Page images
PDF
EPUB

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 eâ 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 LXX. shall have been completed, and the numerous MSS. of the Vulgate and the Syriac versions which are preserved in our public libraries shall have been carefully collated.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Christiani Godfr. Schütz in Eschyli Tragadias que supersunt ac deperditarum Fragmenta Commentarius. Vol. I. in Prometheum vinctum et Septem adversus Thebas, Hale, impensis Joannis Jacobi Gebaveri, 1782. Pag. 412.

Extracted from MATY's Review for June, 1783, and written by Professor PORSON.

In my last review, I gave an account of the first volume of Mr. Schütz's Eschylus, 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 occasion requires, the plot, conduct, and expressions of the author, and in proposing and defending his own emendations, where the discussion of the reasons was too long to be commodiously subjoined to the text. He has not busied himself in this commentary with collecting similar passages from other authors, that being a labor he reserves for his historical apparatus. To his notes on the Prometheus, Mr. Schütz has annexed five excursions. 1. The history of Prometheus, his genealogy: various accounts of the quarrel between him and Jupiter, &c. 2. On the account of Atlas, given by the chorus, vs. 425-435. 3. On the invention of Fire, attributed to Prometheus. 4. On the wanderings of Io, as related by Prometheus; a geographical dissertation. 5. On the design of the Drama, and its management. Mr. Schütz thinks the design was to inspire the audience with a zeal for liberty and a detestation of tyranny. In the Septem a. Theb. he has been less liberal and given us only two excursions. 1. The history of Edipus and his family. 2. On the design and management of the Drama. I am, I must confess, rather at a loss to know why these observations are separated from the main body of the commentary. They would have been as easily read, or turned over without reading, if they had been inserted in their proper order. Nor can it be said that they exceed the length of the other notes so much as to render this process necessary. Neither of the excursions of the second play is so long as the note on Prometheus, vs. 49. The third note on the Prometheus scarcely contains a page. Perhaps, as the learned editor professes in his preface (p. viii.) diligently to have imitated Mr. Heyne's method of publishing and commenting, he was led by this example in this instance. Mr. Heyne in his edition of Virgil (an edition which, says Mr. Brunck, deserved better paper) has subjoined both the various readings and explanations to the text; and consequently has, with reason, thrown the longer dissertations to the end of each book. But this reason cannot be alleged in Mr. Schütz's case, who has printed only the various readings in the same page with the text. With respect to the annotations, they are in general learned and judicious; and display a competent acquaintance with other authors, and what is of more consequence, with his own. That miserable critic Pauw, in whom singular ignorance and as singular arrogance were combined, Pauw, I say, having observed that all other authors that speak of Prometheus's punishment, mention Caucasus as the place of confinement, could not persuade himself that Æschylus would differ from such a cloud of wit

nesses in so material a point, and proposed some absurd emendations to reconcile his author with the multitude. But Mr. Schütz has actually observed, p. 10. that, though it be not necessary for the ancients to be always consistent in their Mythology, yet Eschylus is not in this matter at variance with other writers, or at variance only in part. For, according to Eschylus, Prometheus is twice bound; first to a rock in Scythia, next to Mount Caucasus. This appears from Mercury's speech to him (vs. 1025-1229) where he is told that Jupiter with thunder would rend the rock to which he was now affixed, and cast him down into Tartarus, from which, after many years, he should again emerge to light, and be continually preyed upon by Jupiter's eagle. Though Eschylus has not mentioned the place of this second confinement, yet it is manifest from a passage in Attius (who translated the Prometheus solutus) that Prometheus was represented as bound to Caucasus; and that Attius did not change the scene of action, Mr. Schütz has proved from a passage of Cicero. (Tusc. Quæst. ii. 10.) Mr. Schütz, in his second excursion, proposed to read, vs. 428-130, Ατλανθ' ὃς [αίαν ὑπειρέχων σθένος Κραταιὸν, οὐράνιον τε πόλον Νώτοις ἐρείδων] υποστενάζει. where the editions have, αἰὲν ὑπείροχον, and omit igiday.

There is a very corrupt and difficult passage in the Sept. a. Theb.

Καὶ τὸν σὸν αὖθις πρόσμορον ἀδελφεὸν,

Εξυπτιάζων ὄνομα, Πολυνείκους βίαν,
Δίς τ ̓ ἐν τελευτῇ τοὔνομ ̓ ἐνδατούμενος,

Καλεῖ.

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, Καὶ τὸν σὸν αὖθις ὁμόσπορον κακοῤῥοθών. This emendation Mr. Schütz justly thinks too bold, and modestly proposes his own conjecture in the notes:

Καὶ τὸν σὸν αὖθις πρόσμορον ἐς ἀδελφεόν,
Εξυπτιάζων ὄμμα

Δύστηνον αὐτῷ 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 corrigenda 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 invgw, but that Eustathius pre

VOL. VIII.

[blocks in formation]

served the vulgar reading. The place in Eustathius, which gave Abresch (Observ. on Esch. 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 kyyęápou où μvýμoor diλTOIS Qgev. 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 γράψοιμ' εγώ, instead of μνημόσυνα γράψομαι ἐγώ. 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. uwov, whereas Aldus and Robertellus have wov.

[ocr errors]

It is strange that in the same play, vs. 582, he has proposed as his own conjecture, 'H or gyor, which is the reading of Robertellus's edition. The vulgar reading is, Η τοῖον ἔργον.

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.

CLASSICAL CRITICISM.

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:

[blocks in formation]

"Hoc fragmentum, sub Sapphonis nomine circumferri solitum, habet Athenæus xiii. p. 599. D. qui statim subjicit, or dì ovx ots Σαπφοῦς τοῦτο τὸ ᾆσμα, παντί που δῆλον. Nempe Anacreon ante Sapphonem vixit. Contra tamen disputat Volgerus, ineptissimis argumentis fretus."

If Anacreon lived before Sappho, surely there is nothing very extraordinary 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 Cuma, 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: Tom τοις ὁ Ἑρμησιάναξ σφάλλεται, συγχρονεῖν οἰόμενος Σαπφὼ καὶ ̓Ανακρέοντα, τὸν μὲν κατὰ Κῦρον καὶ Πολυκράτην γενόμενον, τὴς δὲ κατ ̓ ̓Αλυάττην τὸν Κροίσου Tariga. In this respect is Hermesianax 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 Croesus. To this sentence is it that the words Tavi novov are to be referred. Sappho lived about 68 years before Anacreon. Hence then in the note we must read post instead of ante.

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, τὸ ἐπὶ ̔Αρμοδίῳ ποιηθὲν σκολιὸν ὑπὸ Καλλιστράτου, οὕτως ἔλεγον, Hesychius in Αρμοδίου μέλος.

« PreviousContinue »