« PreviousContinue »
παράβας. There is another passage in Aristophanes where προς is to be restored instead of ές: Acharn. 392. Ως σκηψιν αν αγών ούτος ούκ έσδέξεται. This Mr. B. quotes in a note upon Νub. 465. (where r. επόψομαι for όψομαι from Suidas, ν. αρά γε) to shew that the particle av may be joined with a future indicative, a point I shall not at preseut dispute, but the validity of this example to prove it. If the learned critic had looked into any of the three first editions of Suidas, v. Eloupos, or P. Leopard. Emendat. xiii. 8. he would have found it thus quoted, Ως σκηψιν αγών ουτος ου προσδέξεται, which is the true reading, changing only αγων into αγών, or, as Mr. Brunck would write it, ωγών.
Eccles. 70ι. Τοις δ' ευπρεπέσιν γ' ακολουθούντες, γε is of the editor's insertion. Read Toις ευπρεπέσιν δ'.
Acharn. 18. Ούτως έδήχθην υπό κονίας γε τας οφρύς. Ας. the penultima of kovias may be made long, vid. Lysistr. 470. the ye may be safely ejected on the authority of the scholiast and the first editions of Suidas, V. ρύπτομαι.
Αν. 1478. Τούτο μέν γε ήρος αιεί-Mr. B. 18 not quite 8atisfied with this verse, and therefore proposes Toûto uévr' apThe common reading is Τούτο μεν ήρος αιεί-read, Τούτο του μέν ήρος, which answers to what follows, Του δε χειμώνος.
Thesimoph. 225. Ου γαρ, μα την Δήμητρά γ, ένταυθοι μενω. The particle is here of no force, nor is it in the earlier editions, at least it is not in the Basil. 1532. There can scarcely be a doubt, I think, but we must read, Ου γαρ, μα την Δήμητρ, έτ' ενταυθοι μενω, to any one who will consult Nub. 814. Vesp. 1442. Av. 1335. I shall quote the middle example. Oỹ του, μα την Δήμητρ, έτ' ενταυθοι μενεις. Το shew of what signal use it is sometimes to compare an author with himself, I will give another example: Thesmoph. 630. Φέρ' ίδω, τί πρώτον ήν και επίνομεν. Mr. B. has aptly quoted Nub. 787. Φέρ έδω, τί μέντοι πρωτον ήν; τί πρώτον ην ; but, what is surprising, did not see that the verse in question was to be amended thus : Pép* ίδω, τί μέντοι πρώτον ήν ; as it is quoted by Suidas, ν. προπίνει.
Ibid. 443. Όλίγων ένεκα γ αυτή παρήλθον ρημάτων. Why does Mr. B. follow that bardus, stipes, fungus, &c. Bergler with his γε: Why not ένεκα καυτη? - Lysistr. 82. Γυμνάβδομαι γε και ποτί πυγαν άλλομαι. Mr. B. reads γα Laconice. I should prefer Γυμνάβδομαι τε-- as it is quoted by Eustathius, , p. 1570.
Mr. B. sometimes quits the editions, at least those which I have, to wit, Aldus, Basil. 1532. and Kuster, without giving his reader notice, as for instance, Nub. 826. 1302. Ran. 320. 374. 1406. Probably he does this on the authority of MSS. (perhaps of other edd.) but such variations ought to be accounted for in the notes.
He sometimes erroneously follows Kuster's edition ; as e. g. Ρlut. 197."Ή φησιν ου βιωτών αυτώ τον βίον. In the preceding editions it is thus; "Ή φησιν ούκ είναι βιωτόν αυτό τον βίον, where avto not eivai ought to have been omitted.
Nub. 1329. "oll for oiol', from Kuster.
Eq. 787. Τούτό γε τούργον αληθώς εστίν.-Ιn Aldus, Τούτο γέ σον τούργον αληθώς-read, Τούτό γε τοι σoυ τoυργoν álnows--vide infra 1054.
Mr. Brunck generally shews a great respect for Dawes, and follows his emendations; but I think he sometimes rejects them without reason, and sometimes does not give them all the support they might have ; e. g. the emendation on Acharn. 271. is confirmed by Suidas, v. Aamáxwv, that on Pac. 188. by Suidas, v. uiapoi. Of the first I shall give but ove instance. Plut. 392. as a MS. has noiov, it ought to have been inserted in the text. The assertion of Mr. B.'s that there are an hundred exceptions, is rash ; I do not believe there are six. I remember one in the Rhesus, but easily to be altered. The verse from the Phænissæ is no proof at all; that from the Bacchæ very little ; in the example from the Acharn. 963. read 'O moios oŮtos Aduayos; v. Nub. 1270. Tà noia taūta xpual'; so far from 'O moios not being admissible here, it is almost necessary, on account of the apodosis, 'O Servos, -I will give two instances of Aristophanes's exactness in this particular. Ran. 1200. 'ATÒ Ankudiov Tous cous apolóryous Siapoepw. so a MS. has it; rightly, appears from the next verse, 'Aπό ληκυθίου συ τους έμούς ;Aves 1419. Oδί πάρεστιν· αλλ' ότου χρή, δεί λέγειν. Πτερών, af tepôv dei. It is plain, that in the first verse we must read omrov dei, xpri lényelv, not only for the reason above given, but also because xori never governs a genitive case in the Attic poets. The only example, I believe, that can be produced to the contrary, is Euripides Orest. 667. Ti xpri paw; but that is to be altered into dei piaw on the authority of Plutarch. Op. Mor. p. 68. E. Aristotl. Ethic. ix. 9.
Εφ. 400. γενοίμην εν Κρατίνου κώδιον. I must question
whether this can signify una de pellibus Cratini. L. Bos's emendation εν Κρατίνου (Animadv. p. 8.) seems to me to admit of no doubt.
Ib. 456. Mr. B. seems somewhat uncertain about the word kolậ. There is no reason for change. The Attics only use the middle future of this verb. κολωμένους ought to have been restored, Vesp. 244. instead of Kolovuévous, which cannot possibly come from koloúw, or indeed any other word. Theopompus apud Suidam. v. "Άττις. Κολάσομαί γε σε, Και τον σον "Αττιν.
Thesm. 149. Xρη τον ποιητήν άνδρα προς τα δράματαwhen avrip is joined with a substantive, it is not, I believe, capable of the article. The τον is, I believe, the insertion of a later editor, without any authority; I would therefore read, Xρή γαρ ποιητήν – which connects better with the preceding verses.
In so long a work, it is impossible but some little inaccuracies, respecting the niceties of metre, must escape an editor, however diligent or sagacious.
Εφ. 569. Κουδείς ουδε πώποτ' αυτών.-It is astonishing that Mr. Brunck should let the spondee pass in the first place, and not alter it to Κούτις.
Ibid. 1956. "Όπως γένωμαί σοι Φανός υπογραφεύς δικών. The metre of this line is redundant (the first syllable of Davos being long) though Valesius (on Harpocration, p. 228.) and D’Orville (on Chariton, p. 5.) quote it without suspicion. Amend it from Suidas, v. Φανός. "Όπως έσομαί σοι.
Pac. 185. Τι σοι ποτ' εστί τούνομ' ; ουκ έρείς και μιαρώτατος. an iambic with seven feet. Correct it Τί σοί ποτ' έστ' όνομ'; ουκ έρείς; as Suidas quotes it v. μιαροί. I will take this occasion to observe, that a little above, instead of Ω μιαρε και τολμηρέ-We must read on the same authority Ω βδελυρέ, to avoid tautology: compare Ran. 465, 466.
Αν. 385. Αλλά μην ουδ' άλλο σου πω πραγμ' έναντιώμεθα. A spondee in the fifth place. The first editions have εναντιώμεθα, read ενηντιώμεθα.
Ibid. 1297. Συρακουσίω δε Κίττα Μειδίας δ' εκεί. a cretic in the second place: read Συρακοσίω. Εupolis, quoted by the Scholiast, Συρακόσιος δ' έoικεν, ηνίκ' αν λέγη Τοις κυνιδίοισι τοισιν επί των τειχέων. Ιn Kuster's edition it is corrupted into Συρακούσιος.
Thesm. 234. Βούλει θεάσασθαι σαυτόν; ει δοκεί, φέρε. A syllable too much : correct it slightly, Bohdet Deoba.-Eccles. 369. Lysistr. 742. 12 Tótvia Eixelovia—without an elision, that the first syllable in trótvia may not be made long contrary to the author's custom : To pápuakóv gov trv vógov meilw ποιει. . If any thing is to be altered, I should rather suppose, "AXX' ought to be supplied at the beginning of the verse. A similar omission has happened in the Aldine edition of Euripid. Phæniss. 1806. and in many editions of our author, Av. 1699. 'Αλλα γαμικήν χλανίδα δότω τις δεύρο μοι. (ita leg. ex Schol. in v. 1565.)
The Index is a repetition of Kuster's, but very much improved and enlarged. The Latin interpretation, which the learned editor has altered and corrected in an infinity of places, is as far as I have consulted it, perspicuous and accurate. In the fragments, perhaps something more might have been done. But as I have not now either leisure or inclination to undertake a minute examination, I shall only just observe, that in the Gerytades, part of the 21st fragment is repeated in the Incerta, No. 41. where instead of ρήματα-- εμβαπτόμενος, we must read ρημά τι-έμBartóuevov from Athenæus, p. 367. and that in the 3d fragment of the Aaltaans, whoever will compare Nub. 865. 1242. will think it ought probably to be corrected thus, H univ rows où katanlaynoei too xpóvo. Fragm. incert. 133. is a parody of Euripides apud Plutarch. de Isid, et Osirid. p. 379. D.
To the Editor of the Museum Criticum.
MAJOR Leake, in his Researches in Greece, p. 112. gives the following etymology of a Romaic phrase, “ dauáki Tupapoa, a little out of its direction; from Hellenic pápoos, region. The writer of some remarks on Major Leake's book, in the Quarterly Review, denies that pápoos signifies a region, and asserts that in point of fact it is a shawl. Mr. Leake in reply maintains his original position, and adduces from two epigrams of Phanias φάρσος άμας, and φάρσος βότρυος, and four passages of
Herodotus, where he speaks of a city being divided into φάρσεα. Now the fact is, that pápoos never does mean region, in the sense Major Leake attaches to it: but at the same time it must be acknowledged that the Reviewer is too concise and positive in his remark. The true account of the matter is as follows.
Pápoos is properly one division, skirt, or flap of a garment, which consisted of two such divisions. Etymol. M. p. 175. Kai γαρ διαφάρους φασί χιτώνας, τους εις δύο μέρη κεχωρισμένους και φάρσος, το απόσχισμα της εσθήτος. For διαφάρους Phavorinus has διαφάρσους ; but the true reading is διφάρσους, a compound similar to δίκροσσον.
Hence it comes in the second place to be used for the section of any thing which is divided into two nearly equal parts ; as in the passage of Herodotus referred to by Major Leake. éoti yap δύο φάρσεα της πόλιος" το γαρ μέσον αυτής ποταμός διείργει. there are two sections of the city. So in Phanias φάρσος άμας 1s the half of a mattock (see Photius v. Exapeiov. Schol. Aristoph. Pac. 296. and φάρσος βότρυος is the half of a bunch of grapes a fragment; equivaleut to tpúpos in the next line, Φάρσος σοι γεραού τόδε βότρυος, είνόδι Ερμά,
Και τρύφος ιπνίτα πιαλέου φθόγος.
A bit of a greasy pancake broiled on the embers. Hesych. quoted by Major L. Φάρσος, τρύφος, κλάσμα, πτερύγιον, ακρωτήριον.
And thirdly, it was used for the pinnacle of a building ; but by the words πτερύγιον, ακρωτήριον, Ηesychius meant the skirt of a garment. He has elsewhere, Πτερύγια-τα άκρα των ιματίων. But we rather believe he intends a pinnacle. Pollux VII. 121. δόμοι, πτέρυγες, φάρση. The word ακρωτήριον also means the ornamental figure which crowns a dome.
In none of these instances does pápoos signify a region, but simply a part, as distinguished from the whole, and therefore Mr. Leake is unquestionably wroug; nor can the Reviewer be said to be in the right; since although his remark is true as far as it goes, he should have pursued it further, and have cited the passages with which the Indexes have furnished Major Leake.
I am, Sir,