« PreviousContinue »
from the papyrus and Stobæus together we obtain almost the whole speech, except some portion (probably a small one) that immediately preceded the epilogue. I incline to think that they comprise the whole within four or five columns. Hyperides tells us expressly that this is no time for making a long address, and he appears to have gone pretty fully through the matters of which he declares his intention to treat: viz. praise of Athens, of the soldiers, and of their general, Leosthenes. Even before the point where the papyrus breaks off, the orator, having apparently concluded his historical remarks, has been giving a free rein to declamation and imagery, thus naturally preparing the way for his splendid epilogue, and the termination of the whole. The TiTápios of Pseudo-Demosthenes, which I conceive to be a sophistical production, and to be modelled upon the work of Hyperides (see Appendix A.) would occupy about sixteen columns of the papyrus, or about three columns more than we now have of the TITάpios of Hyperides. The émiтápios of Pericles is of much the same length as the extant remains of our speech.
In an appendix two dissertations are added, one on the funeral orations of the Greeks, and another on the divine honours paid to Alexander. Although they may contain but little which is new or original, they may perhaps be useful as combining various facts and opinions which are scattered about in different authors.
With regard to the notation employed in this edition, when an asterisk is prefixed to a word it indicates that the MS. reading has been altered; when an obelus is prefixed, that the MS. reading is considered by me to be corrupt or suspicious. The letters inclosed in square brackets  are wholly missing in the MS.;
those included in parentheses () are only partially or doubtfully legible. The lines of the text correspond with the lines in the columns of the papyrus; a new paragraph being denoted by the symbol T.
In the present Volume the argument, the text, and the notes of the larger edition are retained entire, with such alterations as further consideration or the suggestions of others have rendered necessary.
Since the publication of the first edition, this oration, as was to be expected, has occupied the attention of many foreign scholars. In France M. Dehèque has reprinted my text at Paris (Didot) with a spirited translation and introduction of his own, and the addition of a few notes. At Valenciennes also M. Caffiaux has issued a translation, well calculated to give his countrymen an idea of the meaning and elegance of the original. In Germany Herr Kayser of Heidelberg has published a recension of the text in the Jahrbucher für Class. Philologie for 18581. Besides his own conjectures several are named as due to Classen, Vömel, and Spengel. Many of the emendations are excellent in other instances they seem to me less successful. Several good suggestions are also made by Dr J. Cæsar of Marburg in the Zeitschrift für die Alterthums Wissenschaft (Suppl. Heft, 1857). At Rome likewise this oration has received the careful attention of Sig. Comparetti, whose review of my edition is printed in the Rheinisches Museum for 1858. To all these scholars See also his review in Heidelb. Jahrb. 1858, n. 36.
I did not see this last till it was almost too late to make any use of it: but in several cases where I have deviated from the first edition, the same correction had occurred to him. Spengel's short review in the München Gel. Anz. I have not seen; I understand that he proposes Tapódous for ciaodous in Col. 6, 1. 23: and certainly this seems to be right.
my best thanks are due for the favorable manner in which they have noticed my labours.
The most valuable contribution however to the criticism of this oration is from the pen of Herr Cobet of Leyden. Dogmatic and impetuous as it is, like some other works by the same acute and learned author, it is impossible to deny that it is a production of rare merit. It was not to be expected that my edition, which adhered to the MS. whenever its readings seemed capable of a tolerable explanation, should find much favour with one whose hyper-Attic notions and love of conjectural changes are so notorious. He adopts however the great majority of my restorations, several of the readings with which he finds most fault having been already retracted by myself in the postscript, which was wanting in his copy'. In other cases he has restored the true text where I have missed it. At the same time Cobet is no more infallible than his neighbours, and in some points where he attacks the text of the first edition he is palpably mistaken, as will appear in part from the present work.
In noticing the various conjectures of scholars on different passages, I have confined myself in general to such as seemed to have some probability in their favour ; and have not thought it necessary uniformly to enumerate the errors into which I myself or others may have fallen. Thus there are many readings in my first edition, and also in the editions of Kayser and Cobet and in other places, which are here passed over in silence.
This postscript, containing various suggestions by Prof. Sauppe and other friends, may be had by those in whose copies it is wanting on application to the publishers. Since it was written I have examined the papyrus afresh with especial reference to the readings of the later editors.
DIONYSIUS OF HALICARNASSUS.
(Lived about 78-7 B. C.)
Ονομά γε μὴν ἀμφοῖν (i.e. to the public and particular speeches) ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, ἐπιτάφιος οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενος· παραδείγματα αὐτῶν ἐστί που καὶ παρὰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις, τοῦ μὲν κοινοῦ καὶ πολιτικοῦ παρά γε τῷ τοῦ Ὀλόρου καὶ παρὰ τῷ τοῦ Ἀρίστωνος· Λυσίας τε, καὶ Ὑπερίδης, καὶ ὁ Παιανιεὺς, καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἰσοκράτους ἑταῖρος Ναυκράτης, πολλὰς ἡμῖν τοιαύτας ἰδέας παρέσχοντο. οὐκ ἀπορήσομεν δ ̓ οὐδὲ τῶν πρὸς ἕκαστον· ἐπεί τοι καὶ ποιήματα μεστὰ τούτων, οἱ ἐπικήδειοι οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενοι, θρῆνοί τε ὡσαύτως οὕτως. Ars Rhetor. c. 6. De Oratione Funebri.
DIODORUS THE SICILIAN.
(Wrote his history about 8 B. C.)
Τῇ τρίτῃ δ' ἡμέρᾳ τελευτήσαντος αὐτοῦ (Λεωσθένους) καὶ ταφέντος ἡρωικῶς διὰ τὴν ἐν τῷ πολέμῳ δόξαν, ὁ μὲν δῆμος τῶν Ἀθηναίων τὸν ἐπιτάφιον ἔπαινον εἰπεῖν προσέταξεν Ὑπερείδη τῷ πρωτεύοντι τῶν ῥητόρων τῇ τοῦ λόγου δεινότητι καὶ τῇ κατὰ τῶν Μακεδόνων ἀλλοτριότητι. Lib. XVIII. c. 13.
(Age late, but uncertain; before Photius, who imitates him.) Ἐκοινώνησε δὲ καὶ Λεωσθένει τοῦ Λαμιακοῦ πολέμου, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς πεσοῦσιν εἶπε τὸν ἐπιτάφιον θαυμασίως. Vit. x. Oratt. (Hyperides) int. Opp. Plutarch. p. 849.
(Lived about 213-273 A.D.)
Οἰκτίσασθαί τε προσφυέστατος (Υπερίδης), ἔτι δὲ μυθολογῆσαι κεχυμένος καὶ ἐν ὑγρῷ πνεύματι διεξο δεῦσαι ἔτι εὐκαμπὴς ἄκρως· ὥσπερ ἀμελεὶ τὰ μὲν περὶ τὴν Λητώ ποιητικώτερα, τὸν δ ̓ ἐπιτάφιον ἐπιδεικτικώς, ὡς οὐκ οἶδ ̓ εἴ τις ἄλλος, διέθετο. De Sublim. c. 34.
(Age uncertain, perhaps the fourth century after Christ.)
Ὅτι τις (Dr A. Schäfer (in litt.) conjectures δις) ἐγίγνετο σύνοδος τῶν Ἀμφικτυόνων εἰς Πύλας Ὑπερίδης τε ἐν ἐπιταφίῳ καὶ Θεόπομπος ἐν τῇ λ'. εἰρήκασι. s. v. Πύλαι. (The passage referred to occurs in col. 8 of the papyrus.)
THEON OF ALEXANDRIA.
(Probably lived in the fourth or fifth century after Christ.)
Ἔχομεν δὲ καὶ Ἰσοκράτους μὲν τὰ ἐγκώμια, Πλάτωνος δὲ καὶ Θουκυδίδου καὶ Ὑπερίδου καὶ Λυσίου τοὺς ἐπιταφίους. Progymnasm. c. 2. (Rhet. Gr. Vol. II. p. 68, Ed. Speng.)
PHOTIUS, PATRIARCH OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
(His Bibliotheca written some time before 858 A.D., when he became Patriarch.)
Ἐκοινώνησε δὲ (Υπερείδης) καὶ τοῦ Λαμιακοῦ πολέμου τῷ Δημόσθενει, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῖς ἐν τῇ μάχῃ πεσοῦσιν ἐπιτάφιον εἶπεν, πολλῶν ἐπὶ τούτῳ θαῦμα καὶ ἔπαινον καρπωσάμενος. Bibl. Cod. 266. Ed. Bekk.
(For Δημοσθένει we should no doubt read Λεωσθένει.)