صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

nion, even admitting that he was, the sense is better in the
original reading
Elefira, V. 497-5οο.
Προ τωνδε του μ' έχει

Μηπολε, μηποθ' ημιν
Αψεγες πελαν Τερας

Τους δρωση και συνδρωσιν. None of the interpreters (says Dr. Heath) have been able to make any thing of προ τωνδε ; nor need we wonder that they have not, for it is pretty evident that the words προλωνδε are a corrupt reading, and that instead of repo ought to be read προς. Προς Τωνδε ab his, 1.ε. 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 θαρσις τερας ημιν πελαν τους δρωσι και συνδρωσε μηποιε αψεγες. Ab Lifie Furiis mini perfuafum eft prodigium hoc Aucloribus, sociisque Sceleris appropinquare nequaquam innocuum. From this construction it appears that the word jury is redundant, which Johnson also has observed. Ibid. 690-1.

Χπως μεν εν πολλοισι παυρα σοι λεγω

Ουκ οίδα τοιαδ' 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 ser:se of it. Thus, however, it is to be taken: Και ουκ οιδα μεν οπως σοι λεγω ταυρα έργα και κρατη τοιαδ' ανδρος εν πολλοισι. Αtque equidem haud fcio quomodo tibi referam pauca talis viri facta egregia et victorias inter multa quibus inclaruit.

ulta quibum pauca tali Atque equips

Ibid. 1034.

Α' εξομαι κλυουσα χωλαν έν λέγης. H. Stephens has given the right explication of this verse, as follows: Audiam patienter te tum qu092e qu711 Cor:hlia mea laudabis, et te ea aspernatam esse pænitebit. 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,
Ιερεις εγω μεν ζητος" οι δε λιθεα
Auc.c.
D : 2

Whether

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Whether or not this passage may be considered by the Cris. tics as dignus vindice nodus, yet, as it has long been a subject of controversy, we shall quote our Author's note upon it, and the rather as we look upon his arbitration to come neareft 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 est inter viros celeberrimos, Boivinum et Dacierum. Boivinus veteris Scholiaftæ Sententiam secutus per verba ista o de ouv γερα βαρεις ιερεις non nifi unum hominem intelligi νult, ipsum fcilicet jovis sacerdotem qui hæc loquitur, et cum ex iis quæ infra dicuntur, v. 142-8. Constet sacerdotem hunc una cum pueris, audito oraculo, discelliffe, chorum, qui ftatim poft eorum disceilum canticum suum exorditur, ex primariis Thebanorum viris ab Edipo accerfitis, et tunc primum in scenam prodeuntibus, conftitutum fuisse statuit. Dacierus contra, non jovis tantum facerdotem, fed aliorum etiam deorum sacerdotes, qui hunc una cum pueris et juvenibus lectis comitati erant verbis iftis designari contendit, atque hos quidem facerdotes poft illius et pueroruin disceffum in scena manfiffe, chorumque constituisle, afferit. Rationes quibus fententiam suam utrinque aftruere conati funt viri eruditi vi. dere poterit Lector in Hiftor. Acad. Gallic. Infcript. Vol. II. p. 174, & feq.-His autem accur:até pensitatis mihi quidem videtur UTRUMQUE VERUM PARTIM VIDISSE, PARTIM MINUS ESSE ASSECUTUM. Et ad hunc locum quod attinet, numerum pluralem pro fingulari pofitum, adeo ut és de guy yepçe Bapeis ispais non nisi unum sacerdotem denotent, præfertim protinus sequente singulari fyw Mev Znuos, vix mihi persuadere possum, neque constructionem talem Græci Sermonis indolein pati existimo. Trium igitur, mea sententiâ, ætatum hominibus constabat cætus ille fupplicum cujus nomine ædipum hîc alloquitur jovis sacerdos, infantibus fcili-, cet vix incedere valentibus, facerdotibus annis gravibus, et juvenibus è pube thebanâ lectis. At hoc nequaquam obstat quo minus, facerdotibus omnibus poft auditum oraculum una cum pueris et juvenibus egressis, chorus è primariis Thebanorum viris, ab Cdipo paullo ante accerfitis 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

[ocr errors]

Ibid. Ibid. 325–6. . . .

--Ταυλα γαρ καλως εγω

E'.ws die das ou gøp av devpiscopumu. Dr. Heath thinks this passage unintelligible; and, of consequence, corrupt. štev ixounu, he says, by no means signifies non debui venire, but non venisem. That, however, under the Doctor's favour, is pretty much the same in this place. Thus he attempts to restore the passage,

Tavice y dynour oliy

Awhes', inows tv yeep ay dcup ixodeny. This indeed is making it clearer, but furely it is taking a lie berty 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:

· Taulco yep x drous o ryw ownes'. Thus before Taule 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 disgust every Reader of tafte. What wretched work have they made with filling up the hemistichs of Virgil, &c.?

- - moriemur inuliæ?

At moriamur, aitsaid 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 solid 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 distingui et emendari debere existimo,

Ω δεσπού', ως έχων γε και κεκλημενος
Τα μεν προ χειρων Ταδε φερων, τα δ' εν δομοις

Eoixas nav, . Taa ito san xaxa.
Constructio eft. 12 de TOS'w's sources hxeev eXw gę x® XEX-
Τημενος 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 sunt geftans, ifta vero, quæ in ædibus te expectant, et ista mox visurus.

Ibid. 1311. Tou noiy favalos Meyapews xaEivor 28Xos.] Λεχος idem hic quod ταφον five θαναιον 1ignificare mihi persuasum est. Ad Creontis enim filii alterius, Megarej scilicet, sive prout ab Euripide appellatur, Menacei, mortem qui seipsum pro patria devovens manu sua fupra Draconis fpecum confoderat, alludit Poeta. Vide Euripidis Phænissas, v. 930– 1035. verte igitur inclytum Cubile; intelligitur enim Draconis fpecus, in quem post vulnus lethale infičtum præceps se dederat Megareus,

Ibid. 1345, Houlce youp Rex pice] Hunc versum qui ab Editione Henrico-Stephanianâ abeft, quanquam eam agnoscit Scholiafies, ideo à Triclinio ejectum fuisse puto quia nullum 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. Aexpice præpoftera, perversa, distorta. Pone autem comma poft nexpia.

In the above Note we have an instance of the insufferable liberty that has been frequently taken with the text, from the ridiculous scrupulofity of mealure, &c. Oedipus Colon. v. 130-- I.

To le
Euomuins souco oporlicosa

LevisThe sense of this passage (fays Dr. Heath) is, that they jould open their mouths with such caution, that nothing inaufpicious should proceed from them. But this, we apprehend, cannot be the right meaning; for the words dowwws, ározws, which immediately precede these lines, plainly signify that they passed by that unconquered Virgin, whom they trembled even to

name,

name, without opening their mouths at all. This, in our opinion, is the right construction and sense of the passage: ieves lo sovec Tees tuonus oporlidos, uttering the language of expressive fearfulness.

Ibid. v. 903, in Burton's Edition, 850. Emir%CES a? or ŽEIVE. These words our Author attributes to dipus, and not to the Chorus. Eervov autem appellari, tam cum quí Hofpitio aliquem excipit, quam qui Hofpitio exceptus efi, patet ex V, 1181, hujus fabr:. Trachinie, 623-4.

Karland TOICES anze o xeitoç ivua 9:5

Σφραγιδος ερχει των επ' ομμα θησείαι. This passage 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 studioully 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 : Kas ÓTOUTEIS Onuo lwude up. c. Jes, fo' ó E'usivos oupa Inoclc., 877 cv?, ép ép xei rude oppayidcs; or, if any alteration should be made, he would read ooppayidos épxecs Poude, or épuen Toude, Claustra hujus Sigilli...

In our opinion épan Trude 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 Philocletes, we would recommend the following:

Philoc. v. 1137–1140. . , Ου πιανων απ' έμων όπλων

Κρααιαις μελα χερσον , , Ισχων αλλα μοι ασκοπα

Κρυπτα 7 έπη διλερως υπεδυ φρενος. Particula arra oppofitionem aliquam inter eaquæ connectit, aut saltem ea fe mutuo quodammodo respicere indicat. Ejufmodi tamen nihil reperies prout locus hic nunc legitur. Deinde, qualis eft ifta constructio, 16XEV plauw ap óth wv pielce Xppoiv, ut fignificetur, volucres sagittis trajectos manibus apprebendere? Quorfum denique otiofum istud Epitheton xpalaicos, cum non validarum, sed quarumvis, manuum opus sit volucres sagittis transfixos, et in terram delapsos, tollere? Dd 4

Ego

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »