Page images

'Apyoç, Both.; tou σú r', Id. v. 915. For these the judicious reader will thank Mr. Paley. There can be little doubt of their veracity.

We have remarked above, that in some cases Mr. Paley has not given due weight to the various readings of old MSS. and edd., or to the conjectural emendations of other critics, whilst, at the same time, he has been unusually free in admitting his own. We humbly conceive that there is better reason for receiving the following readings into the text than for any which he has himself proposed, e.g. πατραδελφείαν, ν. 38; ἐπικεκλομένα, ν. 40; ȧndovioiσi, v. 66. (Mr. Paley's support of 'Iaovío is ingenious, but not convincing ;) ἱκτηρίας, ν. 188 ; νεύονθ', ν. 349. This admirable conjecture Mr. Paley does not even mention, though his own interpretation of the words is harsh in the extreme:-Spakovłóμλov, v. 263. Surely this last ought to have been admitted. There is no parallelism at all between such an expression as δράκων ὅμιλος and γῆ μήτηρ, κύων βοτήρ, κ.τ.λ. 5ο λήματ', ν. 338; ἀστοῖς δὲ πᾶσι τῶνδε, κ.τ.λ., ν. 363; we do not think these words would be Greek, according to Mr. Paley's interpretation. εὑρεθέντα, ν. 483; ὡς ἀνηθῆσαί με, ν. 600; where there is a very long note to prove what no good scholar doubts, sc. that we av, under certain circumstances, may be joined with an optative. Other places again there are, where certain conjectural emendations, although it would not have been expedient to admit them into the text, were at least deserving of record: e.g. ἀνελληνόστολον, ν. 130; τρόπον for τόπον, in v. 228; κρεοβόρους, ν. 283; κοταίνοντα, ν. 636 ; and some others.

But the most striking instance occurs in v. 667, seqq., where, having retained the vulgar reading "ζοι κράτους ατερπής, Mr. Paley proceeds to say in his note-" Optime Dindorfius o кparòs ȧrepπns (the conjecture belongs to Voss, not to Dindorf) nisi quod sic pessundatur metrum antistrophicum." A serious qualification, certainly, to the value of an emendation. But surely Mr. Paley must have recollected, and therefore ought to have mentioned, that in the antistrophe Dindorf adopts Ahrens' conjecture, μovσav Oɛïev àoɩdoí, or, as he himself prefers, in the middle form, μοῦσαν θείατ ̓ ἀοιδοί. This being the state of the case, Mr. Paley should certainly have done this justice to Dindorf, and also have avoided expressing himself, in the latter part of this note, in a way seeming to imply that he himself had first detected the error in the antistrophe. In v. 674 ¿ïì

Bwuois is not only so well supported by MSS., but agrees so well with Ahrens' conjecture, that we have no hesitation in pronouncing it genuine. But not only does Mr. Paley simply record this reading, preferring the conjecture derived from Turnebus, but of Ahrens' suggestion no mention is made whatever. As regards the explanation of the text, so far as it does not depend upon assumed emendations, Mr. Paley has done better. Apart from the circumstance alluded to above, of his so frequent use of English, his translations of the harder passages are for the most part clear and satisfactory. We differ from him occasionally on points where critics are disagreed, but have not time or space to enter upon this part of the subject. We may mention, however, as just occurring to us, that we do not imagine that raɣuvai, in v. 612, could possibly bear the meaning which he assigns to it, sc. sinat ditescere; nor are the instances adduced as such parallel. Neither could fελкrýpιos, in v. 441, possibly govern áλyεvá, as Mr. Paley himself is evidently aware. In v. 967 ruwrépav, as joined with μou, is certainly harsh; but to join it with tuyxávovτoç is assuredly much harsher. In this passage Mr. Paley has not considered a suggestion of our own, τοιάνδε for τοιώνδε, worth notice. We really think however Evπpvμvñ opevòs xápiv as it now stands, very and indefinite; nor is this remedied by Mr. Paley's proposal to read iv πρúμv pɛvóc, a harsh metaphor, which would not be qualified by the context, as it is in the passage Choeph. 383. In v. 562, Mr. Paley translates dvoxepès intractable, calling our interpretation, sc. disgusting, "mirificam." Yet surely his own would require δυσχείρωτον, rather than δυσχερές. Whatever is annoying, unpleasant, disagreeable, is rightly called dvoxepns. As Mr. Paley has occasionally paid us the compliment of consulting the explanations given in our Lexicon to Eschylus, he might possibly have ascertained that the proper construction, in v. 15, seqq. ɛuxóμevov Boòs i iπapñs, which he asserts that no interpreter but Heath had taken rightly, is there given, s. v. euxoual. The same thing occurs again in v. 317, where he says that the true meaning of dvaorñσaι here, sc. to raise up suppliants, had never before been pointed out. This likewise will be found in our Lexicon, s. v. aviorával. We may observe, in passing, upon this verse, that although the construction πράσσοις ἂν ὡς ἀνστήσεις may certainly be a legitimate one, yet we think in this place the Medicean reading ȧvorhoaç


is correct. The meaning probably is, act as if you had already taken us under your protection. At all events, there was no occasion to go out of the way for an emendation, when the reading ȧvornons of Rob. Vict. has an equally good and far more usual construction.

We will briefly allude to one passage concerning which we looked for something at least in the way of illustration, but which Mr. Paley has passed over without the slightest remark. We mean vv. 180, 181, τάχ ̓ ἂν πρὸς ἡμᾶς τῆσδε γῆς ἀρχηγέται ὀπτῆρες εἶεν ἀγγέλων πεπυσμένοι. This has always struck us as being a strange and difficult construction, if indeed the passage is genuine. And yet, as far as we recollect, no commentators have noticed it as such; this however is not surprising, when we consider how many passages of real difficulty are slyly passed unnoticed, whilst abundant explanation is lavished on those which require little or none. What is the construction ráx' âν πρòs пμās оπтñρεç elεv? The sense is obvious, but the construction is assuredly harsh. We have ourselves noted a few passages which seem something to the purpose, but we cannot at this moment lay our hand upon them. We cannot help suspecting the passage to be corrupt.

But it is time that we close our observations. The grammatical and illustrative matter which Mr. Paley has embodied in his notes, we have not had time carefully to examine. They seem, however, to consist chiefly of allusions, for the benefit of younger students, to peculiarities of construction, and a fair selection of parallel passages for those who are desirous of this sort of information. We observe that Mr. Paley makes frequent mention of Mr. Donaldson and Mr. Peile. The author of the New Cratylus he speaks of as "optime de Eschylo meritus." The latter gentleman will scarcely feel complimented by the soubriquet ó OKOTEvòs attached by Mr. Paley to his name. Our business, however, has been with the critical portion of the work, and in this respect we certainly cannot accord to Mr. Paley the tribute of our praise, either as regards the emendations which he has introduced, or the method he has occasionally adopted with respect to the conjectures of others. We trust that if these remarks should meet his eye, he will not see in them any just ground of complaint; at any rate, we hope he cannot be offended at the manner in which our opinion has been expressed. Λοιδορεῖσθαι οὐ πρέπει ἄνδρας ποιητὰς ὥσπερ

ἀρτοπωλίδας. We cannot but conceive that an attempt to introduce so many arbitrary emendations into the text of an ancient author, so far from being advantageous, is but another step in the process of deterioration: and as regards the Supplices especially, any endeavour to present it, with our present resources, in a form free from corruption, must be an utter failure. The glory, such as it is, of producing a Supplices emended and revised throughout, has already been monopolized by another; but few, we apprehend, will be envious of the distinction, or be ambitious of acquiring similar honours for themselves. W. LINWOOD.



GEOGRAPHERS have found great difficulty in laying down the track of the Ten Thousand Greeks in their retreat, between their crossing the Euphrates not far from its sources, and their arrival at the mountain whence they saw the sea. The time spent and the distance marched, according to Xenophon, are more than can be easily reconciled with the geographical positions which are identified by other arguments. Major Rennell gives up the greater part of the problem as impossible. Mr. Kinneir, after identifying the Phasis of Xenophon with the Araxes, says: "The principal difficulty however is to reconcile the distance, according to Xenophon, between the Euphrates and Phasis, with that between the Morad and Araxes. The Greeks made fourteen marches, at the rate of about five parasangs a day, making in all seventy parasangs, or about 245 miles between the Euphrates and the Phasis, whereas it is not more than 70 miles between the Morad and the Araxes, in the longitude of 42, near which I suppose them to have passed the Araxes. This, I must acknowledge, is quite irreconcilable, unless we suppose that they were purposely misled by the guide, and that in consequence they wandered about for many days without making any progress towards their journey's end, a conjecture rendered more probable by the bailiff having made his escape. I also repeat my belief of the impossibility of an army of ten thousand men marching at the rate of five parasangs a day for so many days successively, through a country where the snow lay a fathom deep upon the ground." Mr. Kinneir accordingly lays down a zigzag track upon his map, which he carries across the Araxes in a longitude nearly 43. (Journey through Asia Minor, &c., p. 490.)

Mr. W. F. Ainsworth, in his Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand Greeks (p. 176), and in the Memoir on the Geography of the Anabasis of Xenophon, published in the Classical Museum (Vol. 1. p. 314), makes the Greeks, after crossing the

« PreviousContinue »