« PreviousContinue »
καὶ γὰρ ἐν βακχεύμασιν ̔Ο νοῦς ὁ σώφρων οὐ διαφθαρήσεται. (Bacch. ovoye owp.) Mr. Boeckh contends, " Philosophi non mutatis Euripidis versibus sibi respondere debebant, si volebant faceti esse. Hæc quum ita habeant, hos versus sic, ut apud Suidam, olim in Euripide lectos fuisse arbitror; posthac mutati sunt in recensione iterata, neque id ex causis ita reconditis." One of these causes is, that the dialogue is carried on in monostichs, and therefore Euripides junior expunged the second verse. Surely this reason holds still stronger for the supposition that Euripides senior never wrote it. But a sufficient answer to this argument, is one which Mr. B. himself treats very lightly, viz. that the story is related by two authors more ancient than Suidas; one of whom, (Serinus ap. Stob. p. 66.) gives both quotations as they stand in our edition of the Baccha; and the other (Sext. Empir. Pyrrh. Hypot. III. p. 204.) only adds to Plato's appηy Tεpuкws, (see Elmsley ad v. 834.) but he quotes ver. 318, ovo' n'ye owppwv, so that if Sextus used, as Mr. B. supposes, a former edition, in which were the words ἄῤῥην πεφυκώς, he also found in it the reading ovo nye σwpwv, whereas Suidas, or the author from whom he borrows, according to Mr. B. found in his former edition o'vous o σúppwv; thus Mr. Boeckh's proofs destroy one another. Nor is there any good reason to be assigned, why the two philosophers should not have altered or added to the words of Euripides, to meet the occasion. Upon the whole, it does not appear to us that Mr. Boeckh has made out his case. It is not probable that Euripides the younger would have suffered the two verses complimentary to Macedon to remain in their place, if he had altered his father's play. Besides, the Scholiast on Aristophanes says that the three plays were acted ἐν ἄστει. Now it appears that none but new pieces were represented at the Dionysia év άote. (See No. V. p. 80.) As this fact, however, is not fully established, we do not insist upon it.
Ver. 13. λιπὼν δὲ Λυδῶν τὰς πολυχρύσους γύας.
"Libenter reponerem Tv TоXxρowy.- Rectius enim ipsi τῶν πολυχρύσων, Lydi, quam eorum yvai, Toλúxpuσo appellantur." E. But surely this is not more harsh than to speak, as Euripides does
elsewhere, of εὐδαίμονα πέδια. Mr. Hermann observes that there is an allusion to the river Pactolus.
32. ᾤστρησα. Mr. Hermann prefers οἴστρησα. “ Græci in verbis valde usitatis, quæ ab or diphthongo incipiunt, usurpavisse augmentum videntur, in iis autem, quæ minus essent usu trita, abstinuisse eo. Deterius etiam nupov esse puto, quod, ab Elmsleio ver. 125, aliisque locis introductum, ne in prosa quidem oratione satis communitum est."
66. Το the authorities for the common reading, κάματόν τ ̓ εὐκάματον, may be added Hierocles in Hippiatricis, p. 2.
69. Βάκχιον εὐαζομένα θεόν. Hermann. “ Dedi αζομένα pro εὐαζομένα, quod verbum vix alibi reperias media forma usur
73. ὦ μάκαρ, ὅστις εὐδαίμων, | τελετὰς θεῶν εἰδώς, | βιοτὰν ἁγιστεύει. Μusgr. ὅστις αἰδήμων. “ εὐδαίμων—θεοφιAns significat, vel potius peculiarem habet sensum, quo Numa verbi caussa, in deorum familiaritatem admissus, εὐδαίμων ἀνὴρ καὶ τὰ θεῖα πεπνυμένος dicitur a Plutarcho, p. 61.” E. A more pertinent testimony, perhaps, may be adduced from Aristophanes Ran. 156. θιάσους εὐδαιμόνων ̓Ανδρῶν, γυναικῶν, καὶ κρότον χειρῶν πολύν. ΔΙ. Οὗτοι δὲ δὴ τίνες εἰσίν; ΗΡ. οἱ μεμνημένοι. Comp. Sophocl. Fragm. inc. LVIII.
89. ὅν ποτ ̓ ἔχουσ ̓ ἐν ὠδίνων λοχίαις ἀνάγκαισι πταμένας Διὸς βροντᾶς, | νηδύος ἔκβολον μάτηρ ἔτεκεν.
We wonder that Dr. E. should term Musgrave's conjecture, ὃν πόδ ̓ ἔχουσ ̓, speciosa." The poets certainly used the phrase πόδα ἔχειν ἐν τινί, to be in any situation; but in this particular instance the metaphor would be ludicrous.
99. ἔτεκεν δ ̓, ἁνίκα Μοῖραι | τέλεσαν ταυροκέρων θεόν. Surely there should be a comma after τέλεσαν,
107. βρύετε, βρύετε χλοηρᾷ | σμίλακι καλλικάρπῳ. μίλακι E. and MS. Rom. He cites Aristoph. Νub. 1003. μίλακος όζων. But in Av. 215, But in Av. 215, we have διὰ φυλλοκόμου σμίλακος. Theophrastus and Dioscorides write σμίλαξ. Nicander Al. 624. σμίλον. Of the two forms, σμίλαξ is probably
more Attic than μίλαξ. They said σμικρὸς rather than μικρός So σκόνυζα. Photius, Σκόνυζαν: καὶ χωρὶς τοῦ σκόνυζαν λέγουσι. Φερεκράτης. Αρκεῖ μία σκόνυζα καὶ θύμω δύο, (so it should plainly be read). σμύραινα for μύραινα seems to have been used by the later Attics, as Plato the comic poet, in Athenæus VII. p. 312. C. We may collect from Hesychius, that uiλağ occurred in the col of Hermippus, but so unusual was it, that Artemidorus the grammarian did not know of its existence. Herodian, referred to by Eustathius, p. 1892, 21, imagines a distinction between μίλαξ and σμίλαξ, as being two different plants. But this notion is refuted by Salmasius. We agree therefore with Mr. Hermann in preferring σμίλακι.
109. Καὶ καταβακχιοῦσθε δρυὸς | ἢ ἐλάτας κλάδοισι.
Ten years ago we proposed to read ἢ ὂν ἐλάτας κλάδοισι, which still appears to us to be the true reading. ἐν is used for σύν, as in the Electra 321. Καὶ σκῆπτρ ̓, ἐν οἷς ̔́Ελλησιν ἐστρατηλάτει. Æsch. Prom. 430. δαϊος στρατός, οξυπρώ|ροισι βρέμων ἐν αἰχμαῖς.
111. στικτῶν τ ̓ ἔνδυτα νεβρίδων | στέφετε λευκοτρίχων πλοκάμων | μαλλοῖς· ἀμφὶ δὲ νάρθηκας ὑβριστὰς ¦ ὁσιοῦσθ ̓· αὐτίκα γὰ πᾶσα χορεύσει.
“Sensus haud dubie est νεβρίδας ἐρίοισι στέφετε. Quid sint ἐριόστεπτοι κλάδοι, omnibus satis notum est. Quid autem sint ἐριόστεπτοι νεβρίδες, nemo monere operæ pretium duxit.” Ε. “ Nisi fallor, pelles jubet conseri in pectore fascia laa." H.
127. ἀνὰ δὲ βάκχια συντόνῳ | κέρασαν ἀδυβόᾳ Φρυγίων | αὐλῶν πνεύματι. Mr. Hermann reads Βακχάδι, and says, at the conclusion of a very learned note; “Βακχὰς quo exemplo firmem, non habeo. Nec mirum, quum etiam Βακχίς tam rarum sit. Sed raritas in hujusmodi vocibus, quas poetæ pro præsenti necessitate fingunt, non minuit fidem." We doubt whether rarity can properly be predicated of a word which occurs no where. Surely this is a strange kind of argumentation. Mr. Hermann coins a new word, and then says, to be
sure it does not occur elsewhere, but no wonder, for another word does not occur very often; and to words of this kind, which the poets coin pro re nata, rarily is no objection.”
194. ̔Ο θεὸς ἀμοχθεὶ κεῖσε νῷν ἡγήσεται.
"Reposui auoxoi, ut semper in similibus. De qua scriptura vide ad Sophoclis Ed. Col. 1646. ubi ultimam producit ἀστακτί.” Ε. Dr. E. however, has not discussed the question at ver. 1646. of his edition of the Edipus Coloneus, but has a short note upon it at ver. 1251. Mr. Hermann says, "Aliis usurum argumentis spero, quam quibus usus est Blomfieldius ad Æschyli Prom. 216. cui quidam nunc, ut re confecta, obsequuntur. Nam in Blomfieldii disputatione sunt, quæ, ut mihi videtur, falsa esse demonstrari possint." There may very probably be some errors in Dr. Blomfield's remarks; but Mr. Hermann does not point them out, nor assign any reason for retaining αμοχθεί. This adverb is exactly analogous to ἀμισθί, which we know to have been written with a simple iota, since its last syllable is short in Archilochus: and we do not suppos that Mr. Hermann will contend that both aμiolì and áμiolei were used. But if duoì is the true orthography, so is ἀμοχθί.
200. Οὐδὲν σοφιζόμεσθα τοῖσι δαίμοσιν. Πατρίους παραδοχάς, ἅς θ ̓ ὁμήλικας χρόνῳ Κεκτήμεθ ̓, οὐδεὶς αὐτὰ καταβαλεῖ λόγος, Οὐδ ̓ εἰ δι ̓ ἄκρων τὸ σοφὸν ηὕρηται φρενῶν.
"Portus Nihil argute comminiscimur in deos. Nova fortasse
constructio σοφιζόμεσθα δαίμοσι, quod quum dixit poeta, πολεμεῖν, ἐπιβουλεύειν, aut ejusmodi aliquid in animo habuisse videtur." E. "Sensum esse puto: nihil argutamur cum diis, i. e. non disputamus cum diis, tamquam qui plus illis sapere nobis videamur." H. Whichever interpretation be adopted, we think there is an allusion to the changes which were made against the Sophists, to whom Euripides was much addicted, and who, towards the latter years of his life, were frequently accused of a design to introduce new Gods. Another allusion
occurs at ver. 255.
225. TTWOσovoav. Dr. E. quotes the same form from Hec. 1064. and Thoσew from Andr. 753. Cycl. 406. and
VOL. II. No. 8.
adds : “Hæc attuli, ut ostenderem, πτήσσειν et πτώσσειν non nisi forma differre." Dr. Blomfield had observed (Gloss. in Pers. 439. Add.) that πτώσσω is the Ionic form of πτήσσω, as ρώσσω is of ῥήσσω, πλώω of πλέω,
242. ̓Εκεῖνος εἶναι φησὶ Διόνυσον θεόν, ̓Εκεῖνος ἐν μηρῷ ποτ ̓ ἐῤῥάφη Διὸς, Ὃς ἐκπυροῦται, κ.τ.λ.
Dr. E. reads, ἐκεῖνον εἶναι φησί. Mr. Hermann retains ἐκεῖνος, and in the next verse writes ἐῤῥάφθαι, with Reiske.
246. Ταῦτ ̓ οὐχὶ δεινῆς ἀγχόνης ἔστ ̓ ἄξια, Ὕβρεις ὑβρίζων, ὅστις ἐστὶν ὁ ξένος.
Dr. E. reads ἐπάξια, and ὕβρισμα both here and in ver. 741. of the Hecuba, ὕβρεις ὑβρίζειν εἰς ἀμείνονας σέθεν, “ plurale ὕβρεις sæpius non legitur apud tragicos.” Ε. Raritas non
est idonea damnandi caussa." H. It appears to us, plural number is designedly used, to express the various disorders of which the offender was guilty. H. Stephens, (v. Ὕβρισμα,) quotes from Demosthenes ὕβρεις ἃς ὑβρίζομαι. The copyists were not likely to change ὕβρισμ ̓ into ὕβρεις.
313. Οὐχ ὁ Διόνυσος μὴ σωφρονεῖν ἀναγκάσει Γυναῖκας εἰς τὴν Κύπριν, ἀλλ ̓ ἐν τῇ φύσει Τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἔνεστιν εἰς τὰ πάντ ̓ ἀεί. Τοῦτο σκοπεῖν χρή. Καὶ γὰρ ἐν βακχεύμασιν Οὖσ ̓ ἥ γε σώφρων οὐ διαφθαρήσεται.
Valcken. οὐκ Εὔϊος μὴ σ. Musgrave, μὴ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσει, which Mr. Hermann gives as his own correction. Porson, Οὐχ ὁ Διόνυσος ὡς φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσει Γυναῖκας εἰς τὴν Κύπριν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τῇ φύσει Τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἔνεστιν εἰς τὰ πάντ ̓ ἀεί, Τοῦτο σκοπεῖν χρή. Elmsley, Οὐχ ὁ Διόνυσος μὴ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσῃ Γυναῖκας, κ.τ.λ. i.e. οὐ μὴ ἀναγκάσῃ. We propose the following reading, Οὐχ ὁ Διόνυσος εἰ φρονεῖν ἀναγκάσει Γυναῖκας εἰς τὴν Κύπριν, ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τῇ φύσει Τὸ σωφρονεῖν ἔνεστιν εἰς τὰ πάντ ̓ ἀεί, Τοῦτο σκοπεῖν χρή. i. e. οὐ σκοπεῖν χρὴ τοῦτο, εἰ γυναῖκας, κ. τ. λ. ἀλλ ̓ εἰ, κ. τ. λ. Διονυσοσειφρονειν is very near to Διονυσοσσωφρονειν. . Menander