in 1133-We would propofe to Mr. Glaffe, ΣAO' oid' in, which is in Eurip. Suppl. 398. Med. 968. 1074. 277. vaugiapa-] This word occurs in the facred writers, but not in the tragedy of Athens.-Euripides has, Troaf. 1258. Κενον δε γαυρωμέ εστι των ζώντων τόδε, whom Mr. Glafle fhould have followed. 278. TWv desπol8vlwv giv-violentiam tyrannorum.] The Tragic poets ufe, in an active fenfe, AsσTOLE. Efchylus, Prom. 208. 929. Agam. 552. Choeph. 189. Perf. 241. Eur. Troaf. 716. Alc. 497. Suppl. 520. Herc. Fur. 28. 257. Andr. 930. In. 1055. Soph. Trach, 363.-but AcσTorzola only in the paffive. Efch. Eum. 530. 698. Chaeth. 103. Eur. Heracl. 887. 279 —pifov annaxx oyes-hæc crimina aliis objicite.] It should have been aλ200ɛ, alium in locum, or aliis, for aλλxx is Alibi. Eur. Or. 1459. 1462. 1472. Soph. Trach. 272. Xenophon, Hellen. II. 3. 14. p. 76. Ed Mori.-Thefe adverbs fhould not be confounded *. 282. ou 'fontnoav Tole -Nunquam opitulati funt.] Ov for Oux can never poffibly stand before a word, beginning with a vowel, and of courfe the initial Epfilon of Confnav cannot thus fuffer elifion. The infcription, indeed, which Tournefort brought from Deles, and which has been published by Wheeler, Spon, and Chihull, runs thus: Οι αυτό λιθα ειμ' ανδριας και το σφέλας. Chih. Infeript. Sigea. p. 16. Ed. fec.-it may not be unfatiffactory to the curious reader to perufe a paffage, relative to this line from an inedited letter of Dr. Bentley to Dr. Mead, written foon after the first publication of Chifhull's book. "M. Tournefort brought out of Greece a fhort infcription, on a bafis at Delos, on which formerly ftood a colofs ftatue of Apollo. The letters are of the fame form with our Sigean monument. In prefent letters thus: Ο αν υπό λιθο εμ ανδρίας και το σφελας. Father Montfaucon reads it thus: Ev T'2 λιθω ειμι ανδρίας και το σφέλας, This is justly cenfured by Mr. Chifhull as both varying from the original and void of all good fenfe. Mr. C. goes exactly to the letters and reads thus: Οι αυλά λιθα ειμι ανδρικς και το σφέλας. Non fum ejufdem lapidis et flatua et bafis. But, with all fubmiffion, even this fente teems too low, and not worthy to be faid to all fpectators. For what wonder, that the * Hic and Huc are frequently confounded in Bentl. on Manilius, II. 649. Burman, in Virgil Latin MSS. See n. V. 484. ftue ftatue and bafis fhould be of different ftones, when in the greater ftatues it was scarce ever otherwife, the ftatue being fixed or foldered to the bafe. I'll try my hand at it, and fhall keep exadly to the letters, only beg leave to fuppofe a Tau, which, in above 2000 years, may have been worn out, at the beginning. I read τε αυτς λιθα ειμ' ανδριας και το σφέλας, Εx eodem lapide fum ftatua et bafis. That is, to the then pronunciation, and in the now orthography, Ταύζς λιθα ειμ' ανδρίας και το σελας. Which is a true Iambic verte, and that establishes the correction. This, indeed, was worth telling. To be of the fame tone, in a Colofs, was both coftly and extraordinary."-Chihull, p. 43. fuggefts a reafon why this may have been the true reading. Without attempting to confute or affent to the arguments of thefe Critics, we fhall only fay that ou before aule cannot fignify non, as Or for OTK cannot ftand before a vowel. ου In the Oedipus Tyr. of Sophocles, 1387. Mr. Burgess would read Το μη ου 'ποκλείσαι for το μη 'ποκλείσαι, by cutting off the inicial alpha after ou, which we do not deem allowable. Brunck retains the old reading, V. 1388. but does not feem fenfible of the impropriety that is obfervable in Mr. Burgefs's correction, who, we doubt not, will excuse our mentioning it. Brunck's filence is not furprifing, as he has himself committed the fame mistake in the Ecclefiaz. of Ariftophanes, where Chremes is relating the tranfactions of the Council to Blepyrus. "Then (he fays) Euæon, a very clever fellow, came forward, 2s the majority thought, naked, αυτος γε μεν ου 'φασκεν ἱμάτιον EXEW, for he himself denied that he had a robe."-But, furely, if Euæon afferted his own naked nefs, more than & Theoves would have believed it.-The true reading, inftead of μer' ou 'Caσnev, is, μεvos EQαoxer, which, according to the ufual Attic crafis, hould be μerrouparxev, as it is printed totidem literis in the edition of Aldus 1498. MET OupaσNEV in Juntæ 1515. 1525. 1540, which laft edition Harles, in his Præf. to the Nubes, Lipf. 1788, fuppofes never was in existence. A copy of it now lies before us, and Hemfterhufius in Plut. mentions it fix times, not quater, as Harles afferts, p. 52. 64. 70. 79. 95. 108; and though neither Maittaire nor Brunck had ever feen this edition, Hemfterhufius was not a Critic of fo little accuracy, that his affertions fhould be called in queftion by Theophilus Chriftopherus Harles. The reading μετ' υφασκεν appears in the editions of Cheridamus, 1528. Cratand. 1532. Zanetti, 1538. Wechel. 1540. Farrei. 1542. Brubach. 1544. Froben. 1547. Raphel. 1600. and Lugd. Bat. 1625.-The lection Ev tepaoner is alfo in Portus, 1607, where the tranflation fays, Ipfe quidem non dicebat veftem habere, as Divus had rendered it in 1539; • See Dawes, M. Cr. p. 133. but but in the editions of 1624, Lugd. Bat. and 1670, Amel po 'Qarner, though in the 1625, Lugd. B. it is μév Caskey. -Kufter agrees with Brunck. In the fame way, as μεν οι εφασκεν becomes μεντεφασκεν, we find μοι ɛch is made μly, in this very comedy, 1006 and 1029. in Aldus and the three junta, where Brunck has edited, pov, which Hemfterhufius, in Plut. 829. where he gives μv, and mentions these two laft paffages, lays, poterat per fxiv folam fcribi posoly-In the Vespe 159. Brunck reads paviour MOR χρησεν εν Δελφοις πόλε, where didus and the three Punta give μxproεv. In this play alfo, V. 34. Brunck has published a oxel, where the old editions read μovcóxɛ *.-A future editor of Ariftophanes will merit cenfure, if he does not attend to the union of the Crafis and Ecthliphis, which is carefully preferved in the oldeft editions, and thus pointed out by Gregorius Cor. de Dialelis, Ατζικου και το εκθλίβειν άμα και κίρνᾷν, ὡς το, ε γαρ μεστίν, αντί τε, ο γαρ μοι εστιν. εκθλίβεται γαρ το 1, και κιρναται το Ο και Ε, εις την ο διφθογίον. Koen gives more examples in his note, p. 64. 28. & Conv.] If our laft note is wrong, this may be right for εκ εκομπαζόμην. 285. nat avtpuno povwv, Mr. G. renders, humanæ laudis fludiofus, but how does this correfpond with Sophocles? In Ant. 768. Creon fays of Antigone, govεilw μeisov, n xar' avopa.—In Ajac. 761-un naт' avguπov govεL. This paffage requires correction. In 286. we fhould prefer eyes, for sera ux, emphafis caufa. In 288. Ev Tydlažu feems rather familiar, than tragic Greek. Is the phrafe to be found in the Tragedies? In 290, whyugav occurs, to which we objected in the note on V. 231. 291. ημος δ' έπη θον - δη τοτ' εκλιπών-] This is Homeric, not tragic Greek. Sophocles, Trach. 155.-Odov rag nuos-wqual απ' οίκων Ηρακλης, τοῦ ἐν δόμοις λειπειποι δη τοτ' εν δόμοις. See note on V. 167— nuos and Tauos are oppofed in the Trach. 530. nuos is in Eur. Hecub 915. 292. ALEVEY.] This is an Homeric word, ufed by EfchyJus in a Chorus of the Suppl. 828-On this verb fee Dorville, Crit. Varn. 65. which we do not recollect in lambics. Brunck makes a prefent of Aineo to Euripides, Hipp. 494. This Cri * The next line but one, 37. έχεσα φωνην εμπεπρησμένης σας fuggets the correction of a line in Alcaus the Comic writer, where Cafaubon and Toup have left an hiatus: Ὧν σοι λέγω πλεον τι γαληθινης εις, 10 read for you, afud Athen. IX. p. 396.—Add Suidas, V.-"YS λεγεται επι θήλεια, συς αξξενες. So aving bec, Esch. ap. Athen. IX. and Ariftoph. Plut. 1106. sa v .—This line of Alcaus was mentioned as wrong in the Review of Huntingford's Apology. Monthly Rev. Septemb. 1785 p. 182. tic's excess of generofity fometimes induces him to overlook common forms and cuftoms. 293. πέίροισιν Εθανιοις εκρυψάμην, inter fcopulus Ethan delitui.] Do not the Attic poets generally diftinguish between Пepos, Lapis and Пelpa, Rupes? 296. EXETE fhould have been rendered Illuc, by Mr. G. Eur. Bacch. 410. In. 1390. and not Illic. as in 299. #pedidar & Evaviois, prodiderunt hoftibus.] Пpedidov for #gordidor av is not to be found in any ancient Greek writer. Our objections to evavior in the fenfe of Hoftes, without the article, were stated in the note on V. 150. 300. decμaл-] It should be despois. See note on V. 177. Acquais o curs in Soph. Aj. 62. 72. Eur. Alc. 1c06. Iph. T. 457. Bacch. 444. and Heracl. 864. Acoμois Tε dnoas xepas, which TE δησας Mr. G. fhould have followed. 302. αίψα δεσματ'] Αιψα is a rare word in Iambics. Efch. Suppl. 499-Deoμala for doua is not Attic Greek. See on V. 177. 300. 304. EavαolpεQwv, evertens.] Is this word properly used? See Είη Per/814. Δαιμόνων θ' ιδρυματα Προρριζα Φύρδην εξανεστραπο Tai Calfwv, de templis everfis - Sophocles, fragm. inc. LXXXVII. ap. Sch. in Αr. Αν. 1240. Χρυση μακέλλη Ζήνος εξαναστραφη.but where is this verb ufed about men and armies? 305. xxlxσπεrda xoxs-fundo terræ libationem.] Is the idea of κατασπένδειν χρας confiftent with the religion of Samfon? Mr. Glaffe lays, in his Preface: "Hoc unum præcipuè cavendum putavi, ne Chananæi vel Ifraëlitæ verbis Grace mythologia propriis, ultra quam neceffe effet, alicubi uerentur."-Hence Mr. Glaffe has omitted the paffages which related to Atlas, the Alps, " de Circes poculo, de telis Chalybeis, de Phonice." Præf. p. xvi.—On this fubject, we must refer the learned reader to a bitter, but acute letter of Salmafius to Menagius, fuper Herode Infanticida, a tra gedy by Heinfius, p. 12. 31. and 186. 310. 5 Two Exovlov-Cum ita fe res haberent.] Read Tand ad exolay, for fuch is the language of Tragedy. Eur. Troaf. 1153. NS EXε Ta oa-Ut tua tunc fert fortuna.-But Or. 1645. ως έχει ταδε Sic ef. The diftindion between ὡς ἔχειν and Ex is fufficiently clear. Confult Eur. Iph. A. 8,6. Or 1676. Soph. Aj. 281. 904. 981. Phil. 255. Ant. 1179. 312. παγχυ. See note on V. 219. 313. αναπορθήσαι πόλεις. We recollect πορίησαι πόλεις, but whence comies αναπορθησαν πόλεις ? - 316. vw pomapding-excordes-] This is not an Attic, but a feriptural word, from the Septuagint, Prov. XII. 8. See the Commentators on it in Hefychius. 317. άνδρας δελειον εύρη ημαρ-] This fentence fhould rather have been conftruded with the verb εσπιπλείν, than εύρισκειν. Eur. Eur. Andr. 99. Δελειον ημας εσπεσισ' αναξίως.-In Hec. 56. δκα dyλειον ημαρ Edes. As the paffage now ftands, the Trach. 286. of Sophocles will not defend it: εξ ολβίων αζηλον εύρεσαι βίου. - 320. deλEus, captivitas.] This is not a Tragic word. These poets ufe donorum Efch. Sept. Th. 115. Eur. Phan. 200. Andr. 110.-λa. Eur. Hec. 158. Phan. 199. Iph. Taur. 451. Toraf. 159. Bacch. 803. Archel. frag. IV. Soph. Aj. 944. Ariftoph. Vefp. 681.-Ashwμa, which Mr. G. ufes in V. 8. fignifies Servitii flatus peculiaris, or Mancipium. Eur. Or. 221. Ion. 761. Soph. Ant. 757.-To thefe may be added drawois, Thucyd. III. to. p. 173. 322 avoinJELE TIS - quis furgat.] Mr. G. has not attended to the difference of the first and fecond Aorifts of audimu.-He fhould have written avarlam, as the Aor. C. is used neutrally by Elch. Per. 201. Ag.578. Eur. Or. 885. 917.-See allo Xenophon and Homer.-Avenox occurs actively in Efch. Suppl. 328. ανσίησης-Soph. Εl. 138. ανδίασεις. Eur. H. Fur. 721. ει avzστήσειε νιν τις. See allo Thomas Mag. V. ανέπλησα - A learned brother has pointed out the difference of fignification in the Aorifts of the verb Baire or Bnui, Monthly Rev. Jan. 1789. p. 47*. 324. lor-Comic Greek. See the note on V. 3. and V. 37. Our remark, that this form of pronoun was never ufed in tragedy, is ftrongly confirmed, if confirmation be ftill neceffary, by a line in the Cyclops ιν' εστι τελι τ' ορθον εξανισταναι, as the Jatyric language, in fo many particulars, resembles that of Comedy, more than that of Tragedy.-In this verse Tiμnodai is ufed paffivè as in Efch. Agam. 590. Eur. Erecth. fragm. I. 54. Soph. Antig. 210.-but what authority is there for Qlovnoela in a paffive fignification in the next verse? 327. Λόγος δ' επιρρίψαντες οἱ 'πιδήμιοι τραχεις.] In imitation of Efchylus, Prom. 311. — τραχεις και τεθηγμένες λόγες Ρίψεις. So in Suppl. 493. μη απορριφθη λογος. 330. ayavas, fplendida-] Efch. Perf. 992. in Choro: Пegrass ayavois nanx - dɛys.-Herodot. p. 537. 42.-but we remember no Iambic authority. 331. Ednav-probro affecerunt-] Is this Aorift in ufe among the Tragic poets?-We find, indeed, in the Proverbs of Apoftolius, XI. 35. Μυς έδηξε βρασίδαν εν ιχασιν. 332. Γεδεώνα καλλίνικον. Should it not be του Καλλινικον, 25 in Eur. Herc. F. 582. Hexxλns & nanunos. Bacch. 1145. avaκαλέσα Βακχιον του Καλλινικον. The article seems requifite, when this word is joined to a proper name. 332. dpaneles ayes-fugientes reges.] What authority is there for deals?-The fubftantive Apanelns, Genit. Agamle, occurs * De au et av pro zia vid. Valcken. et Brunck in E. Phan. 1420. |