Page images
PDF
EPUB

As every scholar possesses the Hippolytus [v. 643] edited by Bp. Monk, and the Edipus Rex [v. 1389] by Mr. Elmsley, it is unnecessary to give any particular explanation of what they have so well developed. Hermann also may be consulted with advantage, in his Annotationes, No. 446, on the Greek Idioms of Viger

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

“Exigit sermonis ratio, ut voculæ où un vel cum Futuro indicativo, vel cum Aoristo altero formæ subjunctivæ construantur.” [M. C. 222=221.]

Legitime construitur vocula omws, altera un vel comite, vel absente, cum Aoristo secundo formæ vel activæ vel mediæ, uti et cum Aoristo primo passivæ.” [M. C. 228, 229, 30=227, 28.]

= “Vocula où cum verbo subjunctivæ formæ conjuncta alteram itidem un comitem postulat.” [M. C. 340=331.]

According to Dawes, then, the following forms of Syntax, for instance, are correct:

1. ΟΥ ΜΗ δυσμενής ΕΣΗι φίλοις.
2. 'Αλλ' ΟΥΠΟΤ' εξ εμούγε ΜΗ ΜΑΘΗΙΣ τόδε.
3. Δέδoιχ’ ΟΠΩΣ ΜΗ τεύξομαι κακοδαίμονος.
4. [σκεπτέον, όπως τούτο μάθη.]
5. [σκεπτέον, όπως μη αίσθωνται ταύτα.]
6. [φύλαξει, όπως μη τυφθής.]

1 ADDENDUM. 1836.
The striking passage here selected to show the syntax,

έρριψα, όπως απηλλάγην,

Aung that I might have been released," involves also a peculiarity of its own, which may be worth while to illustrate.

Under the form of a past tense, the sentiment rather belongs to the present or future. Io's real meaning is this : “ Why don't I fling myself, &c. that I may be released ?Similarly enough, as far as the first part of the sentence goes, Creon exclaims,

Antigone, 1308, 9. Ti m' oúr ávraiav

έπαισέν τις αμφιθήκτώ ξίφει ; where it is quite evident, he does not so much regret that no friendly hand had despatched him, as he calls for that friendly hand to do it then, at the time of his speaking.

And the following forms amongst others are not legitimate :

7. Ου μη ληρήσης. Read, Ου μη ΛHΡΗΣΕΙΣ.

8. “Όπως δε τούτο μη διδάξης μηδένα. Read, όπως μη διδάξεις.

9. 'Αλλ' ούτι μ' έκφύγητε λαιψηρω ποδί. [Hecub. 1038 = 1030.] Read, 'Αλλ' ούτι ΜΗ 'ΚΦΥΓΗΤΕ. « Dawesius sagaciter, licet minus recte.” R. P. With the great critic himself, therefore, read 'Αλλ' ούτι μη φύγητε λαιψηρώ ποδί.

A. Under the head of No. 8, which is a case of elliptic construction, may commodiously be classed a most ingenious recovery of error, and a most happy defence of the true but suspected lection.

Reiske, offended at the awkwardness which nobody can deny, of Hecuba, v. 402, corrected the verse as follows:

όμοια, κισσός δρυός όπως, τήσδ' εξομαι. And Porson, in his first edition of the Hecuba, adopted the correction, with this remark

όμοια emendatio est Reiskii pro οποία, quod habent Aldus et MSS.” In his second edition he restores the genuine reading,

οποία κισσός δρυός, όπως τήσδ' εξομαι. As the ivy clings to the oak, let me cling to my daughter here. The jingle of the Greek, which one wonders did not offend the nice ear of Euripides, disappears in the English translation.

Porson's note enlarged shall be given at full length.

« όμοια emendatio est Reiskii pro οποία, quod habent Aldus et MSS. a Brunckio et Beckio recepta. Pro όπως Β. ούτως. Sed re perpensa, huic emendationi diffidere cæpi, et vulgatum defendi posse hodie censeo. Plerumque quidem όπως vel όπως un cum secunda persona, aliquando cum tertia construitur, rarius cum prima. Aristophanes, Eccles. 296, "Οπως δε το σύμβολον Λαβόντες έπειτα πλησίοι καθεδούμεθα.

Plene dixit post paullo, "Oρα δ' όπως ωθήσομαι τούσδε τους εξ άστεος. Antiphanes Athenaei 1ΙΙ. p. 123. Β. "Οπως ύδωρ έψοντα μηδέν όψομαι. Retinenda etiam videtur vulgata Troad. 147 lectio, frustra a Musgravio sollicitata. Μάτηρ δ' ώς τις πτανοίς κλαγγαν "Όρνισιν, όπως εξάρξω 'γώ Μολπάν.”

.

A a

B. That où does not precede a verb of the subjunctive mood unless accompanied by uń, is true enough as an Attic Canon. In the Ionic Greek of Homer, the other Syntax is perfectly right. Iliad. A. 262. Ου γάρ πω τοίους ίδoν ανέρας ουδέ ίδωμαι. .

. And I only mention this now, to avoid the appearance which one might otherwise incur of appealing to Homer as an authority for Attic Syntax. Innumerable modes of speech, cultivated by the Poets, and even familiar to the Prose writers of Athens, are drawn from Homer, the vast ocean of Grecian literature. But inasmuch as a great deal of the original diction of Homer had become obsolete in the age of Pericles, and a great deal of recent varnish was afterwards put on by the scholars of Alexandria, let it be understood, that we borrow illustration from Homer only where he was copied or followed by the Attic writers ; while against their demonstrated practice—in the present discussion-he affords no authority at all. [Iliad. 0. 195, &c.]

C. A very ingenious hint is started and ably defended by Mr. Elmsley in his Criticism on Gaisford's edition of Markland's Euripides (Quart. Review, June, 1812, pp. 453, 4] ad Supp. v. 1066; that “when uin is prefixed to the future, a note of interrogation ought to be added.” And Bp. Monk, approving the idea, edits the Hippolytus accordingly. Vid. vv. 213. 602.

On the particles oỦk oớv a similar hint is advanced by Mr. Elmsley, ad Ed. R. v. 342, and pursued ad Heraclid. v. 256 '.

(Gr. Gr. 540—545).

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

1 ADDENDUM TO C. 1836.

In questions of this kind, it is one thing to ascertain the original character of such a phrase, as , or oủk oŭv : it is quite another, amidst several stages of use, to define its actual force at any given period.

Thus, allowing that uri zoy might from originally being interrogative, will you not forbear to be ?" come to denote in direct prohibition, you will forbear, &c., the nice difficulty remains to determine at what period the transition had abso. lutely taken place to that effect. At all events, uri in the following passage of Euripides, Phæn. 1606,

σαφώς γαρ είπε Τειρεσίας, ου μη ποτε,

σου τήνδε γην οικούντος, εύ πράξειν πόλιν, eonveys in the very plainest manner a strong direct negation and nothing else.

For ovkovv éxétw, and oőkovv časov, vid. Hermann's Annotations on Viger, No. 261.

Singularly enough, Terence presents the primary use of quin interrogative, and that other use afterwards acquired, at the very same early period. Quin taces ? and Quin tu uno verbo dic,

VIII.

[ocr errors]

“Nec verbum activum uɛOinue cum Genitivo, nec medium uždíeuau cum Accusativo recte conjungitur," sed vice versa. [M. C. 238=236.] Vid. et R. P. ad Med. v. 734.

. . This one instance, acutely observed, belongs to that nice analogy by which several other verbs in their active and middle uses are always distinguished. In the translation which I shall venture to give, let not the fastidious reader find cause of displeasure. Where the analysis of language descends to its last stage, the words by which the attempt is made to develope it, if they do trip a little, may expect to be forgiven.

1. μεθίημι σέ. --μεθίεμαι σου. .
2. αφίημι σέ.- αφίεμαι σού.
3. έλαβον σέ. έλαβόμην σου.
4. σίγα δ' έξομεν στόμα.-βρετέων έχεσθαι.

.

. 5. βρόχους άπτειν.- -άψει πέπλων.

6. ώρεξε την κύλικα.-ού παιδός ορέξατο. .
1, 2. I quit, or part- -myself

from you.
3. I caught -myself at you.
4. To hold ourselves by the statues.
5. You will fasten

-yourself on my robes.
6. He stretched himself for his Son.

In translating, at once exactly, and with variety if it be not distinction, lies the difficulty ; otherwise the task would be easy enough. A Scholar understands the whole without any help of translation.

IX.

“Şi mulier de se loquens pluralem adhibet numerum, genus etiam adhibet masculinum;

“Si masculinum adhibet genus, numerum etiam adhibet pluralem.” R. P. ad Hec. 515. [M. C. 317=310.]

In Porson's Letter to Dalzel, Mus. Crit. p. 335, it is said, “ There is a stronger exception against Dawes's rule in Hipp, 1120 [Ed. Monk, 1107] than can be brought, I believe, from any other quarter.”

Whoever will take the trouble of turning to the passage itself and the note upon it in Bp. Monk's edition, will find that it is all a mere inadvertence of the poet, who either mistook himself at the moment for the Coryphæa, or hastily transferred from his loci communes a fine train of reflection, without considering in whose character it must be uttered.

Read that charming Scolium in the Medea, Skaloùs déywy-vv. 112-206, or that, Aɛvà Tvpávvwv-vv. 119–130 : and

say, who but Euripides could have given sentiments so beautiful, so just, so profound, to the person of an illiterate nurse?

X.

“ Loci istius [Iliad] Z. 479.

Και ποτέ τις είπoι πατρός δ' όγε πολλών άμείνων

'Εκ πολέμου ανιόνταfefellit omnes, quantum sciam, syntaxis. Nempe interpretantur ac si verbum iowy vel simile non incommode subaudiri posset : quo referretur accusativus åvióvra: et olim quis dicet 'patre vero hic multo est fortior' ex pugna redeuntem conspicatus. Frustra. Nam plena atque integra est oratio, ista autem constructio: Και ποτέ τις έκ πολέμου ανιόντα είπoι-et olim quis de eo ex pugna redeunte (vel reverso] dicat.-Adjiciam et illud Aristoph. Nub. 1147.

Και μοι ΤΟΝ ΥΙΟΝ, ει μεμαθηκε τον λόγον

'Εκείνον, ΕΦ', δν αρτίως εισήγαγες. Et mihi de filio dic, utrum didicerit.- Quem ad locum viòv esse accusativum more Atticorum pro nominativo positum frustra monet Cl. Küsterus.” [M. C. 147, 8=149.]

1. This remark on what for distinction's sake should be called the Accusativus de quo, has a range of great usefulness, especially in the Attic Poets.

The following in Homer, Iliad Z. 239, is rather unique :

The wives and daughters of the Trojan soldiers crowded about Hector :

Ειρόμεναι παϊδάς τε, κασιγνήτους τε, έτας τε,
Και πόσιας. “h. e. περί παίδων.” Heyne.

« PreviousContinue »