« السابقةمتابعة »
this appeal by the remark, that experienced men are generally found to have the issues of their counsels more prosperous; the power of kai being, I suppose, that not only are their plans well formed, but their success signal. My own suggestion, which I make with consi– derable hesitation, is to separate ovuçopsis from BovXevudra”, and understand the latter as formed by usi\tata in the sense of uáAAov : “Since I see that, with men of experience, even casual knowledge is (often) more effective than counsels of reason;" a position at any rate sufficiently to the purpose, and agreeing well with the doubtful language held just before cite tow 9esov opjumv čkovaas eit' dz' dwópès ofabá Tov. Some may wish to take #vuspopäs with BovXevudrav as the carnal part of counsel, but the other explanation seems less forced. It might also be proposed to understand the passage, “since I see that, even with the experienced, our calamities are more vigorous than what counsel can do,” were it not that cat ought then rather to hare come before totaw Curepotat. And now, as this paper has already begun to assume a miscellaneous character, I wish to be allowed to correct two or three oversights, a specimen, I fear, of a much larger number in my recently published edition of the Agamemnon. However few, assuming your readers may be acquainted with the work, I should be sorry to stand accountable for any of the errors contained in it in the eyes even of a single individual, longer than I can possibly help. On 10, 11, I have raised the question, whether the accusative absolute is not merely a figment of the grammarians. I ougst at least to have marked off the cases where the accusative occurs after tos in an apparently absolute sense, though here writers seem agreed that the words depend on some implied verb. The passage from Plat. Gorg. p. 495, c. quoted from Jelf (who treats it especially from the instances with tes, though he supposes tos étéov to be put for its repo, oiaav,) probably belongs to this class, and so does not require the explanation I have given. In the note on v. 308, I inadvertently included ova among the illative particles which are found before the optative with or without à, evidently with only a small modification of the sense. I certainly did not mean to prejudge the question against the commentators, who contend that ova, as a conjunction, is never found with dw. I retract also the qualified assent given in the note on v. 601, to the doctrine, that ùv diminishes the contingency of the optative. Another position adopted by Haupt on v. 902, about àv with the participle, appears to me now to be questionable in itself, and not required in this particular passage. The account given of oi and u) in a note on v. 491, is not strictly accurate, asserting, as it does, too broadly, that ot never denies with reference to anything that has gone before. In such a passage as Eur. Bacch. 271, 272, 6pagis & evvatās kai Ménew otós Tāvmp kakos roAirms overal vow oik extev, the negative clause (as has been remarked to me by a friend,) clearly does influence the sense of the whole, indicating the reason why a confident man becomes a bad citizen, quippe qui mente careat. This passage may help us to amend our plea, and suggest that the distinction between ot, and us, in such cases is as follows:—oi denies absolutely, though not always independently, as the denial may be put forward as the ground of a proposition; u) gives a denial neither positive nor independent, but checking the sentence as a hypothetical condition; thus u) voov extev would mean “if he has no sense,” merely stating a possibility assumed solely for the sake of supporting the truth of the previous declaration; ot, as this word has even more than ordinary force, it is a matter of fact denial, and something more; the confident not only has not sense, but, by virtue of his confidence, cannot have; ui, on the contrary, does not deny the matter of fact at all; a confident man may or may not have sense; indeed, it rather implies, that in some cases he has sense, by particularizing the case of his not having it as leading to a certain result. It will be safest then to say, as a general rule, that of denies always absolutely, sometimes relatively too; wo, never absolutely, but always relatively. Thus there is no danger of confounding the two, even when both are relative, as the invariable presence of the absolute in of will sufficiently distinguish it as in the line above quoted, where since is very different from if. In the passage from the Agamemnon, my version gives what I still hold to be the right rendering-" So let the bow shoot darts at us no more;” but the note is in error in assigning the meaning of since to unkéti rather than to oikéta, and asserting that the use of the latter would necessarily have reduced the line to a mere ornamental addition. I will conclude with a new explanation (as I believe) of a once much disputed passage in Horace, Ars Poetica, v. 128. Difficile est proprie communia dicere: tuque Rectius Iliacum carmen diducis in actus quam si proferres ignota indictaque primus.” The commentators have here been greatly perplexed. Horace speaks apparently of the difficulty of treating hackneyed subjects, adding, that, accordingly, it is better to dramatize the Iliad than to attempt something entirely new. The contradiction between the two precepts is at once perceived. Some seek to remedy it by construing tuque as if it were sed tu: others, a considerable body, beginning, I believe, with Lambin, and ending with Orelli,” give an entirely new sense to communia, not that of hackneyed things, but precisely that of not-hackneyed
* It is not meant that all who take general notion of its intention, e.g. Orelli this view of communia agree in their does not refer it to subjects, but to abthings, things as yet untouched, and hence public property. It seems to me that the dilemma will vanish if we regard ignota indictaque neither as opposed to, nor identical with, communia, but as, in a sense, included under it, being, in fact, a method of treatment, not a subject. The whole gist of the passage will then be, It is hard to give freshness and individuality to hackneyed subjects, and you had much better make up your mind to the extreme of literal imitation than run the opposite risk of offending the reader by any startling novelty of handling; better decline the problem altogether than produce a bad solution. This is premised as what is to be done if the worst should come to the worst; then follow some cautions to be observed by those who, in spite of the difficulty, wish to maintain that “Publica materia privati juris erit,” &c., where the language is clearly parallel to proprié communia dicere, a fact which Orelli is compelled to deny. It is possible that others may have given this interpretation, but I do not remember to have seen it anywhere. JoHN CoNINGTON.
Aird's Self-Instructing Latin Grammar. Square, boards. Aristophanis Comoediae Undecim. Textum usibus Scholarum accommodabat H. A. Holden, A.M. 8vo. Oxford. Aristophanes; The Frogs of Translated by C. C. Clifford. 8vo., boards. Arnold, T. K., Eclogae Horatianæ. Pars I. Carmina prope Omnia Continens. New Ed. 12mo., cloth. Arnold's, T. K., Elementary Greek Grammar. 12mo., cloth. London. Arnold's, T. K., Henry's 1st Latin Book. New Edition. Arnold's, T. K., A Greek Grammar; intended as a sufficient Grammar of Reference for Schools and Colleges. 2nd Edition. 8vo., half-bound. London. Caesar: an Epitome of part of the Commentaries; with a Vocabulary and Maps, &c. By Edward Woodford. 18mo. New Edition. Edinburgh. Ciceronis Orationes Selecta, ex recensione Ernesti. By Charles Anthon, LL.D. New Edition. 12mo, cloth. (Priestley's Edition.) Dennis, George, Cities and Cemeteries of Etruria. 2 vols. 8vo., cloth. London. Do Grecian and Roman Mythology. Royal 8vo., cloth. New York.
stract qualities, the individualizing of posed to be intruded by proprie diwhich, in a human character, is sup- || cere.
Donaldson, J. W., A complete Greek Grammar; for the use of
WORKS RECENTLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONTINENT.
Aristotelis Ethicorum Nicomacheorum Libri X. In usum Scholar.
Bibliotheca Anecdotorum s. veterum Monumentor. Ecclesiasticor. collectio novissima. Ed. G. Heine. Pars I. Monumenta regni Gothorum et Arabum in Hispanis. 8vo. Leipzig. 5s. Ciceronis de Officiis libri tres. Mit einem Deutschen Commentar. besonders für Schulen von Degen. Bearbeitet von E. Bonnell. 8vo. Berlin. 5s. Ciceronis Orationes Explic. C. Halm. Vol. II. Pars 2. Leipzig. 3s.6d. Crusius, G. Ch., Vollständ. Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch tiber die Gedichte des Homeros u. der Homeriden. 8vo. Leipzig. 6s. Gesenius, W., Hebräische Grammatik. Neu bearb. W. E. Rödiger. 15. Aufl. Leipzig. 3s.6d. Grimm, J., Geschichte der Deutschen Sprache. 2 vols. royal 8vo., cloth, boards. Leipzig. 24s. Gronovii, J. F., Notae in L. Annaei Senecae Naturales Quaestiones. Ed. C. R. Fickert. Pars II. 4to. Breslau. 2s. Horatiana Prosopographica. Scripsit S. G. F. Estré. 8vo. (Amsterdam.) 15s. Horatii Flacci Carmina. Erklärt von Dr. Th. Obbarius, gr. 8vo. Lena. 7s. Macrobii, A. Th., Opera quae supersunt. Edidit L. Janus, vol. I. 8vo. Quedlinburg. Niebuhr, B. G. Worträge über alte Geschichte, vol. II. Berlin. 8vo. Panzer, F., Beitrag zur Deutschen Mythologie. 8vo. München. 4s. Platon's Sämmtliche Werke, iibersezt. v. G. F. Drescher. I. Bd. gr. 8vo. Gressen. 5s. Plauti Comoediae. Recens. C. H. Weise. New Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. Leipzig. 14s. Politique d'Aristote, traduite en Français, par F. Barthélémy Saint Hilaire. Paris. 8vo. 9s. Rosenkranz, K., die Pädagogik als System. 8vo. Königsberg. 4s. 6d. Schlegelii, Aug. Guil., Opuscula Latine scripta. Collegit et edidit E. Böcking. 12mo. Leipzig. 3s.6d. Schulze, E., Gothisches Glossar. 4to. Magdeburg. 1s. 4d. Thucydides, De Bello Peloponnesiaco. Recens. et explicavit H. Bothe, tom. II. Lipsiae. 18mo.