P. 39. Amphis : τὸ νίκτας πάνυ μάττων ἐσθίω, διαπίνω τ ̓ ἀμβροσίαν, καὶ τῷ Διί, &c. Profeffor S. reduces thefe words to metre in the fol μάττων, διαπίνω τ ̓ ἀμβροσίαν, καὶ τῷ Διὶ, &c. We would prefer the omiffion of the article before ExTag, and would read πάνυ μάττων ἐσθίω νέκταρ, διαπίνω τ ̓ ἀμβροσίαν, &c. P. 40. E. Alexis: τοὺς εὐτυχοῦντας ἐπιφανῶς δεῖ ζῆν [ἀεὶ] ὁ γὰρ δεδωκὼς τἀγαθὰ, [τούτους] τῶν μὲν, ὧν ἔχειν ἑαυτῶ. The words in brackets were added by Cafaubon to fill up the metre. We believe that the paffage has already been corrected as follows: - τοὺς εὐτυχοῦντας ἐπιφανῶς δεῖ ζῆν, φανεράν τε τὴν δόσιν τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ὧν μὲν πεποίηκεν οἴεται χάριν τινὰ, &c. By this arrangement we avoid the interpolations as well as the fpondee in the fourth foot of the fecond verfe. Although it is not our intention to propofe emendations in Athenæus, except in paffages where Profeffor S. has preceded us, we mult fuggeft the fubftitution of ἀχαρίστους οι ἀχαρίστως for ἀχρήστους in the concluding part of this fragment. P. 48. A. As a fpecimen of the ingenious manner in which Profef. for S. diftributes thofe verfes which are commonly written as profe, we will infert a fragment of Menander, from the Pratermilla ex Libro fecundo, which probably belongs to this place. The Profeffor remarks, • Verfus utcunque, pro meo fenfu, diftribui. We denote his diftribution by obelifkas : ἔργον [ἐστὶν] εἰς τρίκλινον + συγγενείας εἰσπεσεῖν· † οὗ λαβὼν τὴν κυλικα † πρῶτος άρχεται λόγου † πατήρ καὶ παραινέσεις † πέπαικεν † εἶτα μήτης δευτέρα· † είτα τήθη παραλαλεῖ τις· † είτα βαρύφωνος γέρων, † τηθίδος πατής· ἔπειτα † γραῦς καλοῦσα φίλτατον· P. 49. E. Alexis : καὶ μὴν ἐν ὕπνῳ οἴομαι ὡρακέναι νικητήριον. λέγ' αὐτό, τὸν νοῦν πρόσεχε δή. Profeffor S. propofes νικήτριον. We would read καὶ μὴν ἐνύπνιον οἴομαι νικητικὸν, εδρακέναι. λέγ' αυτό, &c. We obferve that in fome places Profeffor S. has restored the true orthography gana. In the paffage which immediately follows that which we have juft cited, the fame alteration is to be made: * ἑόρακας πώποτ' ἐσκευασμένων ἤναστρον, P. 55 P. 55. A. Alexis: κύαμος, θέρμος, λάχανον, γογγυλίς, ᾤχρος, λάθυρος, Φηγός, βολβός, τέττιξ, ἐρέβινθος, ἀχράς, &c. Anapaftic verfes compofed of three feet, like the last of these, are not infrequent in the prefent edition. This paffage affords an inftance of the corruption of the text by the casual insertion of a marginal glofs. Θερμός is hot, and θέρμος is a lupine. Λάχανον is therefore an explanation of figues, and ought to be expunged; after, which the verfes will ftand as follows : Κύαμος, θέρμος, γογγυλίς, ώχρος, λάθυρος, Φηγός, βολβὸς, τέττιξ, P. 59. E. Epicrates: καὶ τί ποτ' αρ' ὠρίσαντο, καὶ τίνος γένους εἶναι τὸ φύτον· δήλωσον, εἰ κατοῖσθά τι. To these two Iambic veries, the Professor has fubftituted three Anapeltics de fa façon, which we recommend to the reader's attention as a curious fpecimen of emendatory criticism: καὶ τί ποτ ̓ ἄρ ̓ ἑορίσαντο, καὶ τίνος εἶναι γένεος τὸ φυτον ; P. 66. D. Antiphanes : νῦν δεῖ περιόντα πέπερι καὶ καρπὸν βλίτου Περιών in the Attic diale&t ftands for περιών. One inftance occurs in a pallage of Phrynichus, which we fhall cite hereafter. The Profeffor reads περιώντα, and removes »y to the preceding verfe. P. 66. D. Ophelion : Λιβυκόν τε πέπερι, θυμίαμα, καὶ βίβλιον Πλάτωνος ἐμβρόντητον. The Profeffor reads βίβλον, which we prefume to be a fpondee. We prefer the omiffion of xai. With the exception of y, hardly any word is fo frequently interpolated as xai. P, 87. F. Pofidippus : ὥρα περαίνειν· ἐγχέλια, καὶ καράβους, κόγχας, ἐχίνους προσφάτους, μηκώνια. The true reading is unqueftionably ἐγχέλεια, καράβους : κρέα being un derstood. P. 103. A. Damoxenus: εἶτ ̓ οὐθὲν εἰκῇ παρατίθημι, μανθάνεις; This verse exhibits a fingular inftance of interpolation. In all the editions, except that of Aldus, we read εἴτ ̓ οὐθὲν εἰκῇ παρατίθεμαι τοῖς συμπόταις. In which, befides the impropriety of παρατίθεμαι, which fignifies 1 before my felf, we have a dactyl immediately before an anapast. P. 105. A. Epicharmus: ἐντὶ δ ̓ ἀστακοί, πολύβδαιναί τ', ἔχοισαι τὰ πόδια The The κολύβδαινα appears to have been of a fpecies entirely different from the κάραβος, which was of the lobter kind. Inftead of the words ἔχοισαι τὰ πόδια, the Venetian manufcript reads έχοστα ποδι ἔχει. By changing the divifion of the words, and introducing the proper contraction of xai os, we find the true reading of this paffage : ἐντὶ δ ̓ ἀστακοί, κολύβδαιναί τε, χῶς τὰ πόδ' ἔχει μικρά, &c. P. 107. C. Alexis : κρεάδια, ποδάρια, ρύγχη τινὰς ὠτάρια, ὕειον ἡπάτιον ἐγκεκαλυμμένον. The first of thefe distorted verfes is left untouched by our Profeffor; but he endeavours to corred the fecond by reading ἐπικεκαλυμμενόν. Both of them fhould be altered in the following manner : κρεάδια, καὶ ποδάρια, καὶ ῥυγχη τινὰ, ὠτάρι ̓ ὕει, ηπάτιον ἐγκεκαλυμμένον. The verfe which immediately follows is alfo infefted by a false quantity: αἰσχύνεται γαρ, πελιδνὸν ὄν, τῷ χρώματι. We believe that the fyllable is of neceffity made long before AN; for which reafon we hould prefer ἰσχύνετο, which fuits the fenfe equally well. We obferve a fmall error in the beginning of this fragment, which Profeffor S. has paffed over unnoticed. The common reading is πρῶτον μὲν ἔστρεα παρὰ Νηρεῖ τινι ἰδὼν Correct : γέροντι φυκίοισιν ἠμφιεσμένῳ, &c. πρῶτον μὲν οὖν ἔστρεια παρὰ Νηρεῖ τινι ἰδων γέροντι φύκι” [ως φύκος ] ημφιεσμένῳ, &c. P. 107. Ε. Alexis : αἰσχυνόμενον ἧπαρ καὶ καπρίσκους καταφαγον. Correct: αἰσχυνόμενον ἧπαρ καπρίσκου σκατοφάγου. P. 117. F. Alexis : ἄρ ̓ ἦν μετὰ ταῦθ ̓ ἡ βάφανος, ἣν ἐβοᾶτ ̓ εἶναι... χρηστὴ γὰρ ἦν· ἔδωκα ταύτης δι ̓ ὀβόλους. Thus, Profeffor S. chufes to read, with a fpondee in the laft foot of the firft verfe; a practice which, from its frequency in the prefent edition, we conceive to be much more allowable at Strafburg, than on the Attic Aage. Such of our readers as are fcrupulous in admitting this license, may correct: Α. ἄρ ̓ ἦν μετὰ ταῦθ ̓ ἡ ῥάφανος, ἣν ἐβοᾶτε. Β. ναί ท χρηστὴ γὰρ ἦν. Α. ἔδωκα, &c. Ἡ ῥάφανος ἣν ἐβοᾶτε is the cabbage which you praifed. In the fame frag ment the Profeffor begins an Iambic verfe with ὡς πυρετὸς ἀνῆκεν. We could produce many inftances to prove that Profeffor S. does not co incide in opinion with thofe critics who conceive a Dactyl or a Tritrach to be inadmiffible before an Anaрæft. P. 119. F. Menander: ἐπίπασ ̓ ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχος (άλας), ἂν οὕτω τύχη. The The Profeffor informs us that he has included the word as within brackets, because he conceives that it has intruded itself into its present feat from the conclufion of the preceding verle. We should prefer - - ἐπέπασα ἐπὶ τὸ τάριχος ἅλας, ἐὰν οὕτω τύχη. P. 124. C. Strattis : οἶνον γὰρ πιεῖν οὐδ' ἂν εἰς δέξαιτο θερμόν, ἀλλὰ πολὺ τοὐναντίον, The Profeffor has converted thefe Trochaic verfes into Iambic, with no other alteration than the permutation of the fecond and third words. The common reading of the third verfe is suspivov. He fcans the whole verfe in the following manner : -0010-10-1000100-10 P. 131. A. Amphis: κἂν ταῦτα ποιῆς, ὥσπερ φράζω, λαμπροῖς δείπνοις δέξεθ' [read δεξόμεθ'] ὑμᾶς, οὐδὲν ὁμοιως τοῖς Ἰφικράτους τοῖς ἐν Θράκῃ. καὶ τοὶ φασὶν βύβακας αὐτὰ γενέσθαι. Inftead of this word Bußaxas, which Profeffor S. has inferted from the Venetian manufcript, fome copies have sußanárovs, and the editions read λs. We do not pretend to interpret it. In the following lines, Profeffor S. introduces aλove, without citing any authority for the ufe of it. The Venetian manufcript reads Qdo, initead of ', in these verses : δειπνεῖν δ ̓ ἄνδρας βούτυρον φάσ ̓, The true reading is probably Boutugoyous. In the fame fragment we read: πίνναι, λεπάδες, μύες, όστρεα, Profeffor S. endeavours to restore the metre by reading μõís r', ösęsa ; in which three words there are five faults. In the first place, the first fyllable of us is fhort: fecondly, an Attic comic poet would write Mus, in the contracted form: thirdly, the conjunctive particle is improper in this place fourthly, the laft fyllable of resa is long by pofition, as coming before xrives: fifthly, the Attic writers generally, if not always, write örgaa. All thefe errors may be avoided by reading μus, osgera. P. 161. A. Antiphanes : τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δ' ἐνέτυχον άθλιοι τινές, &c. This elegant Iambic is the production of Profeffor S. The common reading is de Tuxor. We prefume that the whole verfe fhould appear as follows: τῶν Πυθαγορικῶν δ' ἔτυχον άθλιοι τινές, &c. P. 163. P. 165. B. Phrynichus : ἔσιν δ ̓ αὐτούς γε φυλάττεθαι τῶν νῦν χαλεπώτατον ἔργον. ἐπὶ τοῖσι βάθροις ὅτ ̓ ἂν ὦσιν· ἐκεῖ τούτοις οἷς ἡδυλογοῦσι, αν μεγάλας αμυχὰς καταμύξαντες, καὶ συγκρύψαντες ἅπαντες, We give thefe tetrameter Anapaftics as they are written in the Venetian manufcript, without pretending to corred them. Profeffior S. has arranged them in another manner, with fome interpolations. In his difpofition, not one of them, except the firft, can be fcanned. P. 166. C. Axionicus: ὁ Πυθόδηλος οὗτος [read ουτοσί ] ἐσοβαλλίον προσέρχετ ̓ ἐπικαλούμενος, ἀσωτότατος. μεθύουσα τ ̓ ἐξ ὄπισθεν ἡ σοφωτάτη ἀποτυμπανισχὰς κωτὰ πόδας πορεύεται In thefe corrupt lines, we conceive ασωτότατος to be a glofs on ίσοβαλ λιον. Profeffor S. reads ἀσωτέστατος, which is certainly wrong. For ἀποτυμπανισχὰς he fubftitutes ἀπὸ τυμπάνου Ἰσχὰς, conceiving the hiatus to be as legitimate in Iambic as in Hexameter verses. P. 224. D. Amphis: λαβεῖν τ ̓ ἀπόκρισιν ἂν ἐπερωτᾷ τις, πρὸς τοὺς, &c. As the first of thefe verfes wants a fyllable, Profeffor S. inferts after We believe that a much neater correction has been offered: ἄν. λαβεῖν τ ̓ ἀπόκρισιν ὧν ἂν ἐπέρωτα, &c. P. 226. A. Alexis: οὐ γέγονε κρείττων νομοθέτης τοῦ πλουσίου We prefume that it is fufficiently evident that we may read νῦν τιθησε γὰς νόμον. Profeffor S. reads τίθεται, which has a different meaning. θέσθαι νόμον means to make a law by one's own authority : θεῖναι νόμον 18 to propofe the making of a law in the legislative affembly. It is in this latter fenfe only, that Ariftonicus, who was probably fome demagogue of that age, could be called a lawgiver. Perhaps, however, the whole paffage is to be differently arranged: οὐ γέγονε κρείττων νομοθέτης τοῦ πλουσίου νυνὶ νόμον· τῶν ἰχθυοπωλῶν ὅσις ἂν They in the third line is wanting in the manufcripts, and perhaps the other words which we have omitted were added to fupply the deficiency which we have indicated by afterisks. Ρ. 243. |