« PreviousContinue »
άσημος, λαλιά, θόρυβος. Ζonaras has Θροείσθαι, ταραχίζεσθαι, θροηθέντες, θορυβηθέντες, θρούς, θόρυβος, άσημος λαλιά, ταραχή, where Tittman says, « Supple θρόος, θρούς, θόρυβος, est Schol. ι Δ. ν. 437. vide Hesych. v. θρούς bis not. 18. ubi glossa nostra citatur, cf. Biel.” 'Í'ittman is silent about Suidas, who has the
words of Photius, θρούς, ήχος, φωνή, άσημος λαλιά, θόρυβος· ο δε όχλος εις θρούν καθίσταντο και εθρήνουν: "Ομηρος δέ φησιν, Ου γαρ πάντων ήεν ομός θρόος, και αύθις, θρούν τινα ήκουσαν των πολεμίων, οποίος αν γένοιτο άρτι κινουμένης στρατιάς, θρούς ούν κανταύθα δ' εξάπτεται: Again, θρόος, και θρούς, η φήμη, θρούς δε έφοίτησε Πέρσαις, ως διώλοντο τω πνιγηρώ αυχμώ. - The word also occurs in Lucian Tragopod. V. III. p. 647. Ed. Reitz,
αδε δύσγαμος κατ' οίκους
μερόπων θρoεί χελιδών. Mr. Blomfield says, as we have seen above, “Apoéw, loquor, vid. 617. Agam. 104. Sophocl. Philoct. 209.” But in the passage
the Philoctetes, the word signifies to sound,
ουδέ με λάθει βαρεία τηλόθεν αυδά τρυσάνω
διάσημα θρoεί γάρ Clare admodum sonat, says the version in Vauvilliers' Edition. H. Stephens says T. Ι. p. 157. 8. -« Θρέω, tumultuando clamo, seu loquor, ut exponit Eustath. afferens tamen non hujus vocis
, sed passive exempla hec, πάθεα θρεομένης, et θρεομένη σαυτη κακά, quæ ex Sophocle, aut Euripide, sumpta esse puto (from Euripides, as we have seen above ); Hesych. Opeeñv exponit òposīv, idemque θρεομένη explicat θρηνούσα, et θρεόμενον, ολοφυρόμενον : ab hoc autem verbo θρέω deducit Eustath. θρόος, ex quo per contract. factum etiam θρούς, ut ex illis (inquit) αθρόος atque άθρους.” Again in p. 1579. : « poéw tumultuando clamo, seu loquor, ut de ögéw dictum modo fuit, sed frequentius ponitur simpliciter pro loquor, vel dico, et quidem a tragicis presertim, Sophocl. Αj. τούθ' υμίν Αίας τουπος ύστατον θρoεί, idem, "Oρα μολούσα τόνδ' όποϊ’ έπη βροεί, Ιdem, “Ως πάσιν 'Αργείοισιν εισιδων θροής, Εurip. itidem, τίνα βροείς uúdáv;" It is plain from the foregoing examples that the verb is confined to the poets, though Thucydides, and Xenophon, quoted by H. Stephens, use θρούς, and so do other writers. V. 621. νύν δ' εις δόμους μεν πρώτον άξεσθαι κακόν
μέλλοντες, όλβον δωμάτων εκθύομεν. «Όλβον δωμάτων εκτίνομεν” says the Professor, «hactenus exhibent Edd. pessimo metri vitio : εκτίνειν enim secundam necessario corripit, ex nivojesv, quod corrigere voluit Piersonus, nullis commendatur exemplis, et a tragoediæ indole respuitur : Musgravii emendatio, exti6uev, loci sententiæ non convenit: lectio, quam nos e conjectura dedimus, debetur Scholiaste explicationi, πρώτον μεν
την θυσίαν υπέρ κακού δίδομεν : videtur igitur ille in suo Euripidis exemplari legisse éxdúopzv ; exstat hoc compositum in Orest. 188. Cyclop. 371." This is one of the most unfortunate Notes in the book, and in the language of the writer of the Notes on the Electra of Sophocles, inserted in the Museum Criticum, No. 1. p. 63. (Tonus Mèu év Bpotoios, xoủx avósvupeos,) “had better be erased.” i. The Professor's conjecture of exqúouey for éxtívouey “ a tragediæ indole respuitur, et nullis commendatur exemplis,” for he has quoted not a single passage from any tragedian to justify such a metaphorical use of the word : he seems to have been somewhat led into it by the metaphorical use of the verb to sacrifice in English. 2. The only passage, which he has produced from any writer in prose, is to be found in the Scholiast, and Mr. G. Burges has shown unanswerably in the Classical Journal, NO. XI. p. 81., that the Scholiast wrote oủolay, and not Quríay : « exgúojev, ita M. edidit conjecturam speciosam quidem, utpote ductam e verbis Scholiaste την θυσίαν υπέρ κακού Silousy, sed revera falsam, utpote de mendosa scriptura duolar pendentem ; etenim scripsit Schol. The cuoixv, ut ab ea voce exponeretur όλβον δωμάτων.” 9. The Professor is too severe upon the conjecture of Pierson, when he says, “ Nullis commendatur exemplis, et a tragoediæ indole respuitur;" for Valckenaer has shown the contrary to be the fact : “ "OxBoy dwuátor Éxtívouev, paulo post maritus v. 633. dicitur úctuvos, önBox wuáTWY ÚTE&shuv, qui versus illic forsan omitti potuerat : nostro vs. J. Piersonus corrigendum suspicabatur όλβον δωμάτων εκπίνομεν : frequens quidem verbum éxtíveiv etiam apud tragicos, nusquam significat expendere, semper solvere : hic vero sententia poscit effundimus, exhaurimus, vel quid simile: Tatpūæv xtñow Apyoobos Gówcor 'Arti:1 tà dényei, Soph. El. v. 1304. : usitata sunt optimis scriptoribus, τον πατρικόν πλούτον εξέχεεν, Λύσωνος οίκος εξήντλητο, zúow égykowo bus tñs ousias nodaju, ut exedere et ebibere, Græcis in talibus καταφαγείν, καταπίνειν, et εκπίνειν adhibentur, Terent. Heaut. 111. 1. 53. Quid te fitturum censes, quem assidue exedent, Varro ap. Nonium in v. Occupatus, Crede mihi, plures dominos servi comederunt, quam canes : ad Catulli xxix. 23. Devorare multa notat Vulpius : Horatius Serm. 11. Ecl. 11. 122.
Filius, aut etiam hæc libertus ut ebibat hares : Eschines c. Tim. p. 13, 38. την πατρώαν ουσίαν ου μόνον κατέφαγεν, enx', si dáv o cineiv, xai xatétiEV, quod hinc adnotavit Pollux ap. Athen. x. p. 446. E. vÚT őttis aútis čxaletui td xeńusta: ad hujus ista tamen loci sententiam non apte respondent.” I add the , metaphorical use of éxtiveiv in Aristophanes's Clouds, noticed by H. Stephens in the Thes. L. G., Tho buzin éxx ivouo.i4. The Professor might have spared his references to the Orest. 188. and
Cyclop. 371., for they merely relate to the proper use of éx@hely, which no one doubts, and not to the metaphorical use, which I dispute with the Professor, and on which the emendation turns. 5. Since then éxtívouer violates the metre, and since neither éxtiVely, nor éxtiew any where signify expendere, but always solvere, in the tragedians, and since éxbúoney in this sense is not supported by any authority, let us keep to the conjecture of Pierson, supported as it is by the customary metaphorical application of the word.
E. H. BARKER. Hatton, July 26, 1813.
“ PROFESSOR PORSON VINDICATED."
To THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL. “The passing affronts he has offered to such men as Clarke, Bellanger, and Pauw, may well be overlooked; because classical readers are not greatly interested in the credit of such men: and if nobler names had not felt the attack, few persons would have been inclined to take up arms against Porson in their vindication. It had been better, perhaps, if their names had not been mentioned ; but, being mentioned, no one would be so unreasonable as to expect that it could be with great veneration.”
Such is the way taken to vindicate Professor Porson by young men otherwise very able and accomplished scholars ! But if the admiration paid to him is to carry with it the degradation of the great and excellent, it will require to be watched and corrected. His own contenipt for men of worth and talent, if unluckily they fell short of the mark in some nice points of Greek criticism, needs apology enough. But what is to excuse his Vindicator; who with names which Porson held cheap, by a shameful misnomer involves others which even he could not despise.
Le Clerc, or in Latin, Joannes Clericus, adorned by his literature and liberality the learned and liberal age in which he lived. His misfortune it was, to provoke the acute and haughty Bentley, in his publication of the Fragments of Menander and Philemon. And yet even of his sins in that behalf, coupled as they are with
the errors of his great Emendator, candor must allow the following account by Richard Dawes to be sufficiently correct.
“Quando autem harum viri Cl. emendationum mentio incidit, libet
porro observare causam non satis idoneam fuisse cur de Cles rico, utcunque harum rerum imperito ignaroque omnium, tam mirifice triumpharet. Quod enim in me praestandum recipio, centum ut minimum Clerici errores intactos praeteriit, centumque insuper ipse erravit. Sed neque erga Clericum viri ingenui officio functus videtur, Eum utique ridet tanquam omnia ad eruditos digitos exigentem adversus metri rationem utcunque peccantia ; cum is tamen in Praefatione haec habeat : cave credas omnia á nobis pro bonis et integris versibus proponi. Clericum quidem incepti, cui maxime impar erat, poenas dedisse neutiquam mihi dolet. Qui enim Poetae cuiusvis vel integra scripta vel fragmenta in se edenda recipit, cum tamen in metrorum ratione et syllabica verborum quantitate plane sit hospes ; summae, ut nequid gravius dicam, temeritatis venit arguendus.”
Of this same culprit, so gibbeted as we have seen him, what testimony does the incomparable Jortin bear, and with an eye clearly set on the great Aristarchus ?
" Le Clerc has committed some faults in his edition of Menander and Philemon, because he had not sufficiently considered the laws of prosody: but they who made those laws their study and reproached him for his ignorance of them, were not able to keep themselves free from such faults, as might easily be shown. The small and trifling blemishes of this kind in Le Clerc are covered and amply compensated by other productions, for which he deserves, and will receive, praise and honor :
The estate which wits inherit after death." Thus much for the real Clericus whom Porson (ad Orest. v. 245.) couples with Reiske and Triller.
The Clarke of his Vindicator, never before seen in the company of Bellanger and Pauw, must by inadvertent readers be taken for the venerable Dr. Samuel Clarke: a man, who for learning, intellect, piety, has ever been deemed an honor to the church and nation of England, and who, to say no more of him here, as a Scholar, was the Editor of Cæsar and of Homer; as a Philosopher, was the friend and interpreter of Newton.
Every story has its moral: and if the Vindication of Professor Porson does not yield it without pressing, you shall hear again from
Your's, August, 1813.
Reply to the Article on the Asonus of Theophylact.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURNAL.
I , ,
HỌPE that your correspondent, who, in the last Number of the Classical Journal p. 319., solicits sume information about the Asonas, (or as I read Ausones) of Theophylact, will be satisfied with the interpretation, which I put upon ihe word, and the authority, which I produce to support it. If Mr. Selden had met with it, he would have banished his AŬowras, Ausonians, or Italians, from the Titles of Ho nor; Mr. Gibbon would have been disposed belligerare cum geniis suis (Plaut. Truc. 1, 2, 81;) and the ingenious, and erudite, and industrious Mr. Weston would have no longer kept the learned in his pay.
As soon as I had read the article of your correspondent, I began to poach in Suidas” for this “ unlicensed” word, and there I found this passage, Αυσονίων, Ιταλών, και Aύσονες, οι βασιλείς, παρά το αύσω, το τολμώ, οι πάντα επιτολμώντες των προστίγματι,
I then looked into the index to Stephens's Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ, and there I found that he quotes the passage of Suidas, and adds that the word is so interpreted in the Lexicon Vetus, “ Suidæ itidemque Lexico meo veteri,” but neither H. Stephens, nor L. Kuster, nor J. Toup seein to have known that the word occurs in Theophylact, and that Suidas's Gloss was in a}l probability intended for that very passage of Theophylact. Thus then • Tous Accor as por bohuevos is" who has (even) kings in his pay.” Whether we read 'Adwvas, Atoovas, or Avowras, it is 'evident that the word is of Oriental or rather Persian origin, but I must confess that Mr. Weston's conjecture, that comes from shinas, “ knowing,” “intelligent," is not quite satisfactory
E. H. BARKER.
Ilation, August 1, 1813.
P.S. I have never seen the Veteris Lingua Persica Aeijava of Burtun, edition of 1657, but Hadrian Reland's Dissertatio de Reliquiis veteris Lingua Persicæ inserted, as your correspondent says, in the Dissertationes Miscellanex, Traject. ad Rhen. 1708., is not unknown to me, and I had even intended to request the Editor of the Classical Journal to reprint it. It is to be found also in the Opuscula Hist. Philolog. Theolugica Belgii Literati, edited by Jo. Oetrichs, 12mo, Tom. I. p. 14–42. Bremæ, 1774. But the title of this oration, and she circumstance of the Persic words occurring in Latin and Greek writers not being explained, as your correspondent says that they are in the work, to which he refers, according to alphabetical order, make me juclined to think that I mean
a different work. The title runs thus: Hadr. Relandi Oratio pro Lingua Persica ct cognatis Linguis Orientalibus dicta in Acroateriö majore IX. Kal. Mart. 1701. quum Linguarum Orientalium Professionem ordinariam in Inclyta Academia, quæ Trajecti ad Rhenum est, susciperet. Traj, ad Rh. 1701. 4. Perhaps your correspondent would have the goodness to favor you with the loan of both the works, which he mentions.