V. 861. Εἰμί γ'. οὔτε πόντος οὕτω κύμασι στένων λάβρως (alii λάβρος). Read, Εἶμι, κοὔτε κ. τ. λ.

V. 878. ̓Αποβαλεῖς, ὀλεῖς μανιάσιν λύσσας | χορευθέντ ̓ ἐν αὐλοῖς. Sic emendavi vulgatum μανίαισι λύσσας χορευθέντ ̓ ἐναύλοις. ΗΕRMANN. Why does Mr. Hermann take no notice of the emendation of Tyrwhitt, ἀναύλοις, which Mr. Wakefield, as he informs us, seorsim assecutus erat? Compare the passages quoted by him. V. 884. Ταχὺ τὸν εὐτυχῆ μετέβαλεν δαίμων. Ταχὺ δὲ πρὸς πατρὸς, τέκν', ἐκπνεύσετε. Για Am. Portus et Barnesius Ita pro ἐκπνεύσ σατε. HERMANN. The Aldine and first Hervagian editions read ἐπνεύσατε. We believe the true reading to be, Ταχὺ δὲ πρὸς πατρὸς τέχν ̓ ἐκπνεύσεται. The future of πνέω is πνεύσομαι οι πνευσοῦμαι. The first form is used by Euripides Androm. 555. Πρῶτον μὲν οὖν κατ ̓ οὗρον, ὥσπες ἱστίοις, Εμπνεύσομαι τῇδ'. The second is exhi bited by Aristophanes Ran. 1221. Τὸ ληκύθιον γὰς τοῦτο πνευσεῖ ται πολύ. Θέω, to run, νέω, to swim, πλέω, to sail, ῥέω, to flow, form their futures in the same manner as πνέω. Πλέω, for instance, makes either πλεύσομαι οι πλευσοῦμαι, but never πλεύσω. The active form, indeed, occurs in the following passage of Sophocles, according to the edition of Brunck. Phil. 380. Καὶ ταῦτ' ἐπειδὴ καὶ λέγεις θρασυστομῶν, Οὐ μήποτ' εἰς τὴν Σκῦρον ἐκπλεύ σεις ἔχων. This reading, however, was originally proposed by Heath, and afterwards adopted by Brunck, in compliance with Dawes's canon, which teaches that the subjunctive of the first aorist active or middle is never subjoined to the particles οὐ μή. The common reading is ἐκπλεύσῃς.

V. 936. Πάτερ, τί θύω, πρὶν κτανεῖν Εὐρυσθέα, Καθάρσιον πῦρ, καὶ πόνους διπλοῦς ἔχω, Εξὸν μιᾶς μοι χειρὸς εὖ θέσθαι τάδε; Αld. τί θυμῷ. Mss. Steph. τί θυῶ, quod hic probat, et recepit Musgravius. Cum Barnesio scripsi θύω. ΗERMANN. The true reading appears to be, τί θύω i. e. τί θύων. Lineola imposita vocali, qua in fine vocis legitur, plerumque significat Ny. So saith the great master of Greek palmography, Frid. Jac. Bastius, in his Commentatio Palaographica subjoined to Schäfer's edition of Gregorius Corinthius, p. 747.

V. 951. Καί τις τόδ' εἶπεν, ἄλλος εἰς ἄλλον δρακών. So Hel. 1605. Καί τις τόδ' εἶπε, δόλιος ἡ ναυκληρία. Perhaps we ought to read in both passages, Καί τις τότ' εἶπε. Compare Alc. 529.

V. 959. Κἀνταῦθα γυμνὸν σῶμα θεὶς πορπαμάτων, Πρὸς οὐδέν ἡμιλλᾶτο, κἀκηρύσσετο Αὐτὸς πρὸς αὑτοῦ καλλίνικος. Αld. καξεκηρύσ Emendarunt Piersonus in Veris. p. 61. et Reiskius. HER

σετο.

5.p.

* See Dawes Misc. Crit. pp. 221, 222. ed. Burgess. The following passage militates against Dawes's canon. Aristoph. Vesp. 394. Κοὐ μήποτέ σου παρὰ τὰς χάννας οὐρήσω, μηδ' ἀποπάρδω. The future of οὐρῶ is οὐρήσομαι. See Aristoph. Pac. 1266. Οὐρήσω therefore must be the subjunctive. In Mr. Kidd's new edition of the Miscellanea Critica, we hope to see this canon thoroughly discussed.

MANN. We suspect that the true reading is κἀκκηρύσσεται. Compare Soph. (Ed. C. 16 5. Trach. 769. Eurip. Alc. 182. &c.

or

V.984. ̓Αλλῷ δ ̓ ἐπεῖχε τόξ', ὃς ἀμφὶ βωμίαν ̓́Επτηξε κρηπίδ', ὡς λεληθέναι δοκών. Read ἀμφιβωμίαν οἱ ἀμφιβώμιον in one word. So Ion. 1979. "Ιδεσθε τὴν πανοῦργον, ἐκ τέχνης τέχνην Οἵαν ἔπλεξε. βωμὸν ἔπτηξεν θεοῦ, Ως οὐ δίκην δώσουσα τῶν εἰργασμένων. Read also ἀμφιβωμίους for ἀμφὶ βωμίους Phoen. 1738. Ion. 59.

V. 988. Ω φίλτατ', αὐτῷ, μή μ' ἀποκτείνῃς, πάτερ. Σός είμι, σὸς παῖς. οὐ τὸν Εὐρυσθέως ὀλεῖς. We read, Σός εἰμι. σὸν παῖδ ̓, οὐ τὸν Εὐρυσθέως, ὀλεῖς. Compare Soph. Ant. 635. Πάτερ, σός εἰμι.

V. 1004. Κἄῤῥιψε πέτρον στέρνον εἰς Ηρακλέους, Ος νιν φόνου μαργῶντος ἔσχε, κεἰς ὕπνον Καθῆκε. We should prefer, "Ος νιν φόνου μαργῶντά τ' ἔσχε. So Phoen. 1163. 'Αλλ' ἔσχε μαργῶντ' αὐτὸν ἐναλίου θεοῦ Περικλύμενος παῖς, λᾶαν ἐμβαλὼν κάρᾳ κ. τ. λ. In the passage before us, the genitive póvou appears to be governed by μαργῶντα, not by ἔσχε. So Soph. Αj. 50. Καὶ πῶς ἐπέσχε χεῖρα μαιμῶσαν φόνου. Which verse is thus translated by Johnson and Brunck, dt qui (Qui vero Br.) inhibuit manum avidam cadis?

V. 1023. Σὺ δὲ τέκνα τρίγονα τεκόμενος, ὦ δάϊε, | λυσσάδι συγκατειργάσω μοίρα. Canteri emendatio est ὦ δάτε pro Aldino ὦ δαίς. HERMANN. The emendation is by no means a good one, as die is an expression not used by the tragedians. Several other conjectures may be seen in Barnes's note. We suspect that the true reading is ὦ τάλας. This reading, at least, offends against neither sense nor metre. The resemblance, indeed, between ΔΑΙΣ and ΤΑΛΑΣ is far from striking. But in this tragedy, we cannot afford to be very fastidious in this respect. In the edition of Aldus we find πέδον for πόρον, ν. 80. πότμον for πόθον, ν. 269. τελοῖς for τύχοις, ν. 301. θεῶν for χρεών, ν. 311. πύλας for πηγάς, ν. 390. πατρός for πικρόν, ν. 484. πέπλων for πρέπων, ν. 548. λύσωμεν for λάβωμεν, ν. 725. φονεύσας for πορεύσας, ν. 838. πέπλων for τέκνων, ν. 925. θυμῷ for θύων, ν. 936. ἀθλίου for ἀγρίου, ν. 1396. and other corruptions equally extraordinary.

V. 1032. *Ἴδεσθε τὰ τέκνα πρὸ πατρὸς ἄθλια κείμενα δυστάνου. Legebatur τάδε [ pro τα], quod, ut ferri possit correpta prima sequentis vocabuli syllaba, non puto tamen a poëta scriptum HERMANN. Read, "Ιδεσθε δὲ τέκνα πρὸ πατρός.

esse.

V. 1035. Περὶ δὲ δεσμὰ καὶ πολύβροχ ̓ ἁμμάτων | ἐρείσμαθ ̓ Ηράκλειον | ἀμφὶ δέμας· τὰ δὲ λαΐνοις ] ἀνημμένα ἀμφὶ κίοσιν οἴκων If we omit the second auc), the measure of the last verse will resemble that of vv. 1029. 1075. 1083. The preceding may be compared with vv. 1030. 1076. Mr. Wakefield observes, that the words τὰ μὲν are understood before Ηράκλειον, and refer to v. 636. See another example of the same ellipsis in v. 570.

verse

1 In a comic fragment preserved by Athenæus, to which we cannot immedi ately refer, the critics have detected ΑΛΙΣ in ΔΑΙΣ.

V. 1042. Καδμεῖοι γέροντες, οὐ (σῖγα, σῖγα) τὸν ὕπνῳ παρειμένον ἐάσετ ̓ ἐκλαθέσθαι κακῶν; So these verses ought to be exhibited. The common reading is ἐάσατε λαθέσθαι. Εάσετε is the correction of Barnes, ἐκλαθέσθαι, of Mr. Hermann. Compare Asch. Theb. 256. οὐ (σῖγα) μηδὲν τῶνδ ̓ ἐρεῖς κατὰ πτόλιν ;

V. 1045. Καὶ σὲ δακρύοις στένω, πρέσβυ, καὶ | τέκεα, καὶ τὸ καλλίνικον κάρα. Mr. Hermann reads, Καὶ σέ γε δακρύοις. We read, Κατά σε δακρύοις στένω, that is, καταστένω σε δακρύοις. The verb καταστένω occurs three times in this tragedy, vv. 1639. 1115. 1141.

V. 1087. Ω Ζεῦ, τί παῖδ' ἤχθηρας ὧδ ̓ ὑπερκότως Τὸν σὸν, κακῶν δὲ πέλαγος εἰς τόδ' ἤγαγες; Mr. Wakefield reads υπερκόπως, and quotes Heath ad Asch. Agam. 476. Mr. Hermann is silent.

V. 1094. ̓Ιδού. τί δεσμοῖς, ναῦς ὅπως, ὡςμισμένος Νεανίαν θώρα κα καὶ βραχίονα Πρόσειμι θραυστῷ λαΐνῳ τειχίσματι; Η μὲν νεκροῖσι γείτονας θάκους ἔχω. Friget, vehementer friget, nec loci granditatem spirat, humilis locutio, πρόσειμι τειχίσματι. Liquido mihi constat Euripidem non adeo negligenter venustam figuram administrasse, nec ad hunc quodammodo morem non scripsisse versus pulcherrimos: Ιδού. τί δεσμοῖς, ναῦς ὅπως, ώρμισμένος Νεανίαν θώρακα καὶ βραχίονα, Θραυστῷ προσῆμμαι λαΐνῳ τειχίσματι; Muro alligatus sum vinculis, ut in portu navis. WAKEFIELD. The fineness of the writing, rather than the neatness of the emendation, has induced us to give this note at length. We read, Πρὸς ἡμιθραύστω λαΐνῳ τειχίσματι, Ἡμαι, νεκροῖσι γείτονας θάκους ἔχων: What is here called ἡμίθραυστον τείχισμα, is called διχοῤῥαγής κίων above, v. 1008. In the second of these verses, we have adopted the emendation of Musgrave. Mr. Hermann, who ought to have better understood the meaning of the particles, reads with Mr. Wakefield, Η μὴν νεκροῖσι γείτονας θάκους ἔχω. Those who approve of our emendation of the preceding verse, will add μíθραυστος to their lexicons.

V. 1109. 'Αλλ ̓ οὔτε Σισύφειον εἰσορῶ πέτρον, Πλούτωνα τ', οὐδὲ σκήπτρα Δήμητρος κόρης. According to the common reading, the meaning of this passage is, that Hercules does not see Sisyphus and his stone, but sees Pluto. So Æschylus Prom. 244. ἐγὼ γὰρ οὔτ ̓ ἂν εἰσιδεῖν τάδε Εχρηζον, εἰσιδοῦσά τ' ἠλγύνθην κέαρ. Ibid. 260. Ημαρτες. ὡς δ ̓ ἥμαρτες, οὔτ ̓ ἐμοὶ λέγειν Καθ ̓ ἡδονὴν, σοί τ' ἄλγος. Euripides Heracl. 455. Καὶ μήτε κινδύνευε, σωθήτω τέ μοι Τέκν”. In these passages, the negative ούτε or μήτε does not extend its infuence to the following member of the sentence. The passage before us may be easily corrected as follows: ̓Αλλ ̓ οὔτι Σισύφειον εἰσορῶ πέτρον, Πλούτωνα τ'. We may also read οὔτε σκῆπτρα, retaining ούτε Σισύφειον. We prefer the former emendation. The most common position of οὔτι is after ἀλλά. Edinb. Rev. Vol. xix. p. 489. Perhaps we ought also to read ἠδὲ σκῆπτρα with Mr. Wakefield.

μενος

V. 1146. Οἴμοι, τί δή γε φείδομαι ψυχῆς ἐμῆς, Τῶν φιλτάτων μοι γενότέκνων φονεὺς, Κοὐκ εἶμι πέτρας λισσάδος πρὸς ἅλματα, κ. τ. λ. Non repugnem si quis malit τί δήτα. Recte tamen se habere vulgatam puto. HERΜΑΝΝ. Τί δῆτα is certainly the true reading, and has been admitted into the text by Mr. Schäfer. So Eschylus Prom. 746. Τί δήτ' ἐμοὶ ζῆν κέρδος, ἀλλ ̓ οὐκ ἐν τάχει Εῤῥιψ ̓ ἐμαυτὴν τῆσδ ̓ ἀπὸ στύφλου πέτρας ; Soph. (Ed. Τ. 1159. Τί δήτ ̓ ἐγὼ οὐχὶ τοῦδε τοῦ φόβου σ', ἄναξ, ̓Επείπερ εὔνους ἦλθον, ἐξελυσάμην; Eurip. Hippol. 1060. Ω θεοὶ, τί δῆτα τοὐμὸν οὐ λύω στόμα, Ὅστις γ ̓ ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν, οὓς σέβω, διόλλυμαι ; Aristoph. Lys. 181. Τί δῆτα ταῦτ ̓ οὐχ ὡς τάχιστα, Λαμπιτοί, Ξυνωμόσαμεν ὅπως ἂν ἀῤῥήκτως ἔχῃ; Ibid. 1159. Τί δῆθ ̓ ὑπηργμένων τε πολλῶν κἀγαθῶν, Μάχεσθε, κοὐ παύεσθε τῆς μοχθη ρίας. Three of these five examples are produced by Mr. Elmsley, (ad Heracl. 805.) who proposes τί δήτα in the passage before us. Mr. Elinsley also observes, that a note of interrogation ought to be placed after φονεύς, and that the following words ought to begin a new sentence and a new interrogation: Οὐκ εἶμι πέτρας λισσάδος πρὸς αλματα, Ἢ φάσγανον πρὸς ἦπαρ ἐξακοντίσας, Τέκνοις δικαστὴς αἵματος γενήσομαι, Η σάρκα τὴν ἐμὴν κατεμπρήσας πυρὶ, Δύσκλειαν, ἢ μένει μ', ἀπώσομαι βίᾳ; Shall I not go and throw myself from a rock, &c. So Androm. 1210. Οὐ σπαράξομαι κόμαν ; [ οὐκ ἐπιθήσομαι | ἐμῷ κάρᾳ κτύπημα χερὸς ὀλοόν ; Shall I not tear my hair, &c. Hel. 550. Οὐχ ὡς δρομαία πώλος, ἢ Βάκχη θεοῦ, Τάφῳ ξυνάψω καλον Med. 878. Οὐκ ἀπαλλαχθήσομαι Θυμοῦ; Compare Esch. Suppl. 845. Οὐκ οὖν, οὐκ οὖν (supplendum ἔσονται) | τιλμοί, τιλμοὶ, καὶ στιγμοί, | πολυαίμων φόνιος | ἀποκοπὰ κρατός; Shall there not be pulling of the hair, &c. This passage has not been rightly understood by the commentators.

V. 1155. Οφθησόμεσθα, καὶ τεκνοκτόνον μύσος Εἰς ὄμμαθ' ἥξει φιλ τάτων ξένων ἐμῶν. The expression may be rendered more forcible, by reading with Reiske, φιλτάτῳ ξένων ἐμῶν. So Soph. Εl. 15. Νῦν οὖν, Ὀρέστα, καὶ σὺ φίλτατε ξένων Πυλάδη, τί χρὴ δρᾶν ἐν τάχει βουλευτέον. Mr. Hermann has not noticed this emendation.

Vv. 1178—1213. This dialogue between Amphitryon and Theseus, which contains only thirty-six verses, is divided by Mr. Hermann into ten strophes, ten antistrophes, and two μεσῳδοί. Α different arrangement is exhibited by Mr. Seidler, (pp. 358–361.) which, if possible, is still more absurd and preposterous than Mr. Hermam's arrangement. Some of Mr. Seidler's readings, however, are worthy of attention: particularly ἑκατογκεφάλοιο for ἑκα τογκεφάλου, ν. 1188. and ὁμοφύλιον for ὁμόφυλον, ν. 1200.

V. 1182. Ετεκε μὲν οὑμὸς ἶνις τάλας, | τεκόμενος δ' ἔκτανε φοίνιον αἷμα τλάς. For ἔτεκε μὲν Mr. Hermann reads ἔτεκεν, ἕτεκεν. - We propose, "Ετεκε μέν νιν οὑμὸς ἶνις τάλας, | τεκόμενος δ ̓ ἔκτανε, φόνιον αίμα τλάς.

V. 1210. Ιπ παῖ, [ κάτασχε λέοντος ἀγρίου θυμόν γ ̓, ὅπως | βρόμον ἐπὶ φόνιον, ἀνόσιον ἐξάγῃ, | κακὰ θέλων κακοῖς συνάψαι, τέκνον. Το these verses are written and divided in the common editions. Mr. Herman writes, Κάτασχε λέοντος ὅπως ἀγρίου θυμὸν, with the fol lowing note: Non ausus sum mutare κατασχε, quod Porsonus, probatum ad Hecubam v. 836. tamen ad Orest. 1330. dubitat, an sit in κατίσχε mutandum. Ordinem verborum mutavi. Vulgo enim λέοντος ἀγρίου θυμόν γ', ὅπως, ita ut ὅπως sequentibus jungatur. Illud y', nisi metricis debetur, ex eo videtur ortum esse, quod librarius, quum scripsisset ἀγρίου θυμὸν ὅπως, appositis numeris By a errorem corrigere voluit. There can be no doubt, we think, that y' was inserted for the purpose of making a trimeter iambic. Compare v. 753. It seems equally certain, that the imperative of κατέσχον is always κατάσχες. Mr. Elmsley (ad Ed. Τ. 663.) reads and divides as follows: Ιω παῖ, κατάσχεθε λέοντος ἄγριον θυμὸν, ὡς | δρόμον ἐπὶ φόνιον, ἀνόσιον, ἐξάγει, | κακὰ θέλων κακοῖς ξυνάψαι, τέκνον. Δρόμον is the emendation of Reiske.

V. 1237. Οἰκτρὸς γάρ εἰμι, τἄμ' ἀποκτείνας τέκνα. Γάρ εἰμι pro πάρειμι Piersonus in Veris. p. 245. et Reiskius. HERMANN. We subjoin two examples of the contrary fault. Soph. Αj. 634. Κρείσσων γὰρ Αΐδα κεύθων, ἢ νοσῶν μάταν. Phil. 1337. ̓Ανήρ γὰρ ἡμῖν ἐστιν ἐκ Τροίας ἁλοὺς, Ελενος ἀριστόμαντις. Read παρ' Αΐδᾳ and παρ' ἡμῖν.

V. 1254. Οὐκ ἄν σ ̓ ἀνάσχοιθ ̓ Ἑλλὰς ἀμαθίᾳ θανεῖν. Sic edd. Barnes. Musgr. Veteres σ' omittunt. HERMANN. Compare Hel 1051. Οὐκ ἄν σ ̓ ἀνάσχοιτ', οὐδὲ σιγήσειεν ἂν Μέλλοντ ̓ ἀδελφὴ ξύγγου νον κατακτανεῖν. Here also the editions before that of Barnes omit the pronoun.

V. 1271. Ποίους πότ ̓ ἢ λέοντας, ἢ τρισωμάτους Τυφῶνας, ἢ γίγαν τας, ἢ τετρασκελεῖς, Κενταυροπληθῆ πόλεμον οὐκ ἐξήνυσα; Non inve nuste Reiskius τετρασκελή. Εt hoc et vulgata defendi potest e v. 181. Τετρασκελές θ ̓ ὕβρισμα, Κενταύρων γένος. HERMANN. We prefer τετρασκελή. Instead of Τυφώνας, Mr. Elmsley (ad. Aristoph. Ach. 1082.) proposes to read Γηρυόνας. There is no great resemblance between the two names, but it is impossible to account for the mention of Typhon among the labors of Hercules, or for the application of the epithet τρισώματος to that hundred-headed monster. It is given to Geryon in v. 423. of this tragedy: Τὸν τρισώματον οἷσιν ἔκτα βοτῆρ ̓ Ερυθείας. So also Æschylus Agam. 879. Τρισώματος τὴν Γηρυὼν ὁ δεύτερος κ. τ. λ. The epithet τρισώ ματος is also applied to Cerberus, and to the Chimæra.

V. 1979. Τον λοίσθιον δὲ τόνδ' ἔτλην τάλας φόνον, Παιδοκτονήσας, δῶμα θριγκῶσαι κακοῖς. Mr. Hermann passes over in silence the emendation of Reiske and others, τὸν λοίσθιον—πόνον, ultimum laborem, which appears to us to admit of hardly any doubt. Compare v. 22. Καὶ τοὺς μὲν ἄλλους ἐξεμόχθησεν πόνους, Τὸ (f. τὸν)