nion, even admitting that he was, the fenfe is better in the original reading. Elefira, v. 497-500. None of the interpreters (fays Dr. Heath) have been able to make any thing of προΊωνδε; nor need we wonder that they have not, for it is pretty evident that the words powde are a corrupt reading, and that inftead of po ought to be read προς. Πρις Ίωνδε ab his, i. e. from the Furies, of whom mention was made juft before. This then will be the conftruction of the pafiage: Προς Ίονδε τοι των Εριννυων έχει με θαρσις τέρας ἡμῖν πελαν τοις δρωσι και συνδρωσι μηποε αψεγες. Ab Life Furiis mini perfuafum eft prodigium hoc Auctoribus, fociifque Sceleris appropinquare nequaquam innocuum. From this conftruction it appears that the word nu is redundant, which Johnfon alfo has obferved. Ibid. 690-1. Χώπως μεν ἐν πολλοῖσι παυρα σοι λέγω The conftruction of this paffage is fo obvious, that it is furprizing to us to find that no one before Dr. Heath could explain it; that neither Camerarius, Johnton, nor Father Brumoy, could hit upon the right fenfe of it. Thus, however, it is to be taken : Και ουκ οἶδα μεν όπως σοι λέγω παυρά έργα και κρατη τοιςδ ̓ ἀνδρος ἐν πολλοισι. Atque equidem haud fcio quomodo tibi referam pauca talis viri facta egregia et victorias inter multa quibus inclaruit. Ibid. 1034. Ανέξομαι κλύουσα χ ̓ ᾧταν ἐν λέγης. H. Stephens has given the right explication of this verse, as follows: Audiam patienter te tum quoque quum Confilia mea laudabis, et te ta afpernatam effe ponitebit. That is, the time will come, when i fhall hear you, under the conviction of misfortunes, praife my advice. Whether or not this paffage may be confidered by the Cri-tics as dignus vindice nodus, yet, as it has long been a fubject of controversy, we fhall quote our Author's note upon it, and the rather as we look upon his arbitration to come nearest the truth, by taking the medium of the difpute; for we have obferved that where the contention of difputants runs high, truth generally lies in the middle, and that, while the one pulls at her right hand, and the other at her left, she is brought over to neither fide. "De vero hujus loci fenfu magna olim Controverfia exorta eft inter viros celeberrimos, Boivinum et Dacierum. Boivinus veteris Scholiafte Sententiam fecutus per verba ifta oi de ouv γερα βαρεις ἱερεις non nifi unum hominem intelligi vult, ipfum fcilicet jovis facerdotem qui hæc loquitur, et cum ex iis quæ infra dicuntur, v. 142-8. Conftet facerdotem hunc una cum pueris, audito oraculo, difceffiffe, chorum, qui ftatim poft eorum difceffum canticum fuum exorditur, ex primariis Thebanorum viris ab Edipo accerfitis, et tunc primum in fcenam prodeuntibus, conftitutum fuiffe ftatuit. Dacierus contra, non jovis tantum facerdotem, fed aliorum etiam deorum facerdotes, qui hunc una cum pueris et juvenibus lectis comitati erant verbis iftis defignari contendit, atque hos quidem facerdotes poft illius et puerorum difceffum in fcena manfiffe, chorumque conftituifle, afferit. Rationes quibus fententiam fuam utrinque aftruere conati funt viri eruditi videre poterit Lector in Hiftor. Acad. Gallic. Infcript. Vol. II. p. 174, & feq.-His autem accuraté penfitatis mihi quidem videtur UTRUMQUE VERUM PARTIM VIDISSE, PARTIM MINUS ESSE ASSECUTUM. Et ad hunc locum quod attinet, numerum pluralem pro fingulari pofitum, adeo ut os de our γερᾳ βαρεις ἱερεις non nifi unum facerdotem denotent, præfertim protinus fequente fingulari εyw μev Znuos, vix mihi perfuadere poffum, neque conftructionem talem Græci Sermonis indolem pati exiftimo. Trium igitur, mea fententiâ, ætatum hominibus conftabat cætus ille fupplicum cujus nomine dipum hic alloquitur jovis facerdos, infantibus fcili-cet vix incedere valentibus, facerdotibus annis gravibus, et juvenibus è pube thebanâ lectis. At hoc nequaquam obftat quo minus, facerdotibus omnibus poft auditum oraculum una cum pueris et juvenibus egreffis, chorus è primariis Thebanorum viris, ab Edipo paullo ante accerfitis conftituatur. Vide infra ad v. 151." Thus the Doctor has accommodated the di pute, and in our opinion fo happily, that we warn all future Critics, when they come to this paffage, to let the fword Resp. Ibid. 325-6. -Τανία γαρ καλως ἐγω -Τανία γι ̓ ἄγνοων σ' έγω Διώλες, είδως ὖν γαρ αν διαρ ̓ ἕκόμην. Dr. Heath thinks this paffage unintelligible; and, of confequence, corrupt. xav inoμn, he fays, by no means fignifies non debui venire, but non veniffem. That, however, under the Doctor's favour, is pretty much the fame in this place. Thus he attempts to restore the paffage, This indeed is making it clearer, but furely it is taking a liberty with an Author which nothing but abfolute nonsense in the alternative can juftify. Senfible of this, the Doctor propofes alfo the following reading, which approaches nearer to the common text: Ταύτα γαρ χ' άλους σ' ἐγω δίωλες. Thus before laula is to be understood xala, by no unusual ellipfis. All this is very well; but it is our opinion that no liberties of this kind ought to be taken with an Author, except where he is utterly unintelligible. The vanity of Commentators (here we speak not of Dr. Heath) in interweaving their own tinfel with the genuine text of their Authors, has often produced very bad effects, and can never fail to difguft every Reader of tafte. What wretched work have they made with filling up the hemiftichs of Virgil, &c.? moriemur inultæ ? At moriamur, ait faid the Poet. Here, thought the Commentator, is room for a compofition of my own, and therefore I'll make up the line thus: At moriamur, ait; fic, fic juvat ire per umbras.. There now is a full fair line; and, what is my great confolation, my own part of it will live as long as the Poet's. Nor has he been deceived, gentle Reader; for if you will turn to the paffage in any edition of Virgil, you will find his fic, fic ftill ftanding, having efcaped the profound researches of La Cerda, the nimble conjectures of Pontanus, and the folid judgment of Ruæus. But we have wandered into a digreffion. Your pardon, good Doctor! We attend you again. Among other valuable Notes on the Antigone of Sophocles, the following deferve attention. Ego Dd 3 Antig. v. 1289-90-1, Hos verfus ita diftingui et emendari debere exiftimo, Ω δέσποθ', ὡς έχων γε και κεκλημένος Τα μεν προ χειρών αδὲ φέρων, τα δ ̓ ἐν δόμοις Gonftructio eft. Ω δεσποζ ̓ ὡς ἔοικας ἥκειν έχων γε και κεκΤημενος κακα, τα μεν ταδε κακα προ χειρων φερων, τα δε κακα εν δόμοις και ταδε ὄψεσθαι ἐοικας. Ita autem verte; O heré, ut infortunia habens et nactus venire videris, hæc quidem quæ præ manibus funt geftans, ifta vero, quæ in ædibus te expectant, et ifta mox vifurus. Ibid. 1311. Του πριν θανατος Μεγαρεως· κλεινον λεχος.] Javalos Λεχος idem hic quod ταφον five θανατου fignificare mihi per fuafum eft. Ad Creontis enim filii alterius, Megarei fcilicet, five prout ab Euripide appellatur, Menacei, mortem qui feipfum pro patria devovens manu fua fupra Draconis fpecum confoderat, alludit Poeta. Vide Euripidis Phoeniffas, v. 9301035. verte igitur inclytum Cubile; intelligitur enim Draconis fpecus, in quem poft vulnus lethale inflictum præceps fe dederat Megareus, Ibid. 1345, Παντα γαρ λεχρια ] Hunc verfum qui ab Editione Henrico-Stephanianá abeft, quanquam eam agnofcit Scholiaftes, ideo à Triclinio ejectum fuiffe puto quia nullum habet ftrophe præcedens qui ei refpondeat; quod factum certe non oportuit. Æque enim, ac forfan magis, probabiliter fieri potuit, ut in Stropha exciderit verfus, quam ut in Antiftropha interpolatus fit. Aexpia præpoftera, perverfa, diftorta. Pone autem comma poft λExp. In the above Note we have an inftance of the infufferable liberty that has been frequently taken with the text, from the ridiculous fcrupulofity of measure, &c. Oedipus Colon. v. 130—1, Ευφημία σομα Φροντίδας To Tes The fenfe of this paffage (fays Dr. Heath) is, that they fhould open their mouths with fuch caution, that nothing inaufpicious fhould proceed from them. But this, we apprehend, cannot be the right meaning; for the words dpwvws, ahoyws, which immediately precede thefe lines, plainly fignify that they paffed by that unconquered Virgin, whom they trembled even to namé, name, without opening their mouths at all. This, in our opinion, is the right conftruction and sense of the passage: δενίες Το ςομαΊας ἔφημε φροίμιδος, uttering the language of exe preffive fearfulness. Ibid. v. 903, in Burton's Edition, 850. Emes duter Επισχες ξεινε. EIVE. Thefe words our Author attributes to Edipus, and not to the Chorus. Evo autem appellari, tam eum qui Hofpitio aliquem excipit, quam qui Hofpitio exceptus eft, patet ex v. 1181, hujus fabulæ. This paffage is fo perplexed and intricate, that Johnson has not hesitated to pronounce it corrupt. The emendations, however, that he offers, are inconfiftent with the genius of the Attic Poetry; for the hiatus and the elifion of diphthongs, is what the Tragic Writers ftudioufly avoid: but this has escaped Johnson. Dr. Heath is of opinion that, without any alteration, the conftruction may be made out from the following order: Και άποσεις σημα Ἴωνδε ἐυμαθες, ἐφ ̓ ὁ Εκείνος όμμα θησεία:, δηλονοι ἐφ ̓ ἑρκει τῷδε σφραγιδες; or, if any alteration fhould be made, he would read σφραγιδος ἑρκος του δε, or ipun Toude, Clauftra hujus Sigilli. In our opinion in raude is a good emendation, if indeed the paffage will bear to be tranfpofed into the order in which the Doctor has placed it; but of that we are in doubt. Among many other Annotations on Philoctetes, we would recommend the following: Philoc. v. 1137-1140. Ου πλανων ἀπ ̓ ἐμων ὅπλων Particula λ oppofitionem aliquam inter eaquæ connectit,, aut faltem ea fe mutuo quodammodo refpicere indicat. Ejufmodi tamen nihil reperies prout locus hic nunc legitur. Deinde, qualis eft ifta conftructio, ισχειν πλάνων αφ' όπλων μετά Xepov, ut fignificetur, volucres fagittis trajectes manibus apprebendere? Quorfum denique otiofum iftud Epitheton xpalaiais, cum non validarum, fed quarumvis, manuum opus fit volucres fagittis transfixos, et in terram delapfos, tollere? Dd 4 Ego |
0 Рецензии Отзивите не се потвърждават, но Google ги проверява за фалшиво съдържание и го премахва, когато такова бъде идентифицирано Напишете рецензия |