μεθέμεν χόλον, are therefore two different things; the μένος might be checked, while the xóλos still existed; so that avràg is here highly proper in the sense of deinde." Now this criticism, from beginning to end, is in exact opposition to the truth; and I wonder that it could have been dictated. If this be true, we are to consider zoos as synonymous with xóros, grudge, revenge, or steadfast hate: see Il. 1. 82. But the known character of Achilles, as open, fiery, and impetuous, and the constant application of the term to him in the course of the Iliad, show that it has quite a different meaning. I was surprised to be told, that Hesychius gives this explanation; and, upon consulting him, I see that he does not. His text is gy, in; and is, no doubt, corrupted. A critic has proposed an emendation, and my adversary has thought himself free to represent the licentiousness of conjecture for the genuine words of Hesychius. This is in character, and I am persuaded that nothing but artifices of this kind can support his cause. I submit whether Hesychius had not written deyà áns, furious rage. This is precisely the sense of xoxos: and he thus agrees with Suidas, who explains it transient fury; and with Horace, who calls anger brevis furor.

6. The supporters of the new version maintain that arg is a mere conjunction-then, after that, besides, in addition. Now supposing that it has this sense, the use of it here is incongruous; and forms a species of connexion, to which there is nothing similar in Homer, or in any other Greek author; and affords, withal, a sense tautologous, puerile, and totally unworthy of Homer, or any writer of sense. "Do thou, Atrides, restrain thy anger, and then I supplicate thee to dismiss thy rage towards Achilles." So Nestor commands Agamemnon to restrain his anger. To this succeeds another act; and what is that? he supplicates him to do what he has already commanded to be done!! But I maintain, that are has no such meaning. It always marks opposition, contrast, expressed or implied. This I have already shown by various instances; and that, after the errors, into which my adversary has fallen, respecting the use of this word, he should again, without proof, hazard the assertion that it signifies deinde, is really surprising. He seems to think that he can with safety and impunity assert any thing, if it be to support Heyné and Professor Porson. I will let him know, that the authority of these men, however great in other respects, is of no moment, when opposed by the authority of reason; and the attempt of so feeble a critic to bear them up, when overwhelmed by the weight of argument, can only provoke ridicule, Heyné refers to two passages, where he supposes are to mean et prætereà; but I affirm with confidence that he is mistaken. In Od. xv. 159. it means the same with ^^, having où μóvov implied"I received from Nestor not only every kind attention, while in his house, but I bring rich presents."

So also in Od. vii. 121. "Not only pears grow old upon pears, but (avrae) grapes upon grapes." This particle, followed by the pronouny, occurs scores of times in the course of the Iliad and Odyssey; and in every place it presents an evident contrast or oppo-'

sition, with some noun or pronoun preceding it. I will take the first instance that presents itself:

Εχθρὸς γάρ μοι κεῖνος ὁμῶς ἀἴδιο πύλησιν,

Ος χ ̓ ἕτερον μεν κεύθει ἐνὶ φρεσὶν, ἄλλο δὲ βάζει.
Αὐτὰρ ἐγὼν ἐρέω, ὡς μοι δοκεῖ εἶναι ἄριστα.

s

Il. IX. 312. Achilles received the deputies, Ajax and Ulysses, as friends, and treated them with kindness; but he could not but know and dislike the double character of the latter he knew, also, that all the Grecian chiefs were greatly displeased with the insolent conduct of Atrides, and yet had not the magnanimity to declare their sentiments. At their duplicity, or want of firmness, in this respect, Achilles glances, when he says that "he hated the man, as he did the gates of Hades, who said one thing with his tongue, and entertained another in his breast"—Exεvos and ye are opposed, and airdę marks the opposition between them. This observation has escaped Heyné, whose learned labors I greatly value, though I by no means think him an oracle.

:

7. I observed that in, with a noun in the dative, and another in the accusative, means to hurl, throw;' a sense, the reverse of that given to it by Porson. This observation my adversary evades in the following manner : Your correspondent takes for granted the very thing he ought to prove. If, therefore, Achilles denotes the object of the motive implied in μedev, the meaning will be to hurl at Achilles!! viz. if Achilles be the object hurled at, he is the object hurled at. Very concisely proved. Xoλov 'Axiaaĝı, in this place, can signify nothing but his anger for, or towards, Achilles. My argument supposes, that 'Ax depends upon, or is governed by user and this is the construction adopted by HeynéAtride, tu autem compesce tuam iram; verùm ego ipse supplico tibi, ut in Achillem deponas iram.' He, however, says, nisi mavis dictum χόλον 'Αχιλλήί pro εἰς ̓Αχιλλήα, meaning, I suppose, that the 'Ax depends upon xéλov, or a preposition understood, and not on the verb. This, I presume, is the acceptation of Porson, and is that intended by your correspondent; though no construction appears to me more fallacious. The dative case is often used, I grant, by the poets, for the genitive; but then the meaning of Axaaxónov would be the anger of Achilles himself, and not the anger of another towards him. Thus towards the beginning, we read, 'Ayauuvove θυμῷ for ̓Αγαμέμνονος θυμῷ; and it would be perverse in the extreme to render this the passion towards Agamemnon." Yet my opponent roundly asserts, that the phrase can in this place signify nothing but

Lord Monboddo renders 'Axiλañï μedéμev xónov, to forgive Achilles for his passion, and supports this construction from a passage of Herodotus, lib. viii. c. 140. which must be allowed to be very apposite. And this passage I ought to notice, because, in candor, I ought to allow, that it sets aside, in part, my assertion, that in, connected with a dative noun, necessarily means to hurl, transfer, remove. Porson treats the Scotch interpretation with contempt, though it is far more justifiable than his own. Yet no man would think of such a construction as that adopted by the Scotch critic, unless it were to avoid some difficulty.

the anger of Agamemnon towards Achilles. I reply, such a sense is not admissible, because contrary to all analogy. The very expression occurs in Il. II. 241. and has there no such signification; nor can an instance of the same kind be found in all Homer, nor, I believe, in any other Greek author. Resting on the solidity of these arguments, I venture to contradict Porson, Heyné, and Brunck; and I hope your correspondent will not again have the assurance to oppose his own assertions, or even these great names, to reason and truth. At all events, I wish to attract the attention of those, who are most competent to decide. For these I write; and I am confident in the end of their suffrage.

JOHN JONES.

Critical and Explanatory Notes on the PROMETHEUS DESMOTES of Eschylus; with Strictures on the GLOSSARY, and the NOTES to Mr. Blomfield's Edition. ́

NO. IV.

V. 13. 'EMпOAN. Upon this word, in the sense of the business in hand, I have spoken in the Class. Journ. No. vII. p. 209.: I shall here make some further observations upon it. It appears to me, that the proverbial phrase, τὰ ἐν ποσὶν, τὰ ἐμπόδων, which is used in the sense of to mind the business before you, had its origin in the story, which, if I remember rightly, is told of Thales: as he was once gazing at the stars, he was so absorbed in his own astronomical thoughts, that he did not perceive that he had fallen into a ditch, and was rebuked by an old woman, whose language has thus been translated,

Ill luck attends the man, who looks too high,
And can a star, but not a marl-pit spy.

This unlucky fall might become a standing joke against the philosophers: hence Themist. in Orat. 24. p. 307. D. (cited by Valckenaer, in his Diatr. p. 26.) says, (ψυχαὶ ἐρωτικαὶ καὶ φιλόκαλοι) ΤΑ ΕΝ ΠΟΣΙΝ ἀτιμάσασαι, περιπολούσι ΤΟΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΝ, Rhes. v. 482. (cited p. 32.):

μὴ νῦν τὰ πόρρω, τἀγγύθεν μεθεὶς, σκόπει.

T. Gataker says, in his Annotationes in Marc. Anton. p. 58. "To i xeri, i. e. rò agov, id, quod in manibus, vel præ manibus est: χερσὶ, παρὸν, ut infra 1. iii. § 12. et 1. vi. § 2. Livius, 1. iv. Cum tantum belli in manibus esset, et 1. xxvi. Omittere id, quod in manibus erat, bellum coegerunt, Plin. Min. L. Ep. Non vacat, quia vindemia in manibus, Seneca de Benef. 1. iv. c. 1. Nihil tam necessarium, aut magis cum

cura dicendum, quam quod in manibus est, Plaut. Bacch. 43. Reddidi, pater, omne aurum, mihi quod fuerat præ manu; atque est revera zò Tagov μovov in manu nostra, Senec. supr. ad § 4. de Brev. Vitæ, c. 9. Quod in manu fortunæ positum est, disponis, quod in tua dimittis: quod autem ἐν χερσὶ hic Marcus, Pindar. τὸ πρὸ ποδός, et τὸ παρ' ποδὸς dixit: vide ad l. iv. §. 21.: quod Terent. Adelph. 3. 3. Quod ante pedes est, dixit, istuc est sapere, non quod ante pedes modo est videre, sed etiam illa, quæ futura sunt."

V. 67.

σὺ δ' αὖ κατοκνεῖς, τῶν Διός τ' ἐχθρῶν ὕπερ

αυ

στένεις ; ὅπως μὴ σαυτὸν οἰκτιεῖς ποτέ.

« αὖτις ὅπως στασῇ Διομήδεος άσσον ἰοῖσα:

vera quidem observatio Schol. qua Dorienses modos subjunctivos non aliter efferre dicuntur ac vulgo Græci solent, sed orary, consistes, h. in 1. est futurum indicat. med. qualia futura tempora cum ws in istiusmodi contractis loquendi formulis ab elegantioribus Græcis jungi solent: Æs. Prom. v. 68. in Eur. Cyclop. v. 591. öдws avne on, præsta te virum: Xenoph. K. A. I. p. 154. 32. as-iσécte ävèges: Polyoch. Athenæi vII. 313. önwę σe teicu undè eis, ne sinas hoc tibi persuaderi : Casaubon. p. 546. 30. Eubulus ibid. xv. p. 668. D. vv ös hy výzo ὅλην Ἐν τῇ δεκάτη του παιδίου χορεύσετε: nemo frequentius hac usus est forma scribendi, quam Aristoph. in cujus illa reperietur Pluto, v. 326. Nub. v. 1466. Ran. v. 8. 381. (si scribatur ' öñas geïç) 640. 936. Eqq. 222. 757. Acharn. v. 253. 954. Vesp. v. 288. Pace v. 76. 1017. 1330. Av. v. 131. 1334. Eccles. v. 149. 949. Thesm. v. 274. 1216. ::in his formis loquendi, quales attigerunt Bergler. ad Alciphron. 1. i. Ep. 39. p, 194. et Kuster. in Aristoph. Plut. v. 326. verba, plerunque per ellipsin suppressa, nonnunquam addita leguntur, xét, ga, μsμernoo, Pórtice, wgórie: ex. gr. apud Diog. Laërt. II. § 102. Thucyd. p. 203. 80. Aristoph. Eccles. v. 300. Nub. v. 1105. Eqq. v. 685. Eccles. v. 294." L. C. Valckenaer's Decem Idyllia Theocriti, p. 30. If the student wishes for more examples of this phrase, he will find them abundantly supplied in my Class. Recr. p. 153.

V. 321.

ὥστε σοι τὸν νῦν χόλον παρόντα μόχθων, παιδιὰν εἶναι δοκεῖν.

παιδιὰν εἶναι· παίγνιον πρὸς τὰ μέλλοντα καταλήψεσθαί σε κακὰ παρ' αὐτοῦ, Schol. B. "Terent. Eun. Act. II. 3.

Ilic vero est

Qui si amare occeperit, ludum jocumque dices fuisse alterum: Fabius ap. Liv. in Orat. adv. P. Scipionem XXVIII. 42. Næ tibi, Publi Corneli, cum ex alto Africam conspexeris, ludus et jocus fuisse Hispania tuce videbuntur, Petr. Victor. Var. Lectt. vi. 13." Stanley. Dr. Butler also here cites an excellent Note of Mr. Tate, of which Mr. Blomfield has taken no notice:" Child's play, Græcorum proverbium est, cum duorum alterum alteri longe anteponunt, παιδιὰ φαίνοιτο ἂν εἶναι vel angos, ut docet Casaub. Animadvv. ad Athen. p. 70.” "I may truly say in Calvin's language, the errors and innovations, under which they groaned of late years, were but tolerable trifles, children's play, compared with these damnable doctrines of devils:" Mr. Case's Thanksgiving Sermon for the Taking of Chester, cited in Professor Marsh's Inquiry, p. 39.

V. 328.

σὺ δ ̓ οὐδέπω ταπεινὸς, οὐδ ̓ εἴκεις κακοῖς.

« Cedere vero fortunæ idem Sallust. ait, ut vinci; Catilina enim se falsis criminibus circumventum ait, Quoniam factioni inimicorum resistere nequiverit, fortunæ cedere: rursumque Tacitus, 1. xix. Vitellianorum animi, et, ut quisque ordine anteibat, cedere fortuna," A. Schotti. Nodi Cic. 1. IV. c. 14. Thus we have in Virgil, Tu ne cede malis. But upon the phrase na nany, I refer Mr. Blomfield to the Lexicon Vocc. Platonic. 2d Edn. Lug. Bat. 1789. p. 152. which I have not the opportunity of consulting at the present moment.

"Job. xxvi. 11. Túλo ovgavou: recte ita, ut observatum est, vocantur montes, qui sublimi vertice sidera feriunt; et summi laquearia tecti ad columnarum instar sustentare videntur : certe quod hic de cœli columnis Nahum, c. i. 5. de montibus effatur: poeticam autem, nec raro cothurnatam Jobi dictionem nemo ignorat: atque ita montes omnes excelsos valde, zlovas columnas appellari, docet Eustath. ad Odyss. A. 53. ubi Atlas dicitur sustinere xiovas pagès, columnas longas, quæ terram et cœlum ἀμφὶς ἔχουσι, i. e. διείργουσιν (ut Schol. ibid.), intersepiunt et discapedinant, qua voce Glossæ utuntur: similiter Etnam Pindarus oigavíar xiova, cœlestem columnam vocat." 'Alberti's Periculum Criticum, Lug. Bat. 1727.

ὑπέροχον σθένος,

Mr. B. says in his Gloss. p. 143. "nigoxov obévos, subaudiendum videtur xará: xgaraids, validus; sic Validum pondus Virgil. G. 3. 172. TOTTEVάw, subius ingemisco." He says in the Note: 439. "[TOT] ita Ald. Turn. Br. Sch. Herman. et viginti minimum MSS. ißarтál. Rob. Stan. Porson. Burn. :" Dr. Butler says, (vol. i. p. 47.) " νώτοις ὑποβαστάζει: alii νώτοισιν ὑποστενάζει. Η. Steph. STOGTEVE habent Med. Colb. 1. 2. Ven. 1. 2. Ar. Ox. Ask. A.B.C.D. Cant. 1. Lips. 2. Gud. Apud Schutz. 2. Ald. Rob. Turn.: hanc tamen lectionem, tam elegantem, et summa auctoritate ac prope consensu tum codicum, tum editionum confirmatam, non unius esse assis affirmat Pauw: eam vero receperunt Brunck. Schutz. Pors. quibus libenter me adjungo: νώτοις ἐρείδων vel φέρων, vel νώτοισιν ὑποβαστάζων στενάζει ex conj. Schutz. : melius forte νώτοισι βαστάζων ὑποστενά

quod prætulerim, quia versus ipse ad laborem exprimendum confingitur." The 2d Scholiast says: ὅτι δὲ μέγα σθένος καὶ τὸ κραταιὸν οὐράνιον πόλον ἐκ παραλλήλου, ἐνέβαλε δὲ διὰ μέσου τὴν τοῦ ̓́Ατλαντος ἱστορίαν : Again, ὑποστενάζει, μετ ̓ ὠδίνης ἐπανέχει: Stanley translates the passage thus: "Qui semper supereminens robur firmum et cœlestem polum humeris ingemiscens sustinet." Mr. Blomfield, as we have seen, understands κατὰ with ὑπέροχον σθένος : I must enter my protest against this construction: an ellipse is never used in any language, where any ambiguity is likely to arise from the want of any word; it is, indeed, true, that passages, where words are to be understood, are often obscure to us, (because we are not sufficiently masters of the language,)