« PreviousContinue »
gree of conformity therefore might justly be expected from a collation of the rolls of the Synagogues: and this in fact appears to be the case. “Quum vix ulle variationes hujus MSti (viz. No. 7.) ab editione Hooghtianâ reperta fuerunt, etsi pluribus in locis sit consultus, non illius facta fuit collatio. Quod ad ætatem attinet : quidquid alii senserint prædicaverintque, de magnâ hujusmodi rotulorum antiquitate; Cl. Brunsius, qui multos inspexit, in ea mecum est sententiâ horum longè maximam partem antiquitate non præcellere; atque MStum de quo hic sermo est, non esse supra annos 400 ?”. Kennic. Dis. Gen. p. 72.
The text from which Athias's edition was taken, and the Buchanan Roll, probably owe their very close-conformity to their having been adjusted by the same standard: whereas the collation of private copies collected in distant parts might still afford important readings. The critical works of Kennicott, of Lowth, of Newcome, of Blayney, prove that the present Hebrew text stands in need of numerous corrections. The collated MSS. and the ancient versions supply invaluable materials for these corrections : and many obscurities perhaps will still be removed, many passages restored to their primitive force and beauty, when the Oxford collation of the ĮXX. shall have been completed, and the numerous MSS. of the Vulgate and the Syriac versions which are pre served in our publie libraries shall have been carefully collated. Falmouth,
KIMCHI April, 1813.
NOTICE OF Christiani Godfr. Schütz ini. Æschyli Tragædias quæ supersunt
ac deperditarum Fragmenta Commentarius. Vol. I. in Prometheun vinctum et Septem adversus Thebas. Hale, impensis Joannis Jacobi Gebaveri, 1782. Pag. 412.
Extracted from Mary's Review for June, 1783, and written by Professor
In my last review, I gave an account of the first 'volume of Mr. Schütz's Æschylus, or rather of half the first volume, as the two parts of this work already published compose but one volume, and are intended by the editor to bind up together. The annotations.comprise something more than four hundred pages, and are taken up in
explaining the difficult passages, in vindicating or censuring, as oc-
That miserable critic Pauw, in whom singular igno-
nesses in so material a point, and proposed some absurd emendations
Και τον σον αύθις πρόσμoρoν αδελφεόν,
Kansi. Mr. Brunck (mindful of the poet's observation, Ulcera possessis altè suffusa medullis, Non leviore manu, ferro sanantur et igni) inserts his conjecture in the text, Και τον σον αύθις ομόσπορον κακoρρoθών. This emendation Mr. Schütz justly thinks too bold, and modestly proposes his own conjecture in the notes:
Και τον σον αύθις πρόσμoρoν ες αδελφεόν,
Δύστηνον αυτώ τούνομ', &c. Yet this does not seem entirely to remove either the difficulty or the corruption.
I shall now take the liberty of making a few addenda and corrie genda for the use of the learned editor, if he thinks them worthy of being noticed in an Appendix. H. Stephens (n. on Prometheus, v. 28.) had observed that some MSS. had imbew, but that 'Eustathius pre. VOL. VIII. CI. JI.
served the vulgar reading. The place in Eustathius, which gave Abresch (Observ, on Æsch. p. 4.) so much trouble, is in Iliad. H. p. 675. 1. 49.-Prometh. vs. 541. The editor has been led into a mistake by too close an adherence to Brunck's edition. A line is wanting to complete the antistrophe, as will manifestly appear to any one who shall only compute the number of verses. This defect should have been marked with asterisks. Mr. Brunck has since corrected his error in a note on Euripides, Bacch. 1164. Vs. 795. “Hy évoquépou où pevýporu díamous Petvæv. Grave on the tablet of thy memory.' Mr. Schütz gives us a list of similar passages from Bern. Martinus (Var. Lect. p. 205.) but I am surprised he should not see that the example from Aristophanes (verse 536) is nothing to the purpose. He has quoted, μνημοσύνα γράψουμ' εγώ, instead of μνημόσυνα γράψομαι εγώ. which simply signifies, I will write memorandums. He is also mistaken when he says that all the MSS. and edd. have in Sept. a. Theb. vs. 55. čel zrov, whereas Aldus and Robertellus have nowoy.
It is strange that in the same play, vs. 582, he has proposed as his own conjecture, 'H osãov čeyov, which is the reading of Robertellus's edition. The vulgar reading is, 'H Tožovigyor.
On the whole, I hope this edition will meet with encouragement, from the learned; as the author has manifested no inconsiderable degree of abilities and diligence in the execution.
Trin. Coll. May 29, 1783.
To The EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. In a late publication we are presented with a complete edition of the Fragments of Sappho. I beg leave to point out an error in a note on one of these fragments; which, if it can be excused, must be attributed to such an unhappy union of oversight and hurry, as has never (with justice at least) been imputed to Brunck, even by those who are the foremost to depreciate the merits of that very distinguished scholar.
The fragment alluded to, (No. ix. in the list,) and along with it the editor's note, is the following:
κηνον, ω χρυσόθρονε Μοϊσ', ένασπις
πρεσβυς αγανός. . "Hgc fragmentum, sub Sapphonis nomine circumferri solitum, habet Athenæus xiii. p. 599. D. qui statim subjicit, Őro di oir foto Σαπφούς τούτο το άσμα, παντί που δηλον. Νempe Anacreon ante Sapphonem vixit. Contra tamen disputat Volgerus, ineptissimis argumentis fretus.''
If Anacreon lived before Sappho, surely there is nothing very ex. traordinary in her being able to mention his name. Had she lived before him,-nodus fit, --she must doubtless have acted the prophet as well as the poet, and thus have been co-equal with Apollo himself, But, as I have no-where read that Sappho was a fortune-teller, that she had any thing in common with Cassandra, with the Sibyl of Cumæ, or with Joan of Arc, or that she could dive into the mysteries of futurity with an eye a whit keener than our own, we strongly suspect that the error is to be laid upon the editor's shoulders rather than
upon those of Athenæus. To be serious,-had the editor read the whole of the paragraph in Athenæus, from which the fragment was extracted, the error would not have been committed. At the head of it says Athenæus: Šv tom τοις ο Ερμησιάναξ σφάλλεται, συγχρονεϊν οιόμενος Σαπφώ και 'Ανακρέοντα, τον μέν κατά κύρος και Πολυκράτην γενόμενον, την δε κατ' 'Αλυάστης τον Κροίσου Tarige. In this respect is Hermesianar mistaken, when he asserts that Sappho and Anacreon were contemporaries, inasmuch as he florished in the time of Cyrus and Polycrates, while she lived as early as the reign of Alyattes, the father of Crasus. To this sentence is it that the words παντί
nor are to be referred. Sappho lived about 68 years before Anacreon. Hence then in the note we must read post instead
As to what Volger says on the subject, I am not able to acquaint your readers with that, not having the volume before me, nor recollecting ever to have seen it. Yet, from the complexion of the note, I am somewhat apprehensive that these argumenta ineptissima have less ineptitude about them than the editor seemed to think.
In a reprint of this article, the fragment in question ought to be struck out ; as it is as evident that Sappho had nothing to do with it; as that the song' on Harmodius and Aristogiton was not written by Alcæus.
1 Αρμοδίου μέλος, το επί “Αρμοδίω ποιηθέν σκολιόν υπό Καλλιστράτου, ούτως έλεγαν. Hesychius in “Αρμοδίου μέλος.