Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

cealed the pretended defect altogether by her helmet; and that the two following passages of Lucian may contain an allusion to this circumstance: Dial. Deor. 8. FauxπIS μÈV, ἀλλὰ κοσμεῖ καὶ τοῦτο ἡ κόρυς : ibid. 20. Τί οὖν οὐχὶ καὶ σὺ, ̓Αθηνᾶ, τὴν κόρυν ἀφελοῦσα, ψιλὴν τὴν κεφαλὴν ἐπιδεικνύεις; On the words γλαυκός and γλαυκώπις, M. Gail refers also to his Ed. of Xen. T. vii. p. 752. of Plutarch's Life of Demosthenes, p. 27, 14. to his notes on Theocritus Id. 25, 242. his Philologue T. vii. p. 220. 227., and to Heyne's Hom. Il. 1, 12.

We thus take our leave of M. Gail, conscious that we have not done justice to the many useful remarks contained in this volume. The savans of his own country object to his theories, on the ground of " the danger of innovating on received opinions;" (p. 282.) a species of caution which experience perhaps has taught them. M. Gail's acute perception of the beauties of the Greek language sometimes suggests niceties to him, which less ardent capacities will fail to appreciate. But if hypercriticism be his failing, it is amply compensated by his zealous and unremitted exertions for the diffusion of Greek literature.

SOPHOCLES ET THEOCRITUS
EMENDATI.

INTER loca Sophoclis difficiliora eminet Electr. v. 147. et sqq. ἀλλ ̓ ἐμέ γ ̓ ἁ στονόεσσ' ἄραρε φρένας,

ἃΙτυν αἰὲν Ιτυν ὀλοφύρεται

ὄρνις ἀτυζομένα Διὸς ἄγγελος.

Inprimis page in linguam et metrum peccat. Etenim non alibi exstat in sensu placuit; neque, si exstitisset, aliud esse potuit quam amphibrachys; uti jam statuit Brunckius allegatis Prom. Med. at versus antistrophus hic postulat anapastum. Deinde quid sibi velit 4òs ayyeλos, nemo hominum satis bene definire potest. Exponitur quidem a Barkero in Cl. Jl. N. 53. p. 93. diei nuncia. At ne unus quidem testis citatur idoneus ad comprobandum vocem Zeus per se positam significare diem; neque, si talis citaretur, poterat inde comprobari lusciniam esse diei nunciam. Illa etenim avis adventum noctis

perque totam fere noctem canere solet; qui vero ad Auroræ adventum eam canere dicat, auctorem novi neminem. Hermanno exponenti nuncia ab Jove missa objici possunt verba Jacobii in Specim. Emend. p. 14. Verum Jovis nuncia vocabantur eæ aves, quarum e volatu auguria captari solebant. Ita columba Dodonæa apud Cicer. de LL. 1. nuncia fulva Jovis, et cycnus in Eurip. lon. 158. Znvòs xngu. Lusciniæ vero in re augurali nullæ partes demandatæ erant.' Conjicit igitur opvis åtuloμév Elapos ayyeλos: quod a Schol. non mediocriter firmari posse ait, Διὸς ἄγγελος, ὅτι τὸ ἔαρ σημαίνει "Ομηρος (Οδ. Τ. 519.) Ως δ' ὅτε Πανδαρέου κούρη χλωρηῖς ἀηδὼν Καλὸν ἀείδησιν ἔαρος νέον ἱσταμένοιο—καὶ Σαπφώ, Ηρος ἄγγελος ἱμερόφωνος ἀηδών. Idem voluit et Pierson, teste Valck. in Not. Mss. penes me. Huic tamen conjecturæ eo nomine a Barkero objicitur, quod, scriptis primitus elapos ayyeλos non locus erat Scholiasta verbis aliquantisper de sententia hærentis. Illud etiam adjungo, quod tapos vix et ne vix quidem deflecti poterat in diós. Ad Esch, Suppl. 58. conjecturam feci, quam hodie, utpote non omnibus numeris abolutam, repudio; cujus vice substituere licet alteram præstantiorem:

ἀλλά μ' ἄγει στόνῳ αἶσα παρὰ φρένας·

ἃ Ιτυν αἰνὸν Ιτυν ὀλοφύρεται,

ὄρνις ἅτ ̓, ἄζομεν, εἴδεος ἄγγελος—

Chori verbis ἀπὸ τῶν μετρίων ἐπ' ἀμήχανον ἄλγος ἀεὶ στεναχοῦσα dióλλvσa probe respondet Electra, (Anglice)

Me, Fate by sorrow leads o'er reason's bounds;

And, like the bird, that heralds warmer days,

66

Itys, poor Itys," all its lays,

Here pour

I out grief's saddest sounds.

De literis mutatis nihil est, quod dicam. Ad tuendum vero aloa ays, conferri debet beds yes in Orest. 1545. juxta scripturam Scholiastæ; neque distat Eurip. El. 1310. Molpas aváyκης ἡγεῖτο χρεών ita corrigendus, Μοϊρά σ' ἀνάγκης ἦγ ̓ εἰς τὸ χρεών. Mox vice αἰέν dedi αἰνόν. Dicitur αἰνὸν "Ιτυν ut αινό-Παρις, αἰνόγαμος, αἰνολάμπης, αἰνόλεκτρος, αἰνόμορος, αἰνοπάτης, αἰνότοκος. Deinde ἅτ ̓ ἄζομεν εἴδεος erui ex ατυζομένα διός. Perpetuo ἅτε veluti sic usurpatur. Mox Coμev est verbum Sophocleum, teste Lex. Bekker. p. 348. "Αζειν· τὸ στένειν· Σοφοκλῆς. Vid. mea ad Esch, Eum. 978. Postremo eideos ayyeλos amice convenit cum dicto Publii Syri, Avis exul hyemis, titulus tepidi temporis etenim eldos vel dos est tempus æstivum, uti patet e Pseud. Hesiod. ̓Ασπ. 397. Ιδει ἐν αἰνοτάτῳ ὅτε τε χρόα Σείριος άζει et e gl. Hesych. Εἴδεος εὐδίοιο· καύματος μεσημβρινοῦ. Neque

[ocr errors]

hic locus est unicus, ubi vox infrequentior eïdeos in diòs frequentiorem corrumpitur. Nempe in Theocrit. Id. x111. 11. Οὐδ ̓ ὅκχ' ο λεύκιππος ἀνατρέχει ἐς Διὸς ἀως legi manifesto debet ἑλα τροχὸν εἴδεος ἀως ; ubi τροχὸν εἴδεος aliquid commune habet cum dicto altero Theocriteo id. xvi. 72. Πολλοί κινησεῦντ ̓ ἔτι τὸν τροχὸν ἄματος ἵπποι, ita enin scripsit ipse auctor non ἔτι τροχὸν ἄματος ἵπποι: quod nemo satis intelligere poterat; sed τροχὸν ἄματος bene reddit carmen apud Anglos venaticum

Bright Phoebus hath mounted the chariot of day.

G. Β.

CRITICA SACRA

DE 1 CORINTH. XI. 10.1

Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους.

66

66

CERTE ἐξουσίαν ibi nullo modo stare potest. Argumenti tenor velaminis mentionem poscit. Quo minus vero ovcíav reddatur velamen, Græci sermonis ratio repugnat fortissime. Vide igitur annon in ΑΓΓΕΛΟΥΣ lateat ΑΓΓΟΝΟΥΣ: de qua voce ita Athenaus Ix. p. 410. D. Σαπφὼ δὲ, ὅταν λέγῃ ἐν τῷ πεμπτῷ τῶν μελῶν πρὸς τὴν ̓Αφροδίτην “ε χειρόμακτρα δὲ καγγόνων πορφυρά, καγγόνων κόσμον λέγει κεφαλῆς τὰ χειρόμακτρα, ὡς καὶ Ἑκαταῖος δηλοῖ ἢ ὁ γεγραφὼς τὰς Περιηγήσεις ἐν τῇ ̓Ασίᾳ ἐπιγραφομένῃ “ Γυ ναῖκες δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἔχουσι χειρόμακτρα” Ηρόδοτος δὲ ἐν τῇ δευτέρα φησὶν, « Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἔλεγον τοῦτον τὸν βασιλέα ζωὸν καταβῆναι κάτω εἰς ὃν οἱ Ἕλληνες ᾅδην νομίζουσι, κἀκεῖ δὲ συγκυ βεύειν τῇ Δήμητρι καὶ τὰ μὲν νικᾶν αὐτὴν τὰ δὲ ἡσσοῦσθαι ὑπ' αὐτῆς, καί μιν πάλιν ἀνεφικέσθαι παρ' αὐτῆς δῶρον ἔχοντα χειρόμακτρον χρύσεον.” Atqui Sappho, ut opinor, scripsit χειρόμακτρα δὲ κ ̓ ἀγγόνων, et ipse Athenaeus similiter ἀγγόνων. Unde illico se prodit Apostoli scriptura

Διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλει ἡ γυνὴ ἐξιοῦσα ἀνέχειν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς διώπους ἀγγόνους.

Quod ad literarum ductus διωπους vix et ne vix quidem a δια

Our correspondent is learned and ingenious: but we must deprecate such alterations in the text of scripture. See the allusion to Tacitus in Cl. J. No. i. p. 100. EDIT.

VOL. XXVII.

Cl. J.

NO. LIV.

τους

TOUS distat. Quod ad sententiam, manifesto Paulus ad velamen illud spectabat, quod Asiaticæ induere solent, foras exituræ, ita comparatum, ut caput et vultus una tegantur, nec, nisi per foramina duo, quidquam mulier videre queat. Ejusmodi velamen Corinthias quoque induere voluit Apostolus, quibus fuit gratius nudo capite et vultu aperto foras exire, ut spectare simul et spectari possent. Quod ad diwnos de veste dictum, adi facetissimum Aristophanem in Ach. 435. ubi verba Dicaiopolidis, τὰ ῥάκη Euripidea induituri, "Ω Ζεῦ διόπτα καὶ κατόπτα πανταχοῦ, ita Schol. exponit, ταῦτά φησιν ἐπεὶ πολύτρητα ἦν τὰ ῥάκια, δι' ὧν ἦν πάντα ἐπισκοπῆσαι. Unde conjici potest Comicum scripsisse Ze diяa: cui similis fuit lusus alibi, uti patet ex Hesych. Πολύωπον-πολυόμματον ἢ πολλὰς ἐπὰς ἔχον. G. B.

ων

I

REMARKS ON

DR. CROMBIE'S GYMNASIUM.

BEG leave to send you a few remarks which lately occurred to me on reading a work of essential assistance to the classical student, and of singularly luminous observation-Dr. Crombie's Gymnasium. In a publication embracing so many litigated points, it is impossible to expect a universal acquiescence: and it would perhaps be an improbable conjecture that a scholar, however eminent, should determine correctly on all of them. It is in reliance on this circumstance that I am induced to trouble your readers with the following observations.

[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

In p. 43 of the 1st volume, Dr. C. disputes the propriety of a sentence, which, he informs us, was proposed as correct by an Edinburgh Reviewer. Platæenses, are the words of the Reviewer, ad paludem olim habitasse, Noster affirmat: in locum autem meliorem translatos novæ urbi nomen priscum continuasse, situi licet ab aquis remoto haud diutius competisset.' Dr. C., I conceive, objects very correctly to competisset,' as being inconsistent with affirmat.' He then asserts, that 'nothing could justify competisset,' but 'affirmavit. Then 'continuasse' would be a preterpluperfect. And there are not wanting examples, which in this case would sanction competisset,' though even then competeret' would be more agreeable to general usage.' In one sense, indeed, 'continuasse' might be said to be a pluperfect. It would be so in relation to the present

[ocr errors]

moment.

[ocr errors]

But it would be otherwise in relation to affirmavit.' This is an important distinction: and it is one, which Dr. C. has himself forcibly supported in another part of his work. In the sentence, Dixit se studere,'' studere' is present, and not preterite in relation to 'dixit.' In the sentence, 'Dixit se studuisse,' studuisse' is preterite and not pluperfect in regard to 'dixit.' To adopt here the forbidden use of' quod,'' Dixit se studere' is equivalent to 'Dixit quod studet:' Dixit se studuisse' is equivalent to 'Dixit quod studuit,' but not 'studuerat.' Hence then continuasse' cannot be considered as pluperfect. And hence competisset' is decidedly wrong. For Dr. C. is perfectly right, when he says, that the unsuitableness is to be here predicated as contemporaneous with the continuation.' If, then, continuasse' is preterite, the unsuitableness cannot be expressed by the pluperfect.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6

[ocr errors]

I am aware that our author uses very guarded language in regard to the legitimacy of competisset,' even when used with 'affirmavit.' But he does not condemn it as it deserves. The expression I here support, would not only be more agreable to general usage, but, if I am not mistaken, is the expression which alone can be tolerated. It may be used by eminent writers: but surely Dr. C. forgot an admirable decision, which he lays down in the following nervous language, in regard to the ridiculous, yet not very uncommon, interchange of hic' for 'ille,' and 'ille' for hic,' when used together in opposition: 'No authority,' he says, 'can sanction [observe this expression -for it is the very term used by the learned writer in the case under our previous inspection,] an expression, which is either ambiguous or obscure-much less an expression, by which the reader, if unacquainted with the subject, would unavoidably be led into error.' This decision is bold, but it is correct. Lindley Murray has pointed out constructions, which are undoubtedly erroneous, though used by the best English writers. What can such constructions evince but the melancholy truth that man is fallible and that the most eminent men cannot fail to come under the influence of this general fallibility?

6

In p. 39, Dr. C. gives the credit of greater correctness to the Latin idiom in these two sentences: Athenas ad scholam filium misit: Capua ex agello in Sardiniam migravit.' This is very disputable. For the English expression, He sent his son to a school at Athens,' is plainly elliptical, and intends, 'He sent his son to a school [which was] at Athens.' And the other expression, He removed from his farm at Capua, into Sardinia,' intends, He removed from his farm [which was] at Capua

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ZurückWeiter »