« PrécédentContinuer »
κύκλο, Ου γαρ δοκείν δίκαιος άλλο είναι θέλει. ν. 603. Eteocles, speaking of Amphiaraus, says, Φεν τον ξυναλλάσσοντος όρνιθος βροτοίς (βρoτους,) Δίκαιον ανδρα τοισι δυσσεβεστέροις.
v. 600. Εξ ης τα κιλά βλαστάνει βουλεύματα. - 'Αφ' ής Pors. ». αφ' ης Ρlutarch. Schol. Venet. on Iliad Λ. 404. v. 613. Ταυτού κυρήσας αδίκως αγρεύματος -κυρήσας εκδίκως Pors. Dr
“ nihil omnino mutandum." The true reading is έκ Δίκης. Eurip. Ιph. Α. 759. όποιας εκ θεών μοίρας κυρεϊ.
v. 651. "Αγει γυνή τις, σωφρονως ηγουμένη. Dr Butler's conjecture σωφρόνως ήσκημένη, which he supports from ν. 182. of the Persians, is ingenicus. V. 44. of the ruinenides Λήνει μεγίστα σωφρόνως εστεμμένη. *
ν. 719. Λέγοιτ' άν ων ανη τις. Dr B. conjectures, ών όνητες. We propose ών ανή τις.
ων ανη τις. ανιημι is similarly constructed Εurip. Med. 458. Hippol. 285.
v. 782. Dr B. approves of άναρπαξάνδρα», which, although it be received also by Dr Burney, is not correct Greek. Read άναρπάξανδρων. v. 800. 'Ομβρίμων. "ορρίμων. Colb. 1. 2. &c. recte.
True; but why is it right? We have often occasion to regret, that Dr Butler, when pronouncing judgment on a reading with a ' recte,' • optime,''
perperam, inconcinne, '' minus bene,' gives no reason or authority for his decisions.
v. 810. Πόλις σίσωσται, βασιλέας δ' ομοσπόρου "Ανδρες τεθνώσιν εκ χερδη αυτοκτόνων. “ Hunc versum (810.) ceu spurium, uncinulis incluserunt Pors. Schutz. 2. A quibus si fas sit discedere, hunc versum retinendum, sed proxime sequentenm, "Ανδρες κ. τ. λ. excludendum dicerem.” We do not approve of this conjecture, because it , deprives the whole passage, to v. 815. of the verb, which is indispensable, and leaves an lonic form Business in a senarius. γ. 810. was manifestly inserted from v. 826. Πόλις σεσωσται. βασιλεον δ' ομοσπορούν Πέπωκεν αιμα γαι’ υπ' αλλήλων φόνο. which two verses Dr B. with singular infelicity, rejects as spurious. Most readers of Æschylus will agree with us, in thinking that they are υγιέστεροι κολοκύντας.
V. 829. Δαιμονες οι δη Κάδμου πύργους Τούσοε ρύεσθε, Πότερον χαίρω κάπολολύζω Πόλεως ασυνεί σωτήρι και Dr Butler remarks, « Breves syllabe in ρύεσθε et σωτήρι, producuntur, non jure του αδιαφόρου, sed necessario, ab sedatum harmoniæ genus, vel tantum non cessantis, vel saltem lenius procedentis.” The two instances are of a different nature; catñes is at the end of a system, pvecde is not. We should have expected such a sentence as we have just quoted, from Mr Bothe of Magdeburg. No satisfactory correction of the verse in question, occurs to us at present, but we propose τoυσό κρύξατε. So ν. 1083. “Οδε Καδμείων ήρυξε πόλιν.
V. 863. Tαν άστoνoν, μιλάγκροκού Nαύστoλον θεωρίδα, Των άστιβή 'Απόλ. λοι, ταν ανάλιον, Πάνδοκον εις αφανή το χερσόν. « Ναύστoλον Pors. 9. Schol. α. habet, την διαγoυσαν τους νεκρούς. unde clarissime patet legendum vexvéorodov, quam vocem habes in Antholog. III. 7. de Charonte Nioben cymba prætervehente.” (transuehente). This emend
ation • We forgot to remark, that s. 231. should be read Morne, wie, σωτήρος. νulg. γντή.
ation is exceedingly happy, and meets with our full approbation. But we are surprised that no one has hitherto perceived that evénior is a mere gloss of estoßin 'Afonw. We read the passage thus, Two άστιβη 'πόλλωνα, των Πάνδοκον, εις άφανη τε χερσόν. It matters not whether it be written άστιβη Ατόλλωνα, Or 'πόλλωνα. In the former case there will be no hiatus, as Pauw and Dr B. think, but a crasis.
ν. 958. 'Ιω πολλούς επανθήσαντες πόνοισι γε δομοι. “ Corrige επανβίCartes meo periculo- Cf. Choeph. v. 148. ' Agam. v. 1468.”
FR41Bile! is a verb transitive, and signifies “ to make flowery, the two passages here referred to ; Agam. 1667. Sophocl. Electr. 45.Euripid. Ion 890. The conjecture therefore is certainly perilous.
ν. 1016. «Θάπτειν έδοξε γης φιλαις κατασκαφαις. Read φιλης. See Sophocl. Cad. T. 694. Philoct. 242.
V. 1055. "Ηδη τα τούδ' ου διατετίμηται θεούς.-Ουδ' ήτετίμηται θεός Grotius. our útituuntun Heath and Dr Butler. We do not exactly perceive from what verbyteriunte can be formed. There is no such word as 'tipiew for útiusw, and if there were, the preterite passive would be ήτίμηται. .
ν. 1073. Εισι· τίς ούν ταύτα πιθoύτo ; « Εισιν· τίς αν ούν ταύτα πιβοΐτο; Brunck. Schutz. Eisi' tis un stūtu gidoiro Pors, quod unice verum." We do not by any means approve of this correction of Mr Porson, which leaves a very inharmonious paremiac. We prefer the reading of Brunck. So Eurip. Ιph. Τ. 894. τις αν ούν-φανοί κακών έκλυσιν ;
v. 1074. Δράτω πόλις και μη δράτω Τούς κλάοντας Πολυνείκη». δράτο di zónus Turn. which is approved of by Scaliger, Pauw and Dr B. Mr Porson did not approve of it, nor do we. We do not remember any similar usage of day without either adverb or first accusative. We read Agactw to sódis xai Mein igátw T. xd. 11. Cf. Eurip. Orest. 1189. Med. 95.
v. 1080. Ημείς δ' άμα τωδ' ώσπες τε πόλις Και το δικαιον ξυνεπαινεί.. τωση 5€ τε πόλις Pors. Perhaps ως και τε πόλις. κ. τ. λ.
We have protracted our remarks on the critical department of this volume to so great a length, that we can bestow only a few words on the Philological Commentary, in which there is less than we could wish of Dr Butler's own. We will content ourselves with a specimen or two of the accuracy which distinguishes his observations, when they do occur. v. 101. “ spalv dupa doar vix bene dicitur.” Why not? we would aski Euripid. Phæniss. 1763. Eù duce Bearesous notás. Xenoph. Cyrop. V. near the end. ó piv Kvatégris pepi dirov Siyey. Cf. Bergler's note on Alciphron. I. 21. Dr B. continues, 14 Junge έξομεν λιταν αμφί πέπλων και στεφέων. sic enim constructionem bene græcam et sententiam apertam habes.” This we will allow, when any instance shall be produced of the phrase égsev notar or evrós
. Dr Butler quotes Sophocles on v. 127. and twice or thrice besides; and we lament that he should retain the corrupt text of the edition of Mr Thomas Johnson, in passages which Brunck has printed more correctly. It is but justice, however, to Dr B. to point out the great variety of references to contemporary poets, with which he settles points of criticism relative to the text of his author. By far the surest method of determining the merits of a reading, is analogy, analogy deduced from a comparison of the author with himself, and with those, whose works were composed under similar circumstances. This is the weapon which Mr Porson wielded with such vast effect ; and our readers will be enabled to judge of what service it has been to Dr Butler, when we tell him, that in his critical notes on this play he has cited Æschylus no fewer than cleven times, Sophocles four times, and Euripides treice. Dr Butler's Philological Commentary, or “ Notæ Varr. et Butleri Philologg.” has one merit which is not inconsiderable. Every commentator, who has made any observation remarkable for erudition and useful information, has all the credit of it secured to him, by the device of imprinting his name in capital letters at the end. For instance; Μνήστορες έστε μοι.
“ Moi eleganter abundat. BURTON. Κομπάζεται. “ Sese jactat in sensu vere medio.”
S. Butler. o'x oraws épão. “ Non aliter quam res est.” BURTON. v. 529. “ At vide notas Varr. Critt. S. Butler. v. 761. “ 'Paa ainetostru est radix ipsa, uterus sc. Jocastæ, unde progenies seu stirps pullulavit.” S. Butler. If Muretus had adopted this excellent precaution, Turnebus could never have piltered his emendations on Terence and Cicero. The capital letters secure the literary property of these recondite observations to the authors, their
heirs and assigns, for ever. We conclude our account of this play • with the following remark of the late Mr Muller, (which Dr Butler
gives at v. 437.) as being equally remarkable for the light which it throws upon Åschylus, and upon the construction of the Latin tongue. Gatici FCOTELY.CO. “ Ita Æschyleo avo nascens audacia explicandi prodigiosas effectus, Deos throno morisse credebat ; sed causas causarum centenas nectendo non ita facere poterant, quia in prima subsistenduin sit. Jo. Müller.” We now proceed to the
AGAMENSON. Which play affords great scope for a display of critical sagacity, and labours under great disadvantages; there being a lacuna from v. 319. to v. 1076. and another from v. 1168. to Chocph. v. 8. in the editions of Aldus, Robortellus and Turnebus, and the only two MSS. which are at present known to contain part of this tragedy, the Medicean, and that at Wolfenbuttel." In 1557, Henry Stephens first published it entire, from a copy which Pietro Vettori had collated with a certain MS. of we know not whom, and with another in the library of the Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. Where these MSS. are now, we have not the means of determining.
That excellent scholar, Stanley, is more than commonly successful in his labours on the Agamemnon; and his conjectures are unusually ingenious. There is a little story relating to this, which Dr Butler is evidently not aware of; but which we will detail, in order that he may avail himself of it in his “ General Preface.” In a note on v: 13. Dr B. remarks, “ 'Eritxotovitevar inter VV. LL. recenset Is. Casaub. forte ex Stanleii notis."
The chance of this is infinitesimally small; for it so happens, that Isaac Casaubon died, and was buried in Westininster Abbey in the year 1614. whereas Thomas Stanley did not publish his edition of Æschylus till 1663. But perhaps Casaubon, amongst his other eminent qualities, was endowed with that species of prescience, which Dr Butler attributes to the Edinburgh Reviewers, when he says, that they ought to have known, while noticing, two years ago, a mistake of his on the Prometheus, that he had rectified it in his notes on the Agamemnon, which are but just published. It is somewhat singular that Dr B. should have made this mistake; when Stanley himself not only quotes the works of Is. Casaubon in his notes on the Agamemnon, but also those of Meric Casaubon, the son. But in fact, there is too much reason to suspect, that Stanley made use of the conjectures of Casaubon without acknowledging his obligation. Dr Needham, the editor of Theophrastus, in a copy of Stanley's Æschylus, now preserved in the University Library at Cambridge, had noted down the collations of several MSS. which he had procured from various learned friends. In the same class is another copy of the same edition, into which Dr Askew had transcribed verbatim every thing in MS. contained in Dr Needham's, except that he had altered the dates of the collations, accommodating them to his own time, and making thereby some absurd anachronisms. He has, however, misled Dr Butler, who never saw Dr Necdham's book, and who has therefore mentioned the MSS. (from which these collations were made before Dr Askew was born), under the title of “ Codices ab Askevio collati.” In Dr Necdham's book are these words, “ Casaub & Cas. Conjecturæ quædain, desumptæ ex margine Libri, quo continetur Agamemnon, cum versione & notis marginalibus sane multis, ad Grammaticam præcipue spectantibus, Isaaco Casaubono adscriptis, sed tanto viro nequaquam dignis; quem
Lutetia ad me transmisit Johannes de Burigny. • This book Dr N. returned; for M. Vauvilliers in the “ Notice des MSS. de la Bibliothéque du Roi, ” Tom. I. p. 337. describes one in every respect corresponding to it, and insinuates that Stanley has borrowed largely from it, without acknowledge
ment. * We imagine however that the book was not sent to Dr Needham from the King's Library ; for although it was deposited there after Casaubon's death, it was some time afterwards stolen, and not recovered till the year 1729, when it was purchased for the French
King of one Rousselet, into whose hands it had come. Now, Dr Needham had the book before the year 1715, at which time M. de Burigny seems to have possessed it. The Compilers of the Catamae of the King's Library at Paris, published in 1740, speak high
the notes of Casaubon
ment. It must always be unpleasant to the candid critic, to detect instances of literary dishonesty, and to detract from long established and, in many respects, well-carned fame: But justice, whose laws should be as strictly observed in cases of literary, as of personal, property, requires that it should be done. A charge of plagiarism however is not to be considered as established, unless a very strong case is made out; and in questions like the present, we may be permitted to say, that not many persons are qualified to judge. We shall not pretend to decide upon the justice of the charge which M. Vauvilliers has brought; but we have 'examined the evidence with more care than he seems to have done; and the impression upon our minds certainly is, that Stanley did see this book of Isaac Casaubon, and that he availed himself of its contents. We will point out some striking instances of coincidence in the conjectures of these eminent scholars, and will leave our readers to determine for themselves. v. 106. 'Exteré fursawCasaub.
“ poterit imator legi-sed retinendum εκτελέων. . Stanl.
v. 109. 'Exnádos buv.- in Bees Casaub. ego mallem Bas." Stanl.
v. 224. επιθυμεϊν θέμις- επιθυμεί ρτεμις pro "Αρτεμις Casaub. « Legendum videtur -επιθυμεί "Αρτεμις. . Stanl.
v. 260. Επί γένοιτ' άν και λύσεις.- επεί ου γένοιτ' άν ήλυσις Casaub. “ vel legendum mauris, vel itu sú gyévoit' &v ja vois.” Stanl.
v. 290. ár kordov Fugás. áprácou ex Eustath. & Suid. Casaub. Stanley makes the same correction from Suidas and the Etymo logicum.
ν. 469. πολυκτόνων.- πολυστόνων Casaub. “ f. legendum tonertóvar" Stanl.
ν. 569. Εξ ουρανού γάς κάπό γης λειμωνίας. -'Εξ ουρανού και αύ, Casaub. “ f. 8 Ze” Stanl. Stanley must surely have written, or intended to write do ai. v. 630. 'Ες τον πολυν-χρόνον.- 'Ες ουπ. χ. Casaub. « Α. και οι
Stanl. V. 655. sidanov "Hxorta.- svyros, "Hxwv - Casaub. “Le gendum szépiros, "Hxwv 75. " Stanl. v. 673. ναύν θέλουσ' εφέζετο. -ναυστολούσ' Casaub.
TAVOTSStanl. v. 678. vécr rédos.- veão, navium, Casaub. “ Poterit legi vsão." Stanl.
v. 723. παμπρόσθη.- παμπινθ, Casaub.. « Legimus παμπωθή. Stanl.
V. 748. régoiu V. - yout' y Casaub. “ f. niyot' mv, sed nihil muto. Stanl.
v. 770. olxovade südvdinom. go že Casaub. “ Lege do če".” Stanl.