentators have been led into gross errors by a slight corruption in the text. Mr. B. has elegantly restored, ws To pérbe," as formerly." τὸ πρόσθε, "as Nub. 339. Κεστρᾶν τεμάχη μεγάλαν ἀγαθᾶν, κρέα τ' ὀρνίθια κιχλᾶν. The metre is defective by half a foot. In Kuster's edition: xsar öşvited ye myräv. Mr. Brunck has thrown out ye, and replaced the true reading upon the authority of Athenæus and Eustathius, xyhäv. It doubtless escaped his notice, that H. Stephens had made 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. 1060. ed. Bazil. 1541. Having quoted at random these few instances, in which the text 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. G either made the text worse, or left it faulty. One great defect I cannot help remarking in Mr. B. which is, his being in general too sparing of his 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 indulges himself. These will appear to some grave omissions-but the oversights 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 has publicly testified that he has a great dislike to the particle , 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. Pac. Nub. 869. Καὶ τῶν κρεμαθρῶν οὐ τρίβων τῶν ἐνθάδε. Mr. B. inserts here after ; to make the verse agree with Dawes's canon. I had rather read xesuargŵr on the authority of Pollux X. 157. and so perhaps the scholiast read, v. Peirson on Maris, p. 242. 1216. 'Amεçutβιάσαι γε μᾶλλον, ἢ σχειν πράγματα. As the penultima of απευθ idea is long, they ought to be expunged. Ran. 1055. Est διδάσκαλος, ὅστις φράζει· τοῖς δ ̓ ἡβῶσιν γε ποιηταί. The particle is interpolated by some later editor. Read Tools-Equit. 508. Πνάγκαζεν ἔπη λέξοντάς γ' ἐς τὸ θέατρον παραβῆναι. Read ἠνάγκαζεν ἔπη πρὸς τὸ θέατρον, as it is quoted by the author of the argument to the Nubes. Acharn. 629. Οὔπω παρέβη πρὸς τὸ θέατρον λέξων. 735. Αὐτὸν ἐπήνει πρὸς τὸ θέατρον παράβας. There is another passage in Aristophanes where gos is to be restored instead of Ti Acharn. 392. Ως σκηψιν ἂν ἀγὼν οὗτος οὐκ ἐσδέξεται. This Mr. B. quotes in a note upon Nub. 465. (where r. iroua for a from Suidas, v. apa yɛ) to show that the particle 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 had looked into any of the three first editions of Suidas, v. Eloupos, or P. Leopard. Emendat. xiii. 8. he would have found it thus quoted, s oxyfir dywy outos ou προσδέξεται, which is the true reading, changing only άγων iuto αγών, or, as Mr. Brunck would write it, wywv. Eccles. 701. Acharn. 18. Οὕτως ἐδήχθην ὑπὸ κονίας γε τὰς ἐφρᾶς. As the penultima of zovias may be made long, vid. Lysistr. 470. the ye may be safely ejected on the authority of the scholiast and the first editions of Suidas, ν. ῥύπτομαι. Av. 1478. TOUTO μév ye йços aleì—Mr. B. is not quite satisfied with this verse, and therefore proposes Touro μév-ag-The common reading is Τοῦτο μὲν ἦχος αἰεὶ-read, Τοῦτο τοῦ μὲν ἦρος, which answers to what follows, Τοῦ δὲ χειμώνος. Τοῖς δ ̓ εὐπρεπέσιν ν' ἀκολουθοῦντες. γε is of the editor's insertion. Read Τοῖς εὐπρεπέσιν δ'. Thesmoph. 225. Οὐ γὰρ, μὲ τὴν Δήμητρά γ', ἐνταυθοῖ 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 we must read, Οὐ γὰρ, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρ ̓, ἔτ' ἐνταυθοῖ μενω, to any one who will consult Nub. 814. Vesp. 1442. Av. 1335. I shall quote the middle example. Οὔ τοι, μὰ τὴν Δήμητρ ̓, ἔτ' ἐνταυθοῖ μενεῖς. Το show of what signal use it is sometimes to compare an author with himself, I will give another example. Thesmoph. 630. Þég' idw, Ti πewTov ἦν ; ἐπίνομεν ; Mr. B. has aptly quoted Nub. 787. φέρ' ἴδω, τί μέντοι TOTO Timerov ; but, what is surprising, did not see that the verse in question was to be amended thus : Φέρ' ίδω, τί μέντοι πρῶτον ἦν ; as it is quoted by Suidas, v. goriVEL. Ibid. 443. Ὀλίγων ἕνεκα γ' αὐτὴ παρῆλθον ῥημάτων. Why does Mr. B. follow that bardus, stipes, fungus, &c. Bergler with his 7. Why γε. not ἕνεκα καυτή.-- Lysistr. 82. Γυμνάδδομαί γε καὶ ποτὶ πυγὰν ἄλλομαι. Mr. B. reads Laconice. I should prefer Feuaddqual re.-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. 320. 376. 1406. Probably he does this on the authority of MSS. (perhaps of other edd.) but such variations ought to be accounted for in the notes. He sometimes erroneously follows Kuster's edition; as e. g. Plut. 197. Η φησιν οὐ βιωτὸν αὐτῷ τὸν βίον. In the preceding editions it is thus; Η φησιν, οὐκ εἶναι βιωτὸν αὐτῷ τὸν βίον, where αὐτῶ not εἶναι ought to have been omitted. Nub. 1329. ' for de', from Kuster. Εq. 787. Τοῦτό γε τούςγον ἀληθῶς ἐστὶν.-In Aldus, Τοῦτό γέ σον τούςγον ἀληθως—read, Τοῦτι γέ τοι σου τοῦργον ἀληθῶς-vide infra 1054. Mr. Brunck generally shows a great respect for Dawes, and follows his emendations; but I think he sometimes rejects them 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. Aaudxwv. that on Pac. 188. by Suilas, v. pagol. Of the first I shall give but one instance. Plut. 392. as a MS. has mooy, 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 Phonissæ is no proof at all; that from the Bacche very little; in the example from the Acharn. 903. read 'O s ouros Aduaxos-v. Nub. 1270. Τὰ ποῖα ταῦτα χρήμαθ'; so far from Ὁ ποῖος not being admissible here, it is almost necessary, on account of the apodosis, 'O Cards, I will give two instances of Aristophanes's exactness in this particular. Ran. 1200. ̓Απὸ ληκυθίου τοὺς τοὺς προλόγους διαφθερώ. So a MS. has it; rightly, as appears from the next verse, Anò iu σὺ τοὺς ἐμοὺς.—Aves 1419. Οδι πάρεστιν· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτου χρή, δεῖ λέγειν. Пreguv, πregŵv dei. It is plain that in the first verse we must read Brou det, on Xéy, not only for the reason above given, but also because 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. τί χρὴ φίλων; but that is to be altered into δεῖ φίλων on the authority of Plutarch. Op. Mor. p. 68.-E. Aristotle. Ethic. ix. 9. |