Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

nion, even admitting that he was, the sense is better in the
original reading
Electra, v. 497-500.

Προ τωνδε του μ' έχει
Μηπίλε, μηποθ' ημιν
Αψεγες πιλαν τερας

Τους δρωσι και συνδρωσιν. . None of the interpreters (says Dr. Heath) have been able to make any thing of Tipo Twuss; nor need we wonder that they have not, for it is pretty evident that the words mpolwrde are a corrupt reading, and that instead of apo ought to be read TE POS. TIpcs Twvde ab his, i.e. from the Furies, of whom men. tion was made just before. This then will be the construction of the paffage: Προς 1ονδε τοι των Εριννύων έχει με θαρσος τερας ημιν πελαν τους δρωσι και συνδρωσε μηπόλε αψεγες. Αν bisie Furiis mini perfuafum est prodigium hoc Auctoribus, sociisque Sceleris appropinquare nequaquam innocuum. From this construction it appears that the word nuty is redundant, which Johnson also has observed. Ibid. 690-1.

εν πολλοισι παυρα σου λεγω ) Ουκ οίδα τoιoδ' ανδρος έργα και κρατη. . The construction of this paslage is so obvious, that it is furprizing to us to find that no one before Dr. Heath could explain it; that neither Camerarius, Johnson, nor Father Brumoy, could hit upon the right forfe of it. Thus, however, it is to be taken: Και ουκ οίδα μεν όπως σου λεγω παυρα έργα και κραιη τοιχο” ανδρος εν πολλοισι. Αtque equiden haud fcio quomodo tibi referam pauca talis viri facta egregia et victorias inter multa quibus inclaruit.

Χόπως μεν

Ibid. 1034.

Α' εξομαι κλυουσα χωλαν λέγης. H. Stephens has given the right explication of this verse, as follows: Audiam patienter te tum quoque quum Corblia mea laudabis, et te ea aspernatam efle poenitebit. That is, the time will come, when I shall hear you, under the conviction of misfortunes, praise my advice. Oedipus Tyrannus, v. 17–18.

• οι δε συν γερα βαρεις,
Je pense éyw Mev Snoos' o de Irings was
As...
Dd 2

Whether

Whether or not this passage may be considered by the Cria tics as dignus vindice nodus, yet, as it has long been a fubject of controversy, we shall 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 dispute; for we have observed 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 side.

“ De vero hujus loci sensu magna olim Controverfia exorta eft inter viros celeberrimos, Boivinum et Dacierum. Boivinus veteris Scholiaftæ Sententiam fecutus per verba ista oí de our gepx Bapeis iepaos non nisi unum hominem intelligi vult, ipsum scilicet jovis facerdotem qui hæc loquitur, et cum ex iis quæ infra dicuntur, v. 142-8. Constet facerdotem hunc una cum pueris, audito oraculo, difcefliffe, chorum, qui ftatim poft eorum disceffum canticum suum exorditur, ex primariis Thebanorum viris ab Edipo accersitis, et tunc primum in scenam prodeuntibus, constitutum fuisse statuit. Dacierus contra, non jovis tantum facerdotem, fed aliorum etiam deorum facerdotes, qui hunc una cum pueris et juvenibus lectis comitati erant verbis iftis designari contendit, atque hos quidem sacerdotes poft illius et pueroruin disceffum in scena manfiffe, chorumque conftituisle, afferit. Rationes quibus fententiam suam utrinque aftruere conati sunt viri eruditi videre poterit Le&tor in Hiftor. Acad. Gallic. Inscript. Vol. II. p. 174, & feq.-His autem accurate 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 ó de Guy gepo Bapers iepos non nifi unum facerdotem denotent, præsertim protinus fequente singulari fyw yu ev Znuos, vix mihi persuadere possum, neque constructionem talem Græci Sermonis indolem pati existimo. Trium igitur, mea sententia, ætatum hominibus conftabat cætus ille supplicum cujus nomine dipum hîc alloquitur jovis sacerdos, infantibus fcilicet vix incedere valentibus, facerdotibus annis gravibus, et juvenibus è pube thebanâ leétis. At hoc nequaquam obstat quo minus, facerdotibus omnibus poft auditum oraculum una cum pueris et juvenibus egressis, chorus è primariis Thebanorum viris, ab Edipo paullo ante accerlitis constituatur. Vide infra ad v. 151.". Thus the Doctor has accommodated the di pute, and in our opinion so happily, that we warn all future Critics, when they come to this passage, to let the sword deep.

Ibid.

[ocr errors]

Ibid. 325—6.

-Ταυλα γαρ καλως εγω

Ειδως διαλες' ου γαρ αν διυρ Γκομης Dr. Heath thinks this passage unintelligible; and, of consequence, corrupt. xcv ixounu, he says, by no means fignifies non debui venire, but non venissem. That, however, under the Doctor's favour, is pretty much the same in this place. Thus he attempts to restore the passage,

-Ταυλα γ αγνοων σ' έχω

Διαλες, ειδως ου γαρ αν διυρ ικoμην. This indeed is making it clearer, but furely it is taking a liberty with an Author which nothing but absolute nonsense in the alternative can justify. Sensible of this, the Doctor proposes also the following reading, which approaches nearer to the common text:

Ταυλα γαρ χ αλους σ' έγω διαλες'. Thus before Taula is to be understood xała, by no unusual ellipsis. 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 tinsel with the genuine text of their Authors, has often produced very bad effects, and can never fail to disguft every Reader of taffe. What wretched work have they made with filling up the hemistichs of Virgil, &c.?

moriemur inuliæ? At moriamur, ait said the Poet. Here, thought the Commentator, is room for a composition 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 consolation, 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 passage in any edition of Virgil, you will find his fic, fic still standing, having escaped the profound researches of La Cerda, the nimble conjectures of Pontanus, and the folid judgment of Ruæus.

But we have wandered into a digression. Your pardon, good Doctor! We attend

you again. Among other valuable Notes on the Antigone of Sophocles, the following deserve attention.

Dd 3

Ego

Antig. v. 1289–90–1, Hos versus ita diftingui et emendari debere exiftimo.

Ω δεσποζ', ως έχων γε και κεκλημενος
Τα μεν προ χειρων Ταδε φερων, τα δεν δομοις

Εοικας ήκειν, και τα ψεσθαι κακα.
Conftrustic eft. Ω δεσποζ' ως έoικας ήκειν έχων γε και κεκ-
7ημενος κακα, τα μεν ταδε κακα προ χειρων φερων, τα δε κακα
εν δομους και ταδε όψεσθαι έoικας.

Ita autem verte; O heré, ut infortunia habens et nactus venire videris, hæc quidem quæ præ manibus funt gestans, ifta vero, quæ in ædibus te expectant, et ista mox visurus.

Ibid. 1311. Του πριν θανάλος Μεγαρεως κλεινον λεχος.] Λεχος idem hic quod ταφον five θαναλον fignificare mihi perfuafum eft. Ad Creontis enim filii alterius, Megarei scilicet, five prout ab Euripide appellatur, Menæcei, mortem qui seipsum pro patria devovens manu sua fupra Draconis fpecum confoderat, alludit Poeta. Vide Euripidis Phænissas, v. 9301035. verte igitur inclytum Cubile; intelligitur enim Draconis fpecus, in quem poft vulnus lethale inflictum præceps se dederat Megareus,

Ibid. 1345, Παυλα γαρ λεχρια ] Hunc verfum φui ab Editione Henrico-Stepbanianâ abeft, quanquam eam agnoscit Scholiasies, ideo à Triclinio ejectum fuisse puto quia nullurn habet strophe præcedens qui ei refpondeat; quod factum certe non oportuit. Æque enim, ac forfan magis, probabiliter fieri potuit, ut in Stropha exciderit versus, quam ut in Antistropha interpolatus fit. Aexpia præpoftera, perversa, diftorta. Pone autem comma post nexp+%.

In the above Note we have an instance of the insufferable
liberty that has been frequently taken with the text, from the
ridiculous fcrupulofity of measure, &c.
Oidipus Colon. y. 130-1,

-To las
Ευφημά τομα φρονίοδος

Ιείες-
The sense of this paslage (fays Dr. Heath) is, that they
jould open their mouths with such caution, that nothing inauspicious
should proceed from them. But this, we apprehend, cannot be
the right meaning; for the words dowwws, ároyws, which im-
mediately precede these lines, plainly signify that they passed
by that unconquered Virgin, whom they trembled even to

name,

[ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

name, without opening their mouths at all. This, in our opinion, is the right construction and sense of the passage: izvles 10 sore a las žuonus opoulodos, uttering the language of expressive fearfulness.

Ibid. v. 903, in Burton's Edition, 850. Emoyes alor ŽEIVE. These words our Author attributes to dipus, and not to the Chorus. Esivov autem appellari, tam eum qui Hofpitio aliquem excipit, quam qui Hofpitio exceptus eft, patet ex v, 1181, hujus fabu:la. Trachinia, 623-4.

Και λοιδ' αποισεις σημο κεινος έυμαθες 5

Σφραγιδος αρκει των επ' ομμα θησεία.. This paffage is so perplexed and intricate, that Johnson has not hesitated to pronounce it corrupt. The emendations, however, that he offers, are inconsistent with the genius of the Attic Poetry; for the hiatus and the elision of diphthongs, is what the Tragic Writers ftudiously avoid: but this has escaped Johnson. Dr. Heath is of opinion that, without any alteration, the construction may be made out from the following order: Και αποισεις σημα Ιωνδε ευμαθες, εφ' ο Ε'κεινος όμμα θησεία:, δηλoνάλι εφ' έρκει ταδε σφραγιδες ; or, if any alteration should be made, he would read oppayidos épxos Toude, or špan Touds, Claustra hujus Sigilli.

In our opinion épzen Taude is a good emendation, if indeed the passage will bear to be transposed into the order in which the Doctor has placed it; but of that we are in doubt.

Among many other Annotations on Philoletes, we would
recommend the following:
Philoc. v. 1137–1140.

Ου πλανων απ' έμων όπλων
Κρααιαις μελα χερσον

ασκοπα
Κρεπτα 7 έπη διλερως υπιδυ φρενος.
Particula arra oppofitionem aliquam inter eaquæ connectit,
aut faltem ea fe mutuo quodammodo refpicere indicat. Ejuf-
modi tamen nihil reperies prout locus hic nunc legitur. De-
inde, qualis est ifta constructio, Xesu alavwv apót ha puelce
xipour, ut fignificetur, volucres sagittis trajectos manibus appre-
bendere? Quorfum denique otiofum istud Epitheton xpołamas,
cum non validarum, sed quarumvis, manuum opus sit vo-
lucres sagittis transfixos, et in terram delapsos, tollere?

Ego

Ισχων αλλα

[ocr errors]

Dd 4

« ПредишнаНапред »