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

Porson.

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-
casion 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 suhjoined
to the text. He has not busied himself in this commentary with col-
lecting 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 Prome-
theus, 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 geographi-
cal dissertation. 5. On the design of the Drama, and its manage-
ment. 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 dis-
'sertations 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 ac-
quaintance with other authors, and what is of more consequence,
with his own.

That miserable critic Pauw, in whom singular igno-
rance and as singular arrogance were combined, Pauw, I say, having
observed that all other authors that speak of Prometheus's punish-
ment, mention Caucasus as the place of confinement, could not per-
suade 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 ac-
tually observed, p. 10. that, though it be not necessary for the an.
cients to be always consistent in their Mythology, yet Æschylus is
not in this matter at variance with other writers, or at variance only
in part. For, according to Æschylus, 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 Æschylus has not mentioned the
place of this second confinement, yet it is manifest from a passage in
Atrius (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. 428-430, "Atheenga Os [aboer inuigizan odéros Kgataidy, oúgávión
σε πόλον Νώτοις έρείδων] υποστενάζει. where the editions have, «ιεν υπιέρσκιν,
and omit iguldar.
There is a very corrupt and difficult passage in the Sept. 2. Theb.

Και τον σον αύθις πρόσμoρoν αδελφεόν,
'Εξυπτιάζων όνομα, Πολυνείκους βίαν,
Δίς τ' εν τελευτή τούνομ' ένδατούμενος,

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,
'Εξυπτιάζων όμμα-

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.

NO. XV.

B

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.

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:

κηνον, ω χρυσόθρονε Μοϊσ', ένασπις
ύμνον, εκ τας καλλιγύναικος έσλάς
Τήλος χώρας δν άειδε τερπνώς

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

που

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, το επί “Αρμοδίω ποιηθέν σκολιόν υπό Καλλιστράτου, ούτως έλεγαν. Hesychius in “Αρμοδίου μέλος.