« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
φανῶς; 941. Οὐκ ἔσθ ̓ ὅγ ̓ εἶπον. Æsch. Prometh. 254. Αφ ̓ οὗγε πολλὰ ἐκμαθήσονται τέχνας. Euntu. 25. Εξ οὗγε Βάκχαις ἐστρατήγησεν θεός.
911. ἣ φάος τόδε Οὔπω χρόνον παλαιὸν εἰσεδέρκετο. We have little doubt but that the genuine realing 15 ἦ φάος τόδε.
920. ̓͂Ω πολλὰ μανθάνοντες ἄνθρωποι μάτην, Τί δὴ τέχνας μὲν μυρίας διδάσ κετε; Valckenaer puts a comma after ἄνθρωποι, and connects μάτην with the following words. But, unless we mistake, Tí, followed by or δῆτα, is always the first word in any member of a sentence. See vv. 806. 859. 1063. of this play. Hec. 985. Phoen. 746. 752. 941. 1631. Med. 672. 676. 925. Alc. 530. 688. Αndrom. 84. 397. - Suppl. 734. 946. 1004. Iph. Α. 1444. 1548. Heracl. 163. Ion. 255. 275. (where δὴ is to be read for dal) Sophocl. Ajac. 109.
919) Ἔκ τοι πέπληγμαι· σοὶ γὰς ἐκπλήσσουσί με Λόγοι, παραλλάσσοντες ἔξεδροι Φρενῶν. Corrigendum censet Blomieldsus ἔξεδρος.” We suspect that this is a false print for adgov, which we conceive to be the true reading. Heracl. 709. Τί χρῆμα μέλλεις, σῶν φρενῶν οὐκ ἔνδον ὤν. Εsch. Choeph. 231. Ενδον γενοῦ, χαρᾷ δὲ μὴ ἐκπλαγῇς φρένας, where we would read φρενός.
957. Ορφέα τ ̓ ἄνακτ' ἔχων Βάκχευε. No one of the commentators has perceived the full force of this passage. It appears, we think, from Theophrastus, Char. 25. p. 50. ed. Schneider. that the ̓Ορφεοτελέσ Tai were looked upon at Athens as a sort of conjurers, who imposed upon credulous and superstitious persons. The incantations of Orpheus are mentioned in the Cyclops, v. 642. Alcest. 967.
983. Οὐδ ̓ αἱ θαλάσσης ξύννομοι Σπειρωνίδες Φήσουσι πέτραι. Mr. Monk quotes from the Helena σύννομοι νεφέων. But we should prefer, in the verse before us, θαλάσσῃ ξύννομοι. Esch. Choeph. 596. ἔρωτας ἄταισι συννόμους. Aristoph. Av. 208. ἄγε, σύννομέ μοι.
993. The passage of Aristotle, referred to by Valckenaer and Mr. Monk, was pointed out by Hartungus, in the Fax Critica of Gruter, Obs. Crit. 11. 9.
1093. ̓́Αρηρεν, ὡς ἔοικεν. dir. Monk follows Brunck in adopting the Doric form paper, and enumerates several Dorisms admitted by the Attic writers. To these we will add two, which are not commonly known, Rhes. 797. Πίπτω δὲ πρηνής. It should be written πρανής. See Pierson on Maris, p. 318. Ruhnken on Timæus, p. 221.-Esch. Choeph. 597. Εἰ δ ̓ οὖν ἀμείψω βῆλον ἕρκειον πυλῶν. It should be βᾶλον. Lex. Rhetor. MS. Βατὴρ σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν τῆς θύρας οὐδὸν, ὃν Ομηρος βῆλον, οἱ δὲ Τραγικοὶ, βᾶλον. Ηesych. Βᾶλον. οὐδόν.
1090. φευξόμεσθα δή. Mr. Monk prefers φευξούμεσθα. We apprehend that the Attics used φευξόμεσθα and φευξούμεθα, but not φευξούμεσθα.
1119. Οὐκέτι γὰρ καθαρὰν φρέν ̓ ἔχω. Mr. Monk supposes the metaphor to be taken from troubled waters, and cites an apposite passage from Shakespeare, Troitus, and Cressida III. iii. We may add Eurip. Alcest. 1667, Θελοῖ δὲ καρδίαν. Pherecrates in the Etymologicum, p. 750, 12. Ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνίας ἀνεθυλοῦθ ̓ ἡ καρδία.
1126. ὅθι κενῶν Ωκυπόδων ἐπέβα Θεᾶς μέτα, θῆρας ἐναίρων. omits θεάς. The professor ineloses ἐναίρων in brackets. We should prefer ὅθι κυνῶν Ωκυπόδων μέτα θῆρας ἔναιρεν. In this opinion we are confirm
ed by the occurrence of ißáo in the next verse but one. Besides, ἐπιβαίνειν is never used by Euripides in the sense of going against. We think, moreover, that it is very unlikely that ivaip should be the addition of a copyist. The augment is not always used in the choric
1174. μυρία δ ̓ ὀπισθόπους φίλων ἅμ ̓ ἔστειχ ̓ ἡλίκων ὁμήγυρις. We have little doubt but the professor is right in conjecturing ἡλίκων θ ̓ ὁμήγυρις If the common reading be retained, φίλων must be taken as an adjective.
1212. Κρεῖσσον θέαμα δειγμάτων. Valckenaer proposes δειμάτων, Musgrave φθεγμάτων. The professor defends δειγμάτων, If any change is necessary, we should prefer θαυμάτων. Bacch. 666. Ω δεινὰ δρῶσας θαυμάτων τε κρείσσονα. Hecub. 705. *Αῤῥητ ̓, ἀνωνόμαστα, θαυμάτων πέρα. Iph. Τaur. 839. θαυμάτων πέρα.
1323. Κύπρις γὰρ ἤθελ ̓ ὥστε γίγνεσθαι τάδε. Amongst other instances of the pleonasm of ὥστε, Mr. Monk and his illustrious predecessor ne tice v. 581. of the Supplices, Οὔτοι μ ̓ ἐπαίρεις, ὥστε θυμῶσαι φρένας ; in which passage, however, as it stands, ὥστε does not abound. θυμῶσαι is not to be angry, but to irritate. If we adopt Musgrave's correction, θυμοῦσθαι, the particle will be redundant, as in the verse before us.
1339. Mr. Monk gives us a very good note on the quantity of νεαρός, and proposes that in Sophocles (Ed. Col. v. 475. for Οἰὸς νεαρᾶς νεοπόκῳ μαλλῷ βαλών, should be read Nεαρᾶς απ ̓ οὐὸς ν. μ. β. We suspect Οἰδς νεόγνου.
1352. ̓͂Ω στυγνὸν ὄχημ ̓ ἵππειον, ἐμῆς Βόσκημα χερός. There are some passages in the tragedians where the metre requires the form ἵππιος ; we do not at present remember any other than the verse before us where it requires ἵππειος. We would therefore read ̓͂Ω στυγνὸν ὄχημ ἱππικὸν, ἀμῆς Βόσκημα χερός.
1362. Οδ ̓ ὁ σωφροσύνῃ πάντας ὑπερέχων. Mr. Monk judiciously adopts ὑπερσχὼν, the correction of Valckenaer, which is also sanctioned by the approbation of Mr. Gaisford. We would reall πάντος. Æsch. Pers. 708. Ω βροτῶν πάντων ὑπερσχὼν ὄλβον εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ. He remarks with Mr. Gaisford, Rarissime in legitimo systemate anapæstum dactylo subjecerunt tragici. In Alcest. 50. Οστις ἂν ἐνέποι, πότερον φθιμένην, corrigendum opinor Ὅστις ἂν εἴποι. In Electr. 1328. lego Θάρσει ̇ Παλλάδος ἥξεις ὁσίαν Πόλιν· ἀλλ ̓ ἀνέχου. pro vulg. ὁσίαν ἥξεις. These corrections, though probable, are not absolutely necessary. Troad. 101. Μεταβαλλομένου δαίμονος ἀνέχου. 177. Τᾶσδ ̓ Αγαμέμνονος ἐπακουσαμένη. Ion. 89. Σμύρνης δ ̓ ἀνύδρου καπνὸς ἐς ὀρόφους. where of course should be read καπνὸς εἰς ὀρύφους.
1365. The Professor enumerates several instances of the indiscriminate use of the terminations in EIA and IA. We add ἱερία Iph. Τ. 34. 1399. ἀμελία Iph. Α. 850. ἀνδρία Herc. F. 475. εὐγενίας ibid. 696. where the editions have εὐγενείας. εὐσεβίᾳ Ion 1094. where the editions have εὐσεβεία, δυσσεβία Esch. Εumen. 531. ἀλαζονία Aristoxenus in Hephæst. p. 46. ἑταιρίας Soph. Ajac. 692. where Suidas has ἑταιρείας, which Porson prefers. εὐτυχία is the common form, but Sophocles in Etymol. Μ. p. 462, has εὐτύχεια.
VOL. VIII. NO. XV.
1381. ᾤμοι μοι, τι φῶ; Brunck has ᾧ μοι μοι. We never could perceive whence this iota was subscribed. It should always, we think, be written οἴμοι or ὦ
1442. κατ ̓ ὄσσων κιχάνει μ ̓ ἤδη σκότος. Mr. Monk restores κιγχάνει, the correction of Porson, who has applied the same medicine to v. 520 of the Choephori of Eschylus. Mr. Hermann, in his treatise on Greek Grammar, p. 59. excogitates another form, xxxára, according to the analogy of which, we should have ματθάνω for μανθάνω, πυνθάνομαι for πυνθάνομαι, τυκχάνω for τυγχάνω, which Mr. Hermann probably is not pres pared to acknowledge as legitimate forms. The Professor does not agree with the grammarians, who deduce these forms in are from obsolete verbs: but derives μανθάνειν, λαμβάνει, &c. from the aorists μαθεῖν, λαβεῖν.
The note on v. 1458 gives an excellent account of the passive future tenses of verbs, which we transcribe, as a specimen of the Professor's style of philological illustration.
Notandum tironibus, quatuor esse apud Græcos formas futurorum passive significantium. Exempla rem apertam facient. Primi igitur generis esse ponamnus τιμήσομαι, στυγήσομαι, λέξομαι: secundi, quod paulo post futuri nomine distinguunt grammatici, Beßλnoopas, yeyeaψομαι: tertii βληθήσομαι, ἀπαλλαχθήσομαι: quarti, quod apud tragicos rarius est, ἀπαλλαγήσομαι, φανήσομαι. Primæ formæ, cui futuri medii titulum dederunt Grammatici, usus passivus Atticis maxime placuit. Vide Hemsterhusium ad Thom. Mag. p. 852. Exempla horum futurorum passive significantium, quæ inter tragicorum lectionem enotavi, exscribam. aoua Hec. 901. Alc. 323. Iph. T. 1047. Herc. F. 852. Soph. Ed. C. 1186. vinoμas Fragm. Eur. Erecthei I. 54. Soph. Antig. 210. Esch. Ag. 590. regnoua Eur. Electr. 310. Hipp. 1458. Soph. Electr. 1210. Antig. 890. xngúžoμas Phœn. 1646. åλwooμat Andr. 190. Soph. Ed. T. 576. Ed. C. 1064. Ant. 46. iávoμat Iph. A. 331. ρησήσομαι Τr. 663. Ion. 623. στυγήσομαι Soph. (Ed. Τ. 672. δηλώσομαι Soph. Ed. C. 581. Bovλsúcoμas Esch. Theb. 204. ivistas Orest. 509. gopas Esch. Pers. 591. doua Helen. 1446. Soph. Ant. 726. i Tapas Suppl. 521. Alia quædam hujusmodi in tragicorum reliquiis deprehendet lector Apud ceteros Atticos frequentissima sunt. vid. Pierson. ad Mær. pp. 13. 361. Præiverat Homerus in Odyss. A. 123. Χαῖρε ξεῖνε· παρ ̓ ἄμμι φιλήσεαι. Iis, quæ descripsi, addi posset ἐξογκώσεται supra v. 942. Sed hujus futuri usus videtur a ceteris jam notatis nonpihil distare, et reciprocam potius quam passivam significationem capere.'
It will be perceived from the above remarks, that there are very few points of importance, about which we have occasion to differ from the Professor. We think highly of the skill and learning which are displayed in his critical and philological notes; but are bound more particularly to commend the caution and judgment which have led him to defend, wherever it was possible, the common reading, rather than incur the charge of innovation. This he ❤wes, in part, to his initiation into the school of Porson, one pecu
liar characteristic of which is, the not making any alteration in the received text, except on the strongest grounds. His selection from the voluminous commentary of Valckenaer is judicious, and his additional matter valuable. With regard to the style of Mr. Monk's notes, if we have any thing to object, it is that, now and then, it is somewhat redundant. In all critical annotations one great object to be aimed at is perspicuity, which is best attained by shortness and simplicity. We should prefer, in works of this nature, a style remarkably plain, or even jejune, to an ambitious and ornamented phraseology; it appears to us that the flowers of rhetoric are misplaced in discussions on the position of an accent, the luxation of a dochmiac, or the hallucination of some sinful copyist. We do not mean to insinuate that the Professor's style is either ambitious of highly ornamented; but still we think that it may, in some respects, be chastised with advantage.
We must not omit to remark, that Mr. Monk has considerably the advantage of bis predecessor, in the treatment which he gives to other critics; he writes, as every scholar should write, like a person whose principal object is, not the detection and exposure of other men's mistakes, but the promotion of sound learning. This is certainly more than can be said of Mr. Porson; who, when he is commenting upon his author's text, is exceedingly brief; but who can, upon occasion, write a note of seventeen columns to expose the er rors of former critics. We could perhaps wish that Mr. Monk had treated with rather more kindness a scholar, who has unquestionably rendered great service to the republic of letters; we mean Philip Brunck, who, although he was eminently deficient in labour and extent of research, had certainly a very acute perception of the niceties of the Greek language, and a very classical taste. Had Brunck read more and published less, he would better have consulted his reputation; but with all his blunders, and oversights, and inaccuracies, he must ever continue to hold a respectable rank amongst the illustrators of the Greek drama.
These are the principal points, in which Mr. Monk's plan strikes us as being capable of some improvement; and these we urge, not from a wish to find fault with what he has so ably done, but under an impression that he intends to add to the obligation which he has already conferred upon the literary public, by giving us useful and handsome editions of some of the remaining plays of Euripides.
An accidental delay in the printing of this article affords us an opportunity of adding our δεύτεραι φροντίδες, which may perhaps merit the encomium bestowed by Phædra's nurse on second thoughts; viz. that of being σoprepas. V. 105.
V. 105. Οὐδείς μ ̓ ἀρέσκει νυκτὶ θαυμαστὸς θεῶν. We would read νύκτιθαύμαστος.
124. Οθι μοι τὶς ἦν φίλα τόθι D. E. Lasc. which is the true reading: Εὐαλίου κατεβαλλ ́. ὅθεν μοι. The corresponding verse in the antistrophe is, Κρυπτῷ τε πένθει θανατου θέλουσαν. which Mr. Monk alters to Κρυπτῷ πάθει. We would retain πένθει, omitting τε, and would read Τᾶς εὐείλου. In v. 685 of the Phanissa Musgrave has restored εὐείλοισι for εὐηλίοισι.
The poets do
138. θέλουσαν Κέλσαι ποτὶ τέρμα δύστανον. Read ποτε. nol say Κέλσαι πρός τι, but κέλσαι τι.
167. ἀΰτευν. Read αΰτουν.
178. Τόδε σοι φέγγος λαμπρὸν, ὅδ ̓ αἰθήρ. We conceive the true reading to be, Τόδε σοι φέγγος, λαμπρὸς ὅδ ̓ αἰθήρ. The words λαμπρὸς αἰθὴς occur in the Orestes 1085. Med. 825. Ion. 1445. The clearness of their atmosphere was a topic of frequent encomium with the Athenian poets.
267. Γύναι γεραιά, βασιλίδος πιστὴ τροφὲ Φαίδρας, ὁρῶ μὲν τάσδε δυστήνους τύχας. Surely the following punctuation is better, Γύναι γεραιά, βασιλία δος πιστὴ τροφὲ, Φαίδρας ὁρῶ μὲν τ. δ. τ.
289. καὶ σύ θ ̓ ἡδίων γενοῦ, Στυγνὴν ὀφρὺν λύσασα, καὶ γνώμης ὁδόν. Ἐγώ θ ̓, ὅπη σοι μὴ καλῶς τοθ ̓ εἰπόμην, Μεθεῖσ', ἐπ ̓ ἄλλην εἶμι βελτίω λόγον. We have no doubt but that the above passage should stand thus; καὶ σύ γ ἡδίων γενοῦ, Στυγνὴν ὀφρὺν λύσασα, καὶ γνώμης ὁδὸν Εγωγ ̓, ὅπη σοι μὴ καλῶς τόθ ̓ ἑσπόμην, Μεθεῖσ', κ. τ. λ.
328. ΤΡ. Μεῖζον γὰρ ἢ σοῦ μὴ τυχεῖν, τί μοι κακόν ; Ολεῖ. ΦΑΙ. τὸ μέντοι πρᾶγμ ̓ ἐμοὶ τιμὴν φέρει. The tragedians always fiuish of these reciprocating dialogues in single verses. WVe would therefore read ΦΑΙ. ̓Ολεῖς. τὸ μέντοι πρᾶγμ ̓ ἐμοι τιμὴν φέρει. These last words are said to herself ; by τὸ πρᾶγμα she means the death which she is meditating ; cf. v. 331. V.343. ἐκεῖθεν is not ab ista re as Mr. Monk explains it, but rather ab isto tempore.
393. ὥστε τοὔμπαλιν πεσεῖν φρενῶν. Read ὥστ ̓ εἰς τοὔμπαλιν. 666. τίνα νῦν ἢ τέχναν The metre requires the enclitic. 796. Λυπηρὸς ἡμῖν τούσδ ̓ ἂν ἐκλίποι δόμους. Read ἐκλείποι.
808. Χαλᾶτε κλεῖθρα, πρόσπολοι, πυλωμάτων· ̓Εκλύεθ ̓ ἁρμούς. The colon should be taken away after πυλωμάτων and placed after πρόσπολοι.
876. πρὸς γὰρ τινὸς Οἰωνὸν, ὥστε μάντις, εἰσορῶ κακόν. We read πρὸ γάς
τινκ Οἰωνὸν κ. τ. λ.
1048. Ως ἄξιον τόδ ̓ εἶπας ̇ οὐχ οὕτω θανεῖ. We would read οὐ δ ̓ οὕτως θανεῖ.
1181. λέγει. 1305. πέσοι. 1322. σοὶ καὶ 1972. τὸν δυσδαίμονά με 1439. Λίποις δὲ μακράν.
1354. κατά μ ̓ ἔκτεινας.