He approved of the opinions stated by Xanthus respecting the changes that had taken place on the face of the Earth. doubts whether Xanthus was a native of Sardes, though Suidas ν. Ξάνθος, expressly asserts that he was born there. We learn from Diogenes Laertius, that the Lydiaca were epitomised by Menippus.. The Lydiaca are quoted by Parthenius?, in Stephanus By Ξάνθου τοῦ Λυδοῦ· τοῦ μὲν Ξάνθου λέγοντος ἐπὶ ̓Αρταξέρξου γενέσθαι μέγαν αὐχμὸν, ὥστ ̓ ἐκλιπεῖν ποταμοὺς καὶ λίμνας καὶ φρέατα. αὐτὸν δὲ εἰδέναι πολλαχῆ πρόσω ἀπὸ τῆς θαλάσσης λίθους τε κογχυλιώδεις, καὶ τὰ κτενώδεα, καὶ χηραμίδων τυπώματα, καὶ λιμνοθάλασσαν ἐν ̓Αρμενίοις καὶ ἐν Ματτιηνοῖς καὶ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ τῇ κάτω· ὧν ἕνεκα πείθεσθαι τὰ πεδία ποτὲ θάλατταν γενέσθαι. p. 49. This passage is at variance with the date assigned by Suidas to Xanthus. Again, p. 50. ὥστε πρός γε τὸν Ξάνθου λόγον οὐδὲν ἂν ἔχοι τὶς προσφέρειν ἄτοπον. Compare p. 579. ἀκούειν δ ̓ ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν παλαιῶν συγγραφέων· οἷα φησὶν ὁ τα Λύδια συγγράψας Ξάνθος διηγούμενος οἷαι μεταβολαὶ κατέσχον πολλάκις τὴν χώραν ταύτην, ὧν ἐμνήσθη μέν που καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρόσθεν. . The Lydiaca are also referred to at p. 572. πρὸς δὲ τούτοις, ὅτι τοὺς Μυσοὺς οἱ μὲν Θράκας, οἱ δὲ Λυδοὺς εἰρήκασι, κατ' αἰτίαν παλαιὰν ἱστοροῦντες, ἣν Ξάνθος ὁ Λυδὸς γράφει καὶ Μενεκράτης· ὁ Ἐλαΐτης, ἐτυμολογοῦντες καὶ τὸ ὄνομα τὸ τῶν Μυσῶν, ὅτι τὴν ὀξύην οὕτως ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ Λυδοί πολλὴ δ ̓ ἡ ὀξύη κατὰ τὸν Ὄλυμπον, ὅπου ἐκτεθῆναί φασι τοὺς δεκατευ θέντας· ἐκείνων δὲ ἀπογόνους εἶναι τοὺς ὕστερον Μυσοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς ὀξύης οὕτω προσαγορευθέντας μαρτυρεῖν δὲ καὶ τὴν διάλεκτον· μιξολύδιον γὰρ πῶς εἶναι καὶ μιξοφρύγιον. τέως μὲν γὰρ οἰκεῖν αὐτοὺς περὶ τὸν Ὄλυμπον· τῶν δὲ Φρυγῶν ἐκ τῆς Θράκης περαιωθέντων, εἵλοντο τόν τε τῆς Τροίας ἄρχοντα καὶ τῆς πλησίον γῆς· ἐκείνους μὲν ἐνταῦθα οἰκῆσαι τοὺς δὲ Μυσοὺς περὶ τὰς τοῦ Καΐκου πηγὰς πλησίον Λυδών. At p. 628. Ξάνθος δὲ καὶ ̓Αριμοῦν τινα λέγει τῶν τόπων τούτων βασιλέα. At p. 680. ὁ μὲν γὰρ Ξάνθος ὁ Λυδὸς μετὰ τὰ Τρωϊκά φησιν ἐλθεῖν τοὺς Φρύγας ἐκ τῆς Ευρώπης καὶ τῶν ἀριστερῶν τοῦ Πόντου· ἀγαγεῖν δ ̓ αὐτοὺς Σκαμάντ δριον ἐκ Βερεκύντων καὶ ̓Ασκανίας. See also p. 681. 5. Ξάνθος δὲ ὁ παλαιὸς συγγραφεὺς Λυδὸς μὲν λέγεται· εἰ δὲ ἐκ Σαρδέων οὐκ ἴσμεν. p. 628. 6. γεγόνασι δὲ Μένιπποι ἕξ· πρῶτος ὁ γράψας τὰ περὶ Λυδῶν καὶ Ξάνθον ἐπιτεμόμενος. In Menippo. Lib. vi. 7. διαφόρως δὲ καὶ τοῖς πολλοῖς ἱστορεῖται καὶ τὰ Νιόβης· οὐ γὰρ Ταντάλου φασὶν αὐτὴν γενέσθαι, ἀλλ ̓ Ασσάονος μὲν θυγατέρα, Φιλόττου δὲ γυναῖκα. εἰς ἔριν δὲ ἀφικομένην Λητοῖ περὶ καλλιτεκνίας ὑποσχεῖν τίσιν τοιάνδε, τὸν μὲν Φίλοττον ἐν κυνηγίᾳ διαφθαρῆναι· τὸν δὲ Ασσάονα τῆς θυγατρὸς πόθῳ *σχόμενον αὐτὴν αὐτῷ γημάσθαι. μὴ ἐνδιδούσης δὲ τῆς Νιόβης, τοὺς παῖδας αὐτῆς εἰς εὐωχίαν καλέσαντα καταπρῆσαι, καὶ τὴν zantinus', and probably by the Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius: by Hephaestion also, p. 14. Ed. Gaisf. Clemens Alexandrinus, p. 433. A. Stromatum, L. iii. quotes a passage from a work of Xanthus entitled Μαγικά, which probably contained an account of the Magi. Ξάνθος δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἐπιγραφομένοις Μαγικοῖς, Μίγνυνται δὲ, φησὶν, οἱ μάγοι μητράσι καὶ θυγατράσι καὶ ἀδελφοῖς μίγνυσθαι θεμιτὸν εἶναι κοινάς τε εἶναι τὰς γυναῖκας, οὐ βίᾳ καὶ λάθρα, ἀλλὰ συναινούντων ἀμφοτέρων, ὅταν θέλῃ γῆμαι ὁ ἕτερος τὴν τοῦ ἑτέρου. It is referred to by Diogenes Laertius. Xanthus is also quoted by Clemens and by Hesychius3, but without any reference to the particular work. See also Solinus in Polyhistor v. 40. Etym. Mag. v. 'Ερμαῖον. Pliny Nat. Hist. L. xxv. c. 5. τὴν μὲν διὰ ταύτην τὴν συμφορὰν ἀπὸ πέτρας ὑψηλοτάτης αὐτὴν ρίψαι. ἔννοιαν δὲ λαβόντα των σφετέρων αμαρτημάτων διαχρήσασθαι τὸν Ασσάονα ἑαυτόν. c. 33. Ed. Gale. The Scholiast on Euripides, Phœn. v. 162. speaking of the children of Niobe, says, Ξάνθος δὲ ὁ Λύδιος δέκα καὶ δέκα ἐκ Φιλοξένου τοῦ ̓Ασσυρίου, ὃς ᾤκει ἐν Σιπύλῳ. 1. The first Book is referred to under the words Λυδία, Λυκοσθένη. The second, vv. ̓Αρδύνιον, Στρόγωλα. The third, ν. Ευπάτρια. The fourth, v. Ασκάλων. Ξάνθος ἐν τετάρτῃ Λυδιακῶν φησιν ὅτι Τάνταλος καὶ ̓́Ασκαλος παῖδες Υμεναίου. τὸν δὲ Ασκαλον ὑπὸ Ακισμοῦ (f. ̓Αλκίμου) τοῦ Λυδῶν βασιλέως αἱρεθέντα στρατηγὸν εἰς Συρίαν στρατεύσαι, κἀκεῖ παρθένου “ερασθεὶς πόλιν κτίσαι, ἣν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ οὕτως ωνόμασε. See also under the words Αστελέβη, Αστερία, Σι δήνη. The Lydiaca are referred to without mentioning the particular Book, under the words Έλγος, Λόκοζας, Μελάμπεια. 2. Speaking of the Sangarius, a river of Phrygia, πλησίον δὲ αὐτοῦ ὀρείας Δήμητρος ἱερόν ἐστιν, ὥς φησιν Ξάνθος. L. ii. v. 724. 3. Ξάνθος δὲ ὁ Λυδὸς εἰς τὴν Ξέρξου διάβασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ Ζωροάστρου ἑξακόσια (ἔτη) φησί. In proemio. 4. Ξάνθος δὲ ὁ Λυδὸς περὶ τὴν ὀκτωκαιδεκάτην Ολυμπίαδα, ὡς δὲ Διονύσιος περὶ τὴν πεντεκαιδεκάτην Θάσον ἐκτίσθαι. Stromatum. Lib. i. p. 333. B. 5. ν. Βουλεψίη. ἡ λέξις παρὰ Ξάνθῳ. λέγει δὲ τὰς ̓Αμαζόνας, ἐπειδὰν τέκωσιν ἄῤῥεν, ἐξορύσσειν αὐτοῦ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς αὐτοχειρίᾳ. ARISTOPHANIS COMEDIE ex optimis exemplaribus emendatæ studio RICH. FRANC. PHIL. BRUNCK, Argentoratensis. 1783. (Reviewed by R. PORSON, in MATY's Review for July 1783.) BEFORE I give an account of the editor's merits, it may not be improper to say a word of the excellencies and defects of the author; especially as some modern critics have thought proper not only to greet him with the title of a scurrilous and indecent buffoon, but to wonder how such monstrous farces could be endured by the chaste ears of an Attic audience. That many should have been greatly exasperated with Aristophanes, for publicly exhibiting Socrates on the stage, and making him speak and act in a manner most inconsistent with his known character, is not surprizing; but as the accusation urged by some against the poet, of being instrumental to Socrates's death, has been substantially refuted by many critics; so the present editor has very judiciously observed, with regard to the other part of the charge, that Socrates is not so much the object of ridicule in the Comedy of the Clouds, as the philosophers in general, who, of whatever benefit the lessons and example of Socrates himself might be to the state, were, from their idle lives, their minute, ridiculous, and sometimes impious disquisitions, highly prejudicial to their disciples, and, by consequence, to the public. If, says Mr. Brunck, Aristophanes had really in the smallest degree contributed to the death of Socrates, it is not credible that Plato would have introduced them in his Symposium, sitting together at the same table; it is not credible that he would have been so great an admirer of him as to write an epigram in his praise, containing a most extravagant compliment- Missa igitur hæc faciamus-of the indecency which abounds in Aristophanes, unjustifiable as it certainly is, it may however be observed, that different ages differ extremely in their ideas of this offence. Among the ancients, plain-speaking was the fashion; nor was that ceremonious delicacy introduced, which has taught men to abuse each other with the utmost politeness, and express the most indecent ideas in the most modest language. The ancients had little of this. They were accustomed to call a spade a spade; to give every thing its proper name. There is another sort of indecency, which is infinitely more dangerous; which corrupts the heart without offending the ear. I believe there is no man of sound judgment who would not sooner let his son read Aristophanes than Congreve or Vanbrugh. In all Aristophaues's indecency there is nothing that can allure, but much that must deter. He never dresses up the most detestable vices in an amiable light; but generally, by describing them in their native colours, makes the reader disgusted with them. His abuse of the most eminent citizens may be accounted for upon similar principles. Besides, in a Republic, freedom of speech was deemed an essential privilege of a citizen. Demosthenes treats his adversaries with such language as would, in our days, be reckoned scurrilous enough; but it passed, in those days, without any notice or reprehension. The world is since greatly altered for the better. We have, indeed, retained the matter, but judiciously rejected what was offensive in the manner. In his* plots too, it must be owned, Aristophanes is sometimes faulty. It ought however to be observed, that his contemporary comic poets did not pique themselves upon the artful management of the plot. Aristophanes has therefore the usual failing of dramatic writers, to introduce speeches, and even scenes, not much conducing to the business of the drama. But if the only use of the plot be, as the great Bayes has decided, to bring in good things, our poet will stand totally clear on this head of the charge; and the Knights may be mentioned as an honourable exception even to this censure, as the design of the play, to expose Cleon, and to turn him out of his place, is admirably supported from beginning to end. To sum up Aristophanes's character, if we consider his just and severe ridicule of the Athenian foibles, his detestation of the expensive and ruinous war in which Greece was engaged; his pointed invectives against the factious and interested demagogues, by whom the populace was deluded, "who bauled for freedom in their senseless mood;" his contempt of the useless and frivolous enquiries of the Sophists; his wit, and versatility of style; the astonishing playfulness, originality, and fertility of his imagination; the great harmony of versification, whenever the subject required it, and his most refined elegance of * A line is here omitted by the printer of Maty's Review. The words between asterisks are supplied from conjecture. language; in spite of Dr. Beattie's dictum, we shall look over his blemishes, and allow that, with all his faults, he might be a very good Citizen, and was certainly an excellent Poet. The learning, industry, and sagacity of Mr. Brunck, are well known to the literati, by his elegant editions of some of the Greek Tragedies, the Analecta Veterum Poetarum, and Apollonius Rhodius. The present volumes are nearly of the same size with the. Analecta ; but the type in which the text is printed is the same with that of the Greek Tragedies. I am told most readers complain of the diminutive size of the character, and I must confess I should have been better pleased if the editor had employed the same types in this work as in the Analecta; it would have spared the reader's eyes, and, perhaps, have rendered the typographical errors fewer than they are at present. Mr. Brunck has had, for the use of this edition, (besides all the former editions of any consequence) the collations of many ma nuscripts; in the Plutus, Nubes, and Ranæ, five (the collation of one does not appear but in the Addenda); in the Equites, Acharnenses, Aves, and Lysistra, three; in the Vespa, Pax, and Ecclesiazusæ, two; in the Thesmophoriazusæ, but one. By the help of these manuscripts, the observations of critics, and his own reading, he has been enabled not only to purge the text from innumerable usurpations, but sometimes to supply chasms in it an instance or two of which I shall give in the progress of this article. The ingenious critic apologizes (or rather does not apologize) for having left some faulty readings in the text (which either critical sagacity, or the assistance of MSS. would have removed) on account of the great hurry in which he was obliged to write his notes. To me, I own, this reason seems not entirely satisfactory.—" Quod olim librorum descriptoribus sæpis"sime evenit, id et ego quandoque passus sum; nec hujus "inconsiderantiæ necesse duco ut me purgem, veniamque petam; quin mirari subit lætarique, bonam Fortunam frequentiori"bus istiusmodi lapsibus mihi cavisse; maxime quum recordor, partem haud minimam istarum fabularum a me descriptam "iterum fuisse, dum in Museo meo vel ludebat filius meus, quo animum meum nihil magis advertit oblectatque, vel confabula"bantur boni quidam viri, qui quot fere diebus horisque matuti"nis ad me visere solent."-Tantamme rem tam negligenter? I think in such a case I should have sent Master Brunck out of 66 |