Page images
PDF
EPUB

-EI TOTE

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

nefti pronounces to be the true lection. The Author of the life of Homer, however, whom Gale, Clark and others, suppose to have been Dionysius Halicarnassenfis, cites the former of these passages, p. 340. Ed. Galei, Amft. 1688, and reads suons for eaus, which, as Clark has remarked, must be pronounced cons. This seems to be the genuine reading; and might readily be admitted into the text, if it is supported by manuscripts. Eustathius & also, as Ernesti observes, habuifjë saoys videtur.

EI, instead of EI KE, with a SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD.
Iliad A. 81. El mep youp te godon--KATANEYHI.
It should be

you .
KE. So in Iliad A. 261. EI

REp yaz

ταλλοι ---IIINSEIN, and in Iliad M. 245. EI TER youpo

carlos

-IIEPIKTEINSMEOA--the reading should be El mee yap K’antos. A Subjunctive properly follows E. mef yap ni, in Iliad A.580. M. 302. Odyfi. B. 246. 0. 355. Iliad A. 341.

Χρειω εμειο ΓΕΝΗΤΑΙ Here is a manifest blunder. AE is unneceffary, but the frequent occurrence of & aule, in the Iliad and Odyssey, might eafily occafion its admission. Homer also, (ni fallor.) would have written : el de Tot' aule, and not TOTE de cule. After the Canons, which have been laid down, the mode of correction is obvious : El TOTE K* UUTE. ,

As Eu xe and Es xr, however, are frequently in juxtaposition, the reading might have been: Ei xe hot' AUTE.

-KEY CUTE or x'auts may be found in Iliad z. 73. . 26. 1. 135. 277. P, 319, and s2.619.

Iliad E. 258.------EI γον έτερος γε ΦΥΓΗΣΙΝ.
Read EI K’ xv purinoir. In Villoison's Edition of the Venice Homer
and Scholiafts, the lection is at y xv &tepos ye. It might be El-
KE Quynow, which would obviate the double

ye. Iliad A. 116. El me TE TYXHILI

Read EI περ ΚΕ. .
Iliad O. 16.4 EI αυτε κακογραφικης αλεγεινης

ΓΙρωτη ΕΠΑΥΡΗΑΙ. .
Read K' AYTE, which indeed assists the metre.
Odyff. Ι. 138. ΕΙ και Λαερτη αυτην οδον αγγελος ΕΛΘΩ-

Put a fuller ftop at the end of the preceding verfe, and read H apa

for Eu xon, which is given as a various lection in Clark's note, in whose Edition, it is remarkable, that the true readings are nat uncommonly the rejected readings.

[ocr errors]

b Vol. III. p. 1675. 9. Edit. Rom.
c Na validity can be allowed to Odyff, I. 311. and 344.

Συν δ' όγε δ' αυτε δυο μαρψας ωπλισσατο δειπνον,
Which the Conmentators allow to be wrong. Ernefti's fapposition, that the rea
petition of de, biarus vitandi caufa fieri potuit, merits no attention,

[ocr errors]

Iliad Φ. 576. ΕΙ περ γαρ φθαμενος μιν η OYTAΣHI, ηε ΒΑΛΗΙΣΙΝ.
Read EI

yap

KEN
Iliad X. 86. ΕΙ περ γαρ σε ΚΑΤΑΚΤΑΝΗΙ. .

The Harl. MS. rightly gives, κατακτενει. Ου σε τ’ εγωγε Κλαυση-
panfollows; where Oute o fywye seems preferable.--There appear
to be many passages of Homer, in which TElocum non suum occu-
pat,” as the learned Annotator on Toup in Suid. Vol. iv. p. 489.
observes, on a fragment of Callimachus.
Iliad x. 191. El Tep TE AAOHIEI-

Here, and in Odyff. A. 188. El mep Te yepora' EIPHAI, for TE read KE.

In this list' must not be included Odysf. E. 221. El d autis PAIHIEI--for Pamor is not only Subjunctive, but also indicative, according to the Mos flectendi Indicativi poetis ufitatus ; qui dicitur a Grammaticis Rheginorum fuisse dialecti, to use the words of Valckenaer, whose note on pernos

for
pieves

well merits perusal, Adnof. in Adoniazuf. Theocrit. p. 254.-Nor muft Iliad r. 288.

EI δ' αν εμοι τιμην Πριαμος, Πριαμοιο τε παιδες,

TIVELY 2x EOEASEIN, for Homer uses Ei av or Es nep av, in the same way, as Es xe, with subjunctive Mood. So in Iliad £. 273.

EI δ' AN εμοις επεεσσι ΠΙΘΩΜΕΘΑ, where the Harleian MS. reads anospeda, though e av, with an Optative, does not occur in Homer.- Es rep av with a Subjunctive is to be found in Iliad r. 25. E. 224. 232.

Many examples of the Pras. Ind. Rheginorum may be found in Homer. -Thus, Odyff. A. 204. El nep deopar’EXHIZI-muft not be solicited. -In Iliad K. 225.-peros 8, ESTE SP Te vonos instead of vonon--seems preferable to ektep ne vonon, έχησε

for and νοήσι for voet, are produced as examples of the gap.cc Iuxevov, or 'Prywowy, in the Etym. M. V. Ilappasinon. Nonos is also mentioned by Eustathius, in Odys H. p. 1176.61. Ed. Rom. which passage is cited, from the Commentary on Iliad H. by Valckenaer, Adon. loc. cit. This is a typographical error, as the reference is rightly given, in his notes on Lelbonax, p. 179.-OtpUrNow occurs, in the Indicative, after et pun, Od. 2. 373.

To evince the propriety of correcting these few passages, it need only be observed, that E. xe is used by Homer, with a Subjunctive Mood, in above forty different places. E. xe however, is sometimes joined to a future Indicative, apparently for want of a future Subjunctive. Iliad B. 258. E. x' eTt xexnoopcb. K. 449. Es KE ATAU Coulev. – Odyss. r. 216. Ει κε αποτισεται.-Ε. 417. Ει και

d As these instances of E. with a subjunctive are so rare in Homer, Milton probably supposed, that the corrupt passages in the Tragedies, in which such a construction may be found, would defend his E. oeons.

e This usage of the Indicative is termed oxempee Koper Scor by Lesbonax, p. 178 and by the Etym. M. V. Eileb, p. 301. In the Sch. on Iliad B. 72. Should not the reading be Κορινθιουν συνολη for Ιωγων ? ?

as

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

όσια δ' εννομους.

τοτ' ησαν εννομοί.

αν σοι

έτι σαρανηξομαι-Π. 238. Ει κεν-δυνησομεθ'-254. ει κεν-ανθησομεν. x. 76. Ει κε απωσομεν.

Τον εννομον.] ο Εννομος, φui et intra legem, of courife does not occur in Homer.--The word Evopos, however, may be found in the Tragic Writers; but they do not apply it to perfons. Eschylus, Suppl. 389.

Δικας 8 τυγχανεσιν εννομ8,
whence Euripides, Phæn. 1645. Ed. Valck. appears to have de-
rived his Evous duxny.-- In the same play also, 408.

Ζευς Ανεμων εικότως
Αδικα

μεν κακούς,
And again 574, where the Scholiaft explains Εννομοι by Oικητορες,
-Βροτοι δ', စစ်

γας
In the Chapb. 481. likewise :

Ούτω
γαρ

δαιτες

εννομοι βροτων. In Sophocles, Oedip. Tyrann. 330.

Ουκ εννoμ' ειπες.The application of Europos to Perfons appears to be peculiar to the later Writers.-St. Paul to the Corinth. 1. ix. 21. fays, εννομος Χρισω:-Lucian, fupit. Trag. Vol. II. p. 671, εννομος ει δημηγορος, and Libanius, in a very laconic Epitle, ο κριτης εννομος. Epift. dc. p. 288. Ed. Wolf.

Evvopos, however, is applied to objects without life, by the ancient Greeks, and, indeed, by the Recentiores :--Eschines, xala Toμαρχ. vol. v. p. 31, Ed. Reik. Την ισης και την εννομον πολιτειαν.and κατα Κτησιφ. Vol. VΙ. p. 415. κηρυξαι το πατριον και εννομον κηρυγμα τ8το. Xenophon, K. II. p. 651. Ed. Hutchins. waraise και ειθισμενα, και εννομα λεγοντος εμε. –Diodorus Sic. Vol. 1, p. 117. δεναι την παρθενον εις γαμον εννομον.-Several other inftances

may

be found in Dio. Caffius ; to which may be added Lucian, de Saltat. Vol. II. p. 267. ubi variant interpretes.-Thucydides, iv. p. 272. VI. p. 403.-Pollux VΙΙΙ. 92.-But to accumulate authorities is unnecessary. Eropos is not an Epic word, in the fignification of a juft and irreproachable man.

Ουδε τιν' ανδρων δεινον όλως δρασαντα.] Ολως, which appears of little service in this paffage, is not in Homer, and very rarely, if ever, in the Tragedies, In RHESUS, 737. for κ' ε σε γιγνωσκω και όλως, Mufgrave has rightly from a manufcript edited τoρως,

which occurs in two other passages of this play, and once in a Chorus of the Ion, 695. and sometimes in Eschylus.

Δραν is not ufed in the Iliad. In the Ody1. ο. 323. παραδρωωσι, or ταρα δρωωσι, and 332. υπoδρωωσιν may be found. The formula, δραν τινα δεινον, may be termed Homeric, as Homer fays in I1. Γ. 354. Ξενοδοκον κακα δεξαι - but Δραν, with a double accufative,

f To these paffages must not be added a defective correction of Canter, Suppl. 945..

8 Pindar's Συντελεθειν εννομον mut not be φmitted; where εννομου» 1s ufed adverbialiser, in the sense of Legitime.

[ocr errors]

is perfectly in the style of the dramatic Writers. Euripides alone will afford a sufficiency of examples. Hecub. 253. Agąs de ouder muas ev. Orest. 581. τι μ' αν edgao' ó raldaw. Hippol. 178. Ti o ryw opacw. IpH. AUL. 371. δραν το κεδνον βαρβαρους. . Ion. 1267. Aparat Ti xaxov Tous whas. From these two last pal{ages, it appears, that Milton thould have written : Tov ardporn TI devov dpacarta, which is more manifest from Med. 560: Ou to opaco CH; devor- for after dpær, the Adjective in the fingular number is accompanied by th, but in the plural it is used alone, as in Orest. 570. deacas do syw deiva. Iph. Taur. 1177. derra

yap dpaxetov. Bacch. 667. 'Sis derva dowor. Electr. 992. Kardelva dpaow.

2. σοφωτατον--καρηνον-] It hould be σοφωτατε καρηνον. Thus Hormer has καρηνα Τρωων, in Iliad Λ. 158. for Tρωες. --καρηνα ανδρων, in the fame Book, v. 500. for ardpes, and -νεκυων αμενηνα καφηνα, for vexvas auernres, in Odyff. K.521, to which passage Aristophanes alludes, in a fragment of his saitalets, preserved by Galen, in the preface to his των Ιπποκρατης γλωσσων εξηγησις.---Neither καρηνον, xapn, nor xpatos are used simply in the sense of ApSpw asos by Homer.

londo prodiws ape2o.o.] With respect to the expressions, ‘Pridiws apoAsadar, or ‘Prüdows aQedelv, they are strictly Homeric. Iliad 11. 689. -PENeto vixno ‘Prüdows, which is repeated in II. P. 177. In Odyst

. 1. 313. is Ρηϊδιως αφελων θυρεον μεγαν. .

Todo 'aqedoso is, however, utterly indefensible, for it is neither Homeric nor Attic Greek: it is the language neither of verse, nor of profe. Milton should have written todo aqenqueros, which would have but an awkward appearance in an Hexameter verse, or rather, perhaps, apaspooouevos, in the future.

Should it be asserted, that no 9. is proposed to be parenthetical, which does not seem natural, nor to have been the Author's intention, ftill after says the reader would rather expect a Subjunctive mood.

This usage of the Participle in the Nominative Case after verba gowposixa has been ably illustrated by Valckenaer in his notes on Herodotus, III. p. 194, and on the HIPPOLYTUS of Euripides, 304. p. 196.

To the examples, which he produces in these notes, from the Tragedies, may be added Euripides in Hippol. 524. mart sev paEndelo'sato.--Helen. 460. Oxangos so-'.---So also is 15w used. Euripides in Alceft. 148. Ιστω νυν, ευκλεης γε κατθανεμενη, γυνη τ' αρισηin Melanipp. apud Stob. Lxxiv. p. 451.- Grot. LXXVI. p. 331. Ιστω δ' αφρων ων-which words are alfo found in a fragment of the Alcmena, ap. Stob. XLIII. p. 302. Grot. xlv. p. 175. In the fame way also 1st. Euripides, Androm. 727. Tana' artes est une divos REATIONES.-Sed de his fatis superque.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

b The reader may also consult Henry Stephens's Index to his Thesaurus, P. 1094.

In Homer lof. is twice used in the Odyssey, B. 356. A. 223. Iow occurs much more frequently, and Isa, in Iliad B. 485. ¥. 276. Odysf. H. 211. 0. 110; but in all these passages, the construction of the sentence is such, as not to require a Participle in the Nominative Case, after the Verb.

Milton appears to have had the common idiom of the Tragedies, with regard to these yuwpışırsa verba, floating on his mind, though he has failed in expressing his ideas. That he was not unacquainted with the proper usage of God with a Participle, may surely not unfairly be concluded from a passage in his Paradise Loft, 1x. 791.

Greedily she ingorg'd, without restraint,

And knew not eating death. Richardson, in his notes, has observed, that this is a Greek phrase, and used often by the Latins. · He then quotes Oppian, Halieut. II. 106. It is, however, very remarkable, that Milton should adopt this Grecism in his English poetry, and neglect it in a Greek composition.

AQE2010, if, in other respects, it were right, might be used fore a, nec in optandi sensu, according to the practice of Homer, if the present copies are correct.-It is scarcely necessary to observe, that, in the Tragedies, an Optative without av always expreffes a wish, but when av is added, potentialem habet fignificationem.

úsepov avd.] If Auto be an Adverb of time, as well as of place, after vsepov it seems unnecessary. In Homer, Iliad 7. 127. indeed, Juno says of Achilles, that in the present day's conflict, he hall be preserved from danger, but that

ύςερον αυτε τα σεισεται, ασσα οι αισα Γεινομενα επενησε λινωIn this passage, however, avte seems improperly added to úsepar; for in all the other places, in which úsepov and aute or XUTIS,-for usepor cevde is not to be found -occur united in Homer, the repetition of an action, which has already happened, or the sequel or continuation of one commenced, but not yet finished, is implied." Thus in Il. A. 26. Agamemnon says to Chryses :

Μη σε, γερον, κοίλησιν εγω παρα νηυσι κιχειώ,

Η νυν δηθυνοντ', η ΥΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΑΥΤΙΣ i The adoption of this construction by the Latins, in verse and profe, has been pointed out by Davies, in his notes on Cicero's Tusculan questions, iv.15. p. 294. Ed. 4t0.1738. and by others.

k It may, perhaps, he urged in defence of this passage, that, though Achilles bad not yet suffered, what he was to suffer, yet as his destiny was fixed, Homer might confider his deatb as the certain fequel of an action commenced, but not yet finished; at leaft sufficiently to vindicate the ufage of aute, in the sense of continuation, though not of repetition,

I Eustathius reads Autis,-Ernesti, Villoison and others, Autış, which also appears in the rare Edition of Luc. Ant. Junta, 12ino. 1537. celebrated by DorvilleCrir. Vann. 390. depreciated by Ernesti, Præf. Ilom. X. and defended by Villoifon, Prolegom. in Hom. ex Cod. Venet. XLIV. Not. d.Autis is surely right; and the Edi.

[ocr errors]

tors

« PreviousContinue »