Images de page
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

and is noted in the margin of Dr Needbam's book.

1249. και συ μην τάχει παρών "Αγαν η αληθόμαντιν οίκτείρας έρείς. For pain Stanley, or rather Casaubon, restored s'n. But the particle ye is misplaced, and seems to have been inserted by some copyist, who thought that the last syllable of diyar was short. The sanie particle has been intruded, ruta Burin xaraudius, in Eurip. Androm. 955. Heraclid. 205. (Rhes. 669.) We would here omit it altogether, or read και συ ή εν τάχει παρών "Αγαν μ' άλ.

v. 1233. ignearuivov. " Minus Atticum est in eix cetuirov, quod voluit Stanl. " In v. 164. of the Phænissä Mr Porson has printed itneacopiose, but in v. 431. sixxss, and we are inclined to think, in spite of Mæris, Photius, and Eustathius, that the latter orthography is that of the tragedians, though not of Aristophanes. V. 1265. Παπαι. οιον το πύρ επέρχεται σε

" Nisi crediderim hic poetam studio hiatum quæsivisse, legerem natai. Tolov tò mūz. We believe Dr B. will not produce any instance from the three Tragedians, in which the first syllable of noios is made short. * This verse should be pointed thus Παπαι. οιον το πύρ επέρχεται δ' εμοί.

v. 1334. 'Ezeqois povsūti tois quois tivsiv ovev. Dr B. would read ouse for opcide with Staniey. Eschylus admired Homer, it is true, but not, we think, so far, as to intrude ópecse upon an Athenian aus dience.

v. 134.6. Νύν δ' εί προτέρων αιμαποτίσει, και τοισι θανούσι θαναν, άλλων Ποινας θανάτων άγαν επικρατεί, Τις αν εύξαιτo βροτών άσινεί Δαίμονι φύναι, τάδ' bixouw; Dr B. terms this passage locus plane desperatus, and for semper imorgæveč, proposes inig ávrdýrito ad interim, as it were, which in sooth is a desperate remedy. Medici graviores morbos asperis remediis curant. We would omit these two words altogether. Dr B. adopts the reading of Mr Bothe of Magdeburg, Τις αν εύξαιτο, βροτος Dy, átirsi. Mr.Dawes has observed in his Misc. Crit. p. 197. Vocalis brevis ante B, sequente ç, syllabam brevem perpetuo clundit

. Mr Porson remarks on v. 64. of the Orestes, Ubi verbum in brevem rocalem desinit,

eamque duce consonantes eccipiunt, quæ brevem manere patiantur, vix credo exempla indubiæ fidei inveniri posse, in quibus syllaba ista producatur. When Dr Butler has cast his

eye
over these

passages, he may perhaps be inclined to think with us, that there is a strong objection to the emendation of Mr Bothe of Magdeburg, viz. that it introduces a false quantity. We will, however, candidly admit, that the authority of Mr Hermann led us into an error of precisely the same nature, in our notice of Dr B.'s former volumes. But, as the Doctor facetiously observes, we have now " tarried at Jericho till our beards are grown.

v. 1365. Χρονίζομεν γάρ οι δε μελλούσης κλέος Πέδον πατούντες, ου καbudoury

riese The commentators, one and all, are sadly to seek in this passage. A certain antient author quotes from Æschylus, XpoVOL. XIX. NO. 38.

Kk

νιζομεν * Suppl. 908. Ούτος, τί ποιεις και εκ ποιον Φρονήματος 'Ανδρών Πελασγών τήνδ' ατιμαζεις χθονα. It is manifest that we should read έκ τινός ΦρονηMatos. The confusion was occasioned by the preceding Fortiso .

wiCopesy wds rūs peer toñs gépır. We would therefore read the whole passage thus, Χρονίζομεν γαρ ώδε, της μελλούς χάριν πέδον πατούντες. ου καesvanurin yeges

We propose the source of our correction, as a problem for the ingenuity of Dr Butler and the younger part of our readers.

v. 1379. πληθύνομαι. « AXmfuouss Pors." We apprehend that Fareboncoi must have been merely a typographical error of the Glasgow printer. Pers. 429. 'Axtad de vergãy xosqedis, rýbvor. where Aldus has in sýbevov, contra metruft, as Dr B. would remark. Esamburoform is the older forni.

". 1387. Νίκης ταλαίας, Dr B. adopts Heath's conjecture, Necasei which we may be inclined to admit, when we have better vouchers for the existence of such a word, than Suidas and the great Etymologist, whose glosses refer to Iliad *. 483.

ν. 1392. Περιστιγίζω " Tiportoni w Márg. Ask.” This again was a conjecture of Needham's, which Dr Askew had converted to his

Own use.

V. 1400. Χαίρουσιν ουδέν ήσσον, η Διός νότω Γάν, ει σπορητός κάλυκος εν Doysuper. Dr B. approves of Mr Schutz's conjecture rão svona Q7T09.

But why the Deric form gãy, rather than ? We should prefer l'eix oropateis Auxos šv nozevati, But will Dr Butler drive us onė boli conjecture (which we believe was suggetdh Mr Porson, in consideration of our general acquies. C!Ice in his opinions? What if we were to read, Xxigovoras cidis όσσου, η διοσδότα Γανει σπορητοί κάλυκες εν λοχεύμασι. ? διοσδότω γένει mbre atherii. Re-pecung this usage of seves see Musgrave on v. 1165. of the Supplices of Euripides. Secondly, whichsoever reading is adopted, the substantive must be in the nominative case, because the full construction is paigovoru ojdin sover yñ Xaigsi, ori κάλυκες χαίρουσί. .

vv. 1410. 298. ápgeouévesç. Read iepceduóveos. as in v. 417. of the Persians. So the Attics used adpen, rather than dona.

v. !417. puošs is a nós. The metre requires putās, the correction of Stanley, which Dr B. prefers, but without assigning any ν. 1421. Νύν μεν δικάζεις – Ουδεν του ανδρί τάδ' ενάντιον φέρων.

Si quid mutandom, malim eum Stavleio et Vossio cót'. Sed forte vulgata recte se habet, ut oddiy to sit pro od täid', nil horum, ut Juvenalis loquitur.” We shall be happy to be made acquainted ! with any similar construction of evden goda, and in the mean time request Dr B.'s attention to the following remark. “ Viri optimi Francisci Oudini, qui a in his verbis corripi contendit ex Attico isto Judaicum apud Juvenalem, nulla ratio habenda est.For is an unquestionable correction. Nõv and Tórs are thus opposed to cach other v. Sos. 814. Choeph. 973. Sophocl. Llectr. 076.907. Eurip. Med. 1998. El. 1263. Thucyd. I. 86. VI. 89.

v. 1446. ionis cü peixga Opécous. Read où queezędé.

reason.

v. 1512,

v. 1512. We agree with Dr Butler in suspecting that a dipodia is lost, which answered to go podanýta in v. 1537. for these systems were evidently intended to correspond.

v. 1633. Προς κέντρα μή λάκτιζε, μή πήσας μογής. Dr Butler proposes ke ataisas sognis, which we apprehend to be the true reading.

v. 1646. Egù girortos éxogès i Frandoyarás en Canter. Pauw quatenus, Schütz, Porson. “ Sed fateor mihi perplacere emendationem Bothei reponentis , quod bene Græcum est." Dr Butler did not perceive that ), Mr Porson's reading, is the Attic form for . See Brunck's Lericon Sophoclaim. v. H. (the extract which Brunck has given from Porphyry is also in the Venetian Scholia.) Markland on v. 4:84. of the Suppl. of Euripides. theñ occurs in v. 521. of the Choeplori.

ν. 1665. Πημονής δ' άλις η ύπαρχε. μηδέν αιματώμεθα. Ρors. υπάρχει. Read; Πημονής άλις και υπάρχει. μηδ' δ' αιματώμεθα.

ν. 1666. Στείχετε και οι γέροντες προς δόμους πεπρωμένους του δε, Πρίν παθεϊν, έρξαντα καιρόν χεϊν τάδ' ώς επράξαμε:ν. Μ:: Porson, Στείχεθ' οι γέροντες ήδη. omitting τουσδι. Heath, στερξαντας αινείν χρήν τάδ' ώς έπράuusv

. Dr Butler adopts both these corrections, except that for xeño he writes xer. We never understood what could be meant by doust vixqwuívo.. We would read the passage thus, Στείχεδ' οι γέροντες ήδη προς δόμους, πεπρωμένα Πρίν παθείν. έξαι δε καιρός av rád, as em getapeet. We do not, however, propose this conjecture with any degree of confidence.

We now proceed to the Nota V'arr. et Butleri Philologg. in which Dr Butler has succeeded in explaining some passages misunderstood by foregoing commentators. Indeed, we think that his interpretations are generally judicious; and we give him considerable credit for endeavouring, in most instances, to explain the received text, rather than do as Schutz does, who alters it according to his own very limited notions, and then translates his own reading. What we chiefly complain of in Dr Butler's notes, is the extreme deficiency of illustration from Æsa chylus himself and his brother tragedians, and the great want of accuracy and precision in the few references which are made. The learned editor seems also to think, with Heath and Musgrave, that if a word is to be found in Hesychius or Suidas, that is sufficient authority for the introduction of it into Aschyļus, not being aware of the extremely corrupt state of those Lexicons, even after all the labours of the scholars of the two last centurics: Another defect in the notes of Dr B. is his

* What edition of Hesychius Dr B. uses, we know not. At v. 367. he says, “ Hesych. 'Yziereañ iwię to tidos Pixourvoy.” which is scarcely Greek. In all the editions we have seen, it stands, 'Yriga K k 2

τελής.

propensity to broad and general assertions, without a specification of instances, which is not at all suitable to the practice of scholars of the present age. For instance, åt v. 294. of this play (isxis Topsutoj buzados), Abresch has a note on the active usage of togsuto; on which Dr B. remarks, “ Sic peelitos apud Soph. Trach. v. 446. et multa ejusmodi. Now, independently of the consideration that Abresch's note is nothing to the purpose, (sopeuto; being used in a passive sense, made to go), there are only four, or at most five, similar instances in the Tragedians, besides that quoted by Dr B. viz. Prometh. v. 916. Pers. 55. Soph. (Ed. Col. 1031. and perhaps Antig. 1011. Eurip. Hecub. 1125. We noticed, on a former occasion, that Dr B. has confined his critical reading to those earlier writers, whose laborirs, however extensive and useful, have yet in some measure been surpassed, if not superseded, by the more accurate inquiries of later scholars. Nor have we found, in these additjonal volumes, any reason to retract this censure. Even of David Ruhnken), with whose vast labours in every department of Greek literature (metre excepted) all other modern scholars are familiar, he seems to have no knowledge whatever. *

Dr Butler intends, we presume, to publish the Fragments of Eschylus. The following example may be added to those which we gave in our notice of his first volume, to show how well he is qualified for the task. At v. 70. Schutz has quoted from Stobæus a fragment, of which these are the two first verses, Μόνος θεών γαρ θάνατος ου δώρων ερα. Ουδ' άν τι θύων, ουδ' επισπένδων ναούς. . “ Lege Ouws ovd" in vetovom raois.” S. BUTLER. making, we suppose, bbw and iti ovdãy substantives. But is it possible that Dr B. should not have been aware of the four following fuets; Ist, that evos, (the genitive plural of which is not bus, but étter,

ໃນລາ.)

.) τελής. υπέρ το τέλος αφικομένη. whiclr gloss evidently refers to v. 294. of this play: insgoiansiotós napredos. Again, at v. 685. he quotes from Hesychius 'irroquia---içarão

, içõee where, if Abresch and Bos had not long ago restored sæti, any fourth-form boy would. We will throw into this note a list of passages variously cited by ancient au. thors, of which varieties no notice is taken by Dr B., or any preceding critic, Tues. Tit. v. 4. 7. 8. 11. 43. 44. 45. 46. 234. 269. 276. 293. 300. 422. 411. 455. 478. 498. 560.596.598. 599.600.603.864. AGAM.33.40.41.58.147.164. 292.596.621.932. 1365. 1453. 1454. 1633. We

may add also, that the value of Dr B.'s book as a rariorum edition, is much diminished by the circumstance, that his col. lation of the editions of Aldus and Robortellus is very inaccurate. No fewer than five mistakes occur in the first 54 lines of the S. ag. Theb.

Dr B. indeed remark on .v. 1608. of the Agamemnon, “ Heathius fic vertit...' quocum facit Ruhnken, quein vide in Notis Varr. Philologg.” We have searched

Nott. Varr. Philologg. " for any mention of Ruhnken, bue in rain. The fac? Ruhnken no where fo much as mentions this paffage.

bær.) has its first syllable short in v. 1418. of this play, Odyss. 0. 261. Theocr. II. 10. and wherever else it oecurs. 2d, that vaòs has its first syllable lony. 3d, that a solecism is left in the 2d verse. 4th, that this is a fragment of the Niobe of Eschrlus; and that Stanley has printed noßons for væois, as it is also quoted by Eustath. ad Il. 1. p. 744, 3. Schol. Venet. 11. 1. 158. Stobæus Grot. cxix. p. 485. ? Dr B.'s emendation, then, has these peculiar merits; that it leaves untouched a solecism and a false quantity, and introduces moreover a second false quantity; and we have no doubt but that Mr Bothe of Magdeburt will on these grounds coneur with us in embracing it." But Dr B.'s metrical skill is exerted with equal success on the Latin Tragedians. At v. 834. the following verses of Ennius are quoted by Schutz (who, we suspect, was indebted for his knowledge of them to F. Ursinus's notes on Virgil, En. II. 328.) Num inarimo saltu superavit = Gravidus armatis equus = Qui suo partu ardua perdat Pergama... “ Obiter moneo versus Ennianos male dispositos esse. Eos vel tirones in Senarios redigant." S. BUTLER. We should certainly scott any tiro of ours, did he fail to perceive, that these verses are one very good and regular tetrameter trochaie, and a part of another. Mazimo saltu superavit gravidus armatis equus = Qui suo partu ardua perdat Pargana

Again, v. 150. Odouxta argoutãr. De B. calls a dimeter dactylic, “ modo liceat ultimam in pepata corripere.But this is a license which no scholar, except Mr Bothe of Magdeburg, will concede to him.

The Doctor's philological remarks on the Agamemnon rarely contain any really philological illustrations ; but consist, in a great measure, of expressions of surprise and admiration at the great poetical powers of his author. • Summui artificiun« mira sublimitas," " nec ipse quidem Shakespearius major essr potuitquam splendide ! -quam ornate !- quam vere !-quan suaviter depingunt !” are sprinkled with a profuse band orer 120 pages. In this he seems to have taken Mr Schütz for his model; but, with all due respect to these learner!, but talkative gentlemen, we would suggest, that Æschylus is only to be read by those, who are tolerable proficients in Greek; and that such persons do not stand in need of these finger-posts, to enable them to reach an author's beauties. What description of readers would be benefited by an edition of Shakespeare, filled with such notes as the following ? This is prodigious fine!” “ N. B. This is to be admired!" “ How astonishingly sublime!" “ How amazingly pathetic !”.

But what we principally object to (and it is what all purchasers of the book must also object to) is, that Dr Butler's edition is, like many other variorum editions, not a judicious selection, but an indiscriminate coacervation of all that has been expressly

written

[ocr errors]
« PrécédentContinuer »