Page images

It is not necessary, we trust, to pursue this examination through more of the plays: but, in order to complete the statement, a few slight remarks must be subjoined.

The final N is in some passages ADDED improperly. In the ANDROMACHE, V. 1135. the Florentine and Aldine editions.


̓Αλλ' ουδὲν ἤνυεν· ἀλλὰ πολλὰ ὁμου βέλη,

where Musgrave gives vev, ex MS. D. and Brunck vev, which preserves an NAPEST in tertiâ sede. This verse will doubtless be printed without deformity in Mr. Porson's edition.

In the TROADES, V. 354. Εσωφρονήκασιν ἀλλ ̓ ἔτ ̓ ἐν—where Musgrave gives Ξεσωφρονίκασιν ἀλλ ̓ preserving the termination, and destroying the verse.-V. 885. Aldus has: Ποιος, ὅσοι τεθνάσιν εν Ιλίῳ φίλοι. where Musgrave reads τεθνᾶσ ̓ ἐν Ι. ixx' igula

and publishes:

α---- where Aldus edited: V. 984. Ἥρα τοπολον ἔσχεν ἔρωτα καλλονῆς ;

In the Herc. Fur. also, V. 3. "Eller & Пegσéws with an Anapest in secundâ sede, V. 583.- ὡς πάροιθεν, λέξομαι, for gole, as it is found similarly situated in an Iambic of Hippolytus. 290. Tay пagoite mèr nóɣwv. and as it must stand in. diviromache 877. μηδὲ φανλάζω δόμων Πάροιθε τῶνδε

V. 1167. Mévčuo vo720-it seems as if it should rather be: Μένουσ ̓ ἔνοπλοι - as the second syllable of ἔνοπλος is used long in the only Iambic verse, except the one quoted, in which we recollect it in Euripides: Orest. 1634. Edit. Porsoni.

Ουκ ει', ἐνέπλῳ ποδὶ βοηδρομίτελε.


but this is not of great consequence.

If Aldus had imagined, as Mr. Wakefield does, that this final N should never be added when the following word begins with a consonant, he would surely have banished it on every possible occasion; and not have inserted it where it clogs the verse; as it does, in the preceding examples. Aldus was certainly inaccurate; and in his MSS. of Euripides, the Attic Metrical Canons seem sometimes to have been observed, and sometimes to have been neglected. With respect to this final N, his inconsistency, indeed, may be adduced as a proof that he did not intend its omission as an useless adjunct. To carelessness, and not to design, it must be attributed that, in these four plays, he uses equally before words beginning with the same consonants both heσev and *17 Ese, Esliv and Eol, 'Eonxev and "Esτηκε, ̔́Ελλησιν and ̔́Ελλησι, Δώμασιν and Δώμασι, ̓Ανδράσιν and Ανδράσι.

Aldus was little disposed, it should seem, to reject on principle this N, for he preserves it generally with great care at the end of the verse a custom which is more honoured in the


observance than in the breach, and which Valckenaer strenuously recommends. For example: r. When the following line begins with a vowel:


πλουσίοις ἐν δώμασιν, Οδ' —
6.— τα δ ̓ ἐν ποσὶν Ουκ
618, 9.-ἐν καλῦισι σάγμασιν ὁμοι
δρομήμασιν Οντω

HERC. FUR. 272. βουλεύμασιν. Ου γάρ. --333. -σώμασιν, 542. Διώλεσεν ̔́Οπλοις.


-705. – ἀγάλμασιν. ̓Αλλ 1102. -βραχίοσιν Ἔσωζε πλευρᾶς -1147. διώλεσεν ; *ΟΡ αμφι 12.2. —μείζοσιν; *Απῃ κι-1245. δαίμοσιν. ̓́Αυθαδες

ο θ.

HECUBA. 624, 5.
και μ' ἀπώλεσεν, Οθ ̓ ἢ
I ROADE:, 694, 5·

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

-455, 6.

II. When a consonant is the first letter of the following verse: TROADES, 46. - διώλεσεν Παλλάς---401. — ἐλάνθανεν Παρις - 608. - πεπονθοσιν, where Musg. πεπραγόσιν Θρήνων 926. - ἀπώλεσεν Τρόιαν τε.-Similar instances occur in the HERCULES FURENS. 44. 105. 153. 176. 178. 197. 613. 1137.

Yet so irregular is Aldus, that in the Andromache we find in V. 1156.7.---ωλεσε Πολλῶν---and in the Troades,--and in Herc. Fur.474.5. — τυραννίσι Πατήρ--572.3.-τοξέυμασι,Νεκρών--1335. - ἐξογκώματι Τίμιον. — Also in Troad. 998.9.-ἐσθήμασι Χρυσῷ τε.

We again assert that these omissions of the final N must be reckoned as instances of carelessness in Aldus. If he had in truth judged the letter to be of no material utility, and had supposed that a vowel naturally short became long before any single consonant, when it stood at the end of an iambic foot, would he have published πόλις instead of Πόλις *, in the following verses?



Hecub. 767. Ποῦ δ ̓ ὢν ἐτύγχαν ηνίκ' ὤλλυ ο πόλις.
1209. Τρια, περὶξ δὲ πύργος ειχ ̓ ἔι πόλιν.
Suppl. 723.
Βοὴ δὲ καὶ κωκυλὸς ἦν ἀνὰ πίλιν.
Bacch. 216. Κλύω δὲ νεοχμὰ τὴν δ ̓ ἀνᾶ πόλιν κακα.
Andr. 700. Σεμνοὶ δ ̓ ἐν ἀρχῆις ἦμενοι κατὰ πλλιν.
Ion. 1539. ̓Αξία γ ̓ ἡμῶν δουρὸς, καὶ φιλουσαγε πόλιν.

In no one of these lines could Пos stand, without destruction to the metre: but in such situations as did not demand the two mutes, Aldus gives Πόλις.==We have observed only one exception, which is——θεᾶς πόλιν, Ion. 30. and it must be remarked that, in places which admitted the addition of the N final, that letter is subjoined even in preference to the reading of πόλις. Thus in Herc. Fur. 241-ἐισκομισθῶσιν πολει, and 596-πᾶσ ̓ εἶδεν πόλις.

It must be allowed that several verses may be found in the Euripides of Aldus, which resemble the reading of line 101 in

Πτόλις is the poetic form: 'Εκ του πόλις καλὰ ποιητικὸς ἔθος γίνεται

πτόλις. Etym. Magn. 694. 38.


the Supplices which Mr. Wakefield prefers in his Silva Crit.. 82. Ημων δ ̓ ἀκούειν· προσδέκω γαρ ΤΙ νεον. where Aldus gives i Ἡμῶν δ' ακόνειν· προσδοκῶ τί γὰρ νέον.

For example: Herc. Furens, 944.

Τίς μοι δίδωσι τόξα; τίς ὅπλον χερός;

In Mr. Wakefield's edition of this play, we were surprised at his not having followed Aldus. He has, however, admitted Tis d'onov x. the correction of Barnes, into his text: but he mentions neither the lection nor the editor of the Ed. princeps. So also in this tragedy, of which the Aldine text is very corrupt, V. 192.

Θάνατον, ἀμῦναι γι ̓ ἂν ἔχων ἀλλὴν μόνον.

and 1257:

Οὐκ ἄν ἀνάσχοιθ ̓ Ἑλλὰς ἀμαθία θανεῖν.

There is also in this play another verse, which appears to defend Mr. Wakefield and his Canon; 945.

Πρὸς τὰς Μυκήνας ιμι' λάζυσθε χρεών,

or at least, it seems to have a final Exo lengthened before XP. This, however, is one of the instances which were pró bably in the recollection of Mr. Porson, when he said, in the note already cited: "Ubi verbum in brevem vocalem desinit, eamque due consonantes excipiunt, que brevem manere patiantur, vix credo exempla indubiæ fidei inveniri posse, in quibus syllaba ista producatur."

All these passages demand correction, and have been emend ed by editors or critics. In general, indeed, those verses, which contain an iambus ending in a short syllable, may be easily restored. The greater part merely require the addition of a final N, others demand alterations equally slight; and evident corruptions are often observable in lines of this description, independent of the metrical defect.

It must be mentioned that Mr. Wakefield, in his edition of the Hercules Furens, adopts, as he tells the reader, Pierson's correction of ’αμῦναι τὴν δ ̓ ἔχων fer ἁμ. γ ̓ ἂν ἔχων, in V. 192. In V. 1257. he publishes : 'Ουκ ἂν σ ̓ ἀνάσχοιθ Ἑλλας—in the place of: 'Oux av avaoxo' E-but he mentions neither the lection of Aldus, which favours his own Canon; nor this addition of ', which restores sense and metre to the passage. Musgrave, indeed, only says: "In Ed. Ald. deest "-" is omitted by Aldus, in the editions of Hervagius at Basil, 1537, 1544, and 1551; in Stiblinus's, 1562; in Canter's, 1571; in Commelin's, 1597; and in P. Stephens's, 1602 *. Joshua Barnes (on

* We have not Brubachius's edition before us. REV. JULY, 1799• Z


what authority we know not, as he is silent in his notes) reads a'r o' avasxod' 'E-which is repeated by Carmeli, Musgrave, and Wakefield.

In the remaining passage which we quoted from this play, 945. Mr. W. gives –λαζυσθαι χρεων, for λάζυσθε χρεων, but proposes in the note :--λάζυσθ' εν χερσιν Μοχλούς. -Το this correction our consent must be refused. It is surprising that his Canon did not suggest to him: Aavate Xεpor M-as the change is slighter, and his favourite rule might appear to receive additional confirmation.

[ocr errors]

It is hoped that no example either of the added or of the omitted final N has escaped our research: but some instances may have passed unnoticed; and if they occur to the learned reader, he will readily register them in their proper situation. Our examination of the first Euripides may probably seem long and tedious: but we thought it proper to correct beyond controversy the erroneous notion, that the omission of the N before words beginning with consonants was the usual practice of Aldus. Had it, however, appeared that Aldus left out this letter always, or at least much more frequently than he inserted it, surely an appeal to the authority of his text, in order to prove that a short vowel is rendered long by its position in the latter part of an iambic foot, would be extremely hazardous. Such a reference, indeed, would tend to render nugatory the best exertions of modern critics; and would overturn the greater portion of the Attic Canons, which the scholars of the last and present century have been endeavouring to establish.

The text of the Aldine Euripides was the ground which, in the year 1755, JODOCUS JOHANNES STRUCHTMEYERUS-Peace to his manes!-assumed, in order to defend the admission of Anapests into the second and fourth places of Iambics. He devoted the eighth chapter of the second book of his ANIMADVERSIONES CRITICE to this laudable purpose; and notably has he performed the supposed duty! The success of that critic will be equal who shall contend for the omission of augments; and who shall wish to demonstrate that the penultimate of comparative adjectives in INN * may be used short; or that any Ionic pe culiarity may be tolerated in the poets of the Attic Dialect! Mr. Wakefield + censures Musgrave, qui non semper, ut sapè,

*We had here intended to insert a note on these comparatives: but our remarks on this point have so greatly accumulated, that they are much too extensive to be so arranged. We shall therefore offer them to the public in a future Number, as a Supplement to this long Article.

Silva Critica I. 81.


hanc scripturam servaverit. It is generally understood that this editor did not perform the arduous and wearisome task of correcting his own text of Euripides. Some friends attempted to supply his place: but, when the numerous typographical errors of this edition are considered, who can be surprised that a N, or that any other letter, is left out, or is added? Those who examine Musgrave's notes, and his Exercitationes in Euripidem, will find that he ought not to be deemed a favourer of Mr. Wakefield's Canon. The examples of an added N are too numerous, when compared with those of an omitted N, which can be gleaned from his annotations, for them to be attributed to any other cause than his own carelessness as a transcriber, or the inattention of his printer.

Little can be advanced in favour of this Canon from the editions between those of Aldus and Musgrave; for, till the time of Valckenaer and Markland, no publisher of Euripides is consistent and uniform. They all sometimes add, and sometimes omit, this final N. To the two great names which have been just recorded, must now be added that of Mr. Porson; who has shewn his accuracy by his insertions of this letter in his HECUBA and ORESTES.

It has been observed, also, that no confidence can be placed in the MSS. of the tragedies, on account of their irregularity; and that we can have no dependence on the verses which are quoted by the Grammarians and other authors; for they are most frequently exhibited as if they were prosaic citations and the final N is inserted or neglected without even the ap pearance of systematic regularity.

The antient inscriptions, however, lay claim to some authority. The stone cutters were, we take it for granted, an ignorant set of men: but, if the addition of this N final had been in truth merely a trick and quackery of modern times; if the authors had left out this consonant on principle; what sound reason can be alleged, to induce the belief that this uninformed race could ever have thought of making such an insertion? About the metre, who can imagine them to have been solicitous?-Yet this letter is always inserted as far as our examination has extended, in poetic inscriptions, before a word beginning with a consonant, where the verse requires a long syllable *.


*The instances which have occurred to us are in Hexameters and Pentameters. The reader may examine: Chandler's Inscriptions, P. I. p. 4. IX. p. 13. XXXVII. n. p. 58. XLVIII. p. 67. LX. Pococke, p. 30. XVIII. In Gruter III. p. 1068.—oger bu [Dory. in Charit. p. 461.] Brunck III. p. 183. Ep. 169.

Z 2


« PreviousContinue »