δίκην. The adverb ἔλασσον seems to require us to read της ξυμφοράς οι τῶν ξυμφορῶν, according to the well known expressions, ἅλις ἔχειν τοῦ δυστυχεῖν, ῥᾷον ἔχειν τῆς νόσου, εὖ ἔχειν τῶν φρενῶν, &c. See Valckenaer ad Hippol. 462, Brunck ad Cd. Tyr. 709, &c. So Heracl. 379. Μή μας δορὶ συνταράξης Τὰν εὖ χαρίτων ἔχουσαν Πόλιν, ἀλλ ̓ ἀνάσχου. The modern editions read, from the emendation of Brodæus, τὴν εὐχαρίστως ἔχουσαν. The reading of Aldus, τὴν εὐχαρίστων ἔχουσαν, approaches nearer to the truth.

V. 739. Ετεοκλέους τε σύμβασιν ποιουμένου, Μέτρια θέλοντος, οὐκ ἐχρήζομεν λαβεῖν. Mr. Gaisford has admitted into the text Markland's conjectural emendation, μέτρια τε δόντος. Notissimus est usus, says Markland, δόντος pro dare volente vel offerente. It may be so: but we could have wished for a better example of this notissimus usus than the words of Plutarch, Πολλάκις αὐτοῦ πολλὰ καὶ διδόντος, καὶ δεομένου λαβεῖν, οὐκ ἠθέλησεν. Εδίδου, indeed, frequently signifies he offered, but we believe that ἔδωκε generally, if not always, signifies he gave. In the present instance, we are inclined to retain the common reading. We are not partial to unnecessary alterations of the text, except when proposed by ourselves, in which case we regard them with great complacency. It may be observed, that the tragedians love to join together participles, as in the two verses now before us, without the conjunctive particles. So v. 884 of the same play: ̓Αγροὺς δὲ ναίων, σκληρὰ τῇ φύσει διδοὺς, Ἔχαιρε πρὸς ἀνδρεῖον εἰς τ ̓ ἄγρας ιών. Phoen. 77. Ὁ δ'Αργος ἐλθὼν, κῆδος Αδράστου λαβών, Πολλὴν ἀθροίσας ἀσπίδ' ̓Αργείων, ἄγει. Iph. Τaur. 695. Σωθεὶς δὲ, παῖδας ἐξ ἐμῆς ὁμοσπόρου Κτησάμενος, ἣν ἔδωκά σοι δάμαρτ ̓ ἔχειν, Ονομά τ ̓ ἐμοῦ γένοιτ' αν, οὔτ ̓ ἄπαις δόμος Πατρῶος οὑμὸς ἐξαλειφθείη ποτ' ἄν. In this passage, both Markland and Musgrave conjecture ἔκ τ ̓ ἐμῆς ὁμοσπόρου.

ην

V. 763. Οὐδεὶς ἐπέστη τῷδε δοῦλος ὢν πόνῳ. Φαίης ἂν, εἰ παρῆσθ ̓, ὅτ' ηγάπα νεκρούς. In all the editions, these two verses are given to the "Αγγελος. We believe, rightly: but we also believe, that a verse is wanting, which ought to be interposed between them, and to be given to Adrastus. Of the two succeeding verses, the second alone ought to be given to the messenger, as in the common editions. ΑΔ. Ενιψεν αὐτὸς τῶν ταλαιπωρῶν σφαγάς; ΑΓ. Καστρωσέ γ ̓ εὐνὰς, κακάλυψε σώματα. Markland in his notes,, and Mr. Gaisford in the text of the present edition, assign both these verses to the Messenger. It could hardly have occurred to Adrastus,' says Markland, to ask whether Theseus himself had washed the wounds of the dead bodies. We apprehend that the next preceding question of Adrastus, which we suppose to be lost, would make every thing clear, if it were preserved.

V. 882. Παῖς ὢν, ἐτόλμησ ̓ εὐθὺς οὐ πρὸς ἡδονὰς Μουσῶν τραπέσθαι, πρὸς τὸ μαλθακὸν βίου. One MS. reads βίον. See our observation on v. 87. Markland mentions, although not with approbation, the emendation of Reiske, πρός τε μαλθακὸν βίον. There can be little doubt, we think, that the poet wrote καὶ τὸ μαλθακὸν βίον, and that the present reading is formed from καὶ πρὸς τὸ μαλθακὸν βίου, a very natural corruption of the original reading. The propensity of transcribers to add the prepositions without necessity, and also to omit the wrong word in verses which have more than the proper number of syllables, is well known.

V. 916.

V. 916. Α δ ̓ ἂν μάθοι παῖς, ταῦτα σώζεσθαι φιλεῖ πρὸς γῆρας. Lege & δ ̓ ἂν μάθη παῖς. ΡORSON. The same correction is necessary in two passages of the second Iphigenia. V. 19. Πρὶν ἂν κόρην σὴν Ιφιγένειαν Αρτεμις Λάβη σφαγεῖσαν. V. 1302. Οὔ πρίν γ' ἂν εἴπῃ τοῦπος ἑρμηνεὺς τόδε. 5ο Soph. Trach. 415. Οὔ· πρίν γ' ̓ ἂν εἴπης ἱστορούμενος βραχύ. No less than three examples of the same fault occur in the play just mentioned. I. v. 2. Ως οὐκ ἂν αἰῶν ἐκμάθοις βροτῶν, πρὶν ἂν Θάνοι τις. The Florentine edition of 1547 reads θάνῃ, which reading is also exhibited by Stobaeus, Tit. cv, p. 562. II. v. 164. Χρόνον προτάξας ὡς τρίμηνον, ἡνίκ ̓ ἂν Χώρας ἀπείη, κανιαύσιον βεβώς. Read ἡνίκα without the particle, which ought to be retained, if the Aldine reading, χώρας ἀπίη, were correct. III. v. 636. Κἀμοὶ τάδ ̓ ἦν πρόῤῥητα, καὶ τοιαῦτ ̓ ἔδρων, Τὸ φάρμακον τοῦτ ̓ ἄπυρον, ἀκτῖνός τ' ἀεὶ Θερμῆς ἄθικτον, ἐν μυχοῖς σώζειν ἐμὲ, Ἕως ἂν ἀρτίχριστον ἁρμόσαιμι που. Read, Ἕως ΝΙΝ ἀρτίχριστον.

V.928. Τὸν Οἰδίπου τε παῖδα, Πολυνείκην λέγω. V. 1217. Τυδέως, ὃν ὠνόμαζε Διομήδην πατήρ. Read Πολυνείκη and Διομήδη. If the Attic form of these accusatives admitted the N, it is probable that some verses would be found, in which the. N could not be expunged without producing an unlawful hiatus. The old editions are very inconstant on this subject, as may be observed from the following examples, which we believe to be nearly all that are contained in the forty-four remaining Greek plays. I. Esch. Theb. 1075. Τοὺς κλάοντας Πολυνείκην. This verse ends an anapestic system. II. Soph. Cd. Col. 375. Τον πρόσθε γεννηθέντα Πολυνείκη θρόνων. III. Ant. 198. Τὸν δ ̓ αὖ ξύναιμον τοῦδε, Πολυνείκην λέγω. IV. Eurip. Phoen. 72. Φεύγειν ἑκόντα τήνδε Πολυνείκην χθόνα. V. Ibid. 76. Φυγάδα δ ̓ ἀπωθεῖ τῆσδε Πολυνείκην χθονός. VI. Ibid. 297. Καλεῖ δὲ Πολυνείκην με Θηβαῖος λεώς. VII. Ibid. 639. Ἔξιθ ̓ ἐκ χώρας. ἀληθῶς δ ̓ ὄνομα Πολυνείκην πατήρ. VIII. Ibid. 1472. Οἱ μὲν πατάξαι πρόσθε Πολυνείκην δορί. ΙΧ. Cycl. 578. "Αλις Γανυμήδην τόνδ' ἔχων ἀναπαύσομαι. X. Aristoph. Nub. 355. Καὶ νῦν ὅτι Κλεισθένη εἶδον, ὁρᾷς, διὰ τοῦτ ̓ ἐγένοντο γυναῖκες. Here we may observe, that the addition of the N would vitiate the metre. XI. Vesp. 1280. Εἶτ ̓ ̓Αριφράδην, πολύ τι θυμοσοφικώτατον. XII. Αν. 513. Ὁ δ ̓ ἄρ ̓ εἱστήκην τὸν Λυσικράτη τηρῶν ὅτι δωροδοκοίη. XIII. Ibid. 1077. "Ην ἀποκτείνη τις ὑμῶν Φιλοκράτη τὸν Στρούθιον. XIV. Lys. 1092. Οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅπως οὐ Κλεισθένη βίνήσομεν. XV. Thesm. 848. Οὐ τὸν Παλαμήδην ψυχρὸν ὄντ ̓ αἰσχύνεται. XVI. Ran. 425. Τὸν Κλεισθένη δ ̓ ἀκούω. XVII. Eccl. 366. Αντισθένην τις καλεσάτω πάσῃ τέχνη. We subjoin Brunck's note: ̓Αντισθένη. Sic alter Reg. ut Suidas in χεζητιάων. Vulgo 'Αντισθένην. We add an eighteenth example from the Κρόνος οι Phrynichus, quoted by the Scholiast on Aristophanes, Αν. 988. Βούλει Διοπείθη μεταδράμω καὶ τύμπανα.

V. 1044. φράζετ ̓ εἰ κατοίδατε. Read κατείδετε. There is no such word 25 κατοίδατε iu the Attic dialect. The second person plural of οἶδα is always ἴστε. In the present passage, κατείδον is on all accounts better than κάτοιδα. Tell me if you have seen her.

V. 1066. *Ω θύγατερ, οὐ μὴ μῦθον ἐπὶ πολλοὺς ἐρεῖς. Omnino lege εἰς πολλούς. PORSON. When οὐ μή is prefixed to the future, in the sense of prohibition, we conceive that a note of interrogation ought to be added. In the preceding verse, the words οὐ μὴ ἐρεῖς, the literal trans

lation of which is will you not not speak, are equivalent to μὴ εἴπης, in the same manner as the words οὐκ ἐρεῖς, when pronounced interrogatively, signify εἰπέ,*

V. 1123-1163. There can be no doubt, that Markland is quite right in depriving Iphis and Evadne of all participation in this dialogue, and quite wrong in permitting Adrastus to open his lips in it. The verses ought to be distributed between XΟΡΟΣ and ΠΑΙΔΕΣ, but it is not easy to assign exactly the parts of the grand-mothers and the grand-children, as they frequently interrupt each other. So v. 1152. ΠΑΙ. Ἔτ ̓ εἰσορᾶς σε, πάτερ, ἐπ ̓ ὀμμάτων δοκῶ. ΧΟ. Φίλον φίλημα παρὰ γένυν τιθέντα σόν. ΠΑΙ. Λόγων δὲ παρακέλευσμα σῶν. ΧΟ. Αέρι φερόμενον οἴχεται. ΠΑΙ. Δυοῖν δ ̓ ἄχη, ματέρι τ ̓ ἔλιπες. ΧΟ. Σέ τ ̓ οὔποτ ̓ ἄλγη πατρῷα λείψει.

V. 1179. Τί δήποθ ̓ ὑμῖν ἀλλ ̓ ὑπουργῆσαι με χρή; Read, Τί δῆτ ̓ ἔθ ̓ ὑμῖν. V. 1195. Ἐν ᾧ δὲ τέμνειν χρὴ σφάγιά σ', ἄκουέ μου. Although we are satisfied that Milton wrote, And Tiresias, and Phineus, prophets old, not, And Phineus, and Tiresias, prophets old, we suspect that Euripides wrote, Ἐν ᾧ δὲ τέμνειν σφάγια χρή σ', ἄκουέ μου. ο ν. 1205. Η δ ̓ ἂν διοίξης σφάγια, καὶ τρώσης φόνον. Iph. Τaur. 40. Κατάρχομαι μὲν, σφάγια δ ἄλλοισιν μέλει. Ibid. 280. Θηρᾶν τε τῇ θεῷ σφάγια τἀπιχώρια. Heracl. 373. Καὶ δὴ παρῆκται σφάγια τάξεων εκάς. We wish that it were in our power to improve the rhythm of the following verse by any transposition of the words: Iph. Taur. 566. Κακῆς γυναικὸς χάριν ἄχαριν ἀπώλετο.

V. 1221. Πικροὶ γὰρ αὐτοῖς ἥξετ', ἐκτεθραμμένοι, Σκύμνοι λεόντων, πόλεος ἐκπορθήτορες. We prefer the old punctuation, ἐκτεθραμμένοι σκύμνοι λεόντων, which Markland has silently altered. Portus, however, whose version is retained by Barnes, agrees with Markland: Ubi enim creveritis, venietis acerbi ipsis tanquam catuli leonum, expugnatores urbis. These mi

nutic

*For examples of this kind of negative imperative, see Æsch. Theb, 252, Soph. Trach. 980, Eurip. Med. 1151, Hippol. 213, 606, Androm. 758, Bacch. 343, 791, El, 383, 982, (Οὐ μὴ κακισθεὶς εἰς ἀνανδρίαν πεσει ;) Aristoph. Ach. 166, Nub. 996, 367, 505. Vesp. 397, Thesm. 1108, Ran. 998, 462, 524. When of two futures in the same sentence, the first is preceded by où, and the second by un, the first commands and the second prohibits. So Hippol. 498. "Ω δεινὰ λέξασ', οὐχὶ συγκλήσεις στόμα, Καὶ μὴ μεθήσεις αὖθις αἰσχίστους λόγους; So also Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 637, Trach. 1185, Aj. 75, Eurip. Hel 446. Aristoph. Eccl. 1144. On the other hand, we believe that οὐ μὴ prefixed to the subjunctive is equivalent to a negative future, as in Iph. Αul. 1465. ΚΛ. ΤΩ τέκνον, οἴχει ; ΙΦ. καὶ πάλιν γ ̓ οὐ μὴ μόλω. Yes, and I shall never return. So also Iph. Taur. 18. ̓Αγάμεμνον, οὐ μὴ ναῦς ἀφορμίσῃ χθονός, Πρὶν ἂν κόρην σὴν Ιφιγένειαν Αρτεμις Λαβη σφαγεῖσαν. Mr. Gaisford reads ἀφορμίσει. The future is ἀφορμεῖ. Notwithstanding the authority of Dawes and others, we believe that in this sense the subjunctive is more proper than the future, and that there is no difference between the subjunctive of the first aorist and that of the second. We must not conceal, however, that in the forty-four remaining Greek plays, there are three passages which we can neither correct, nor reconcile with our notion of the two different uses of the particles cù n. I. Soph. Ed. Col. 176. Οὗτοι μήποτέ σ ̓ ἐκ τῶνδ ̓ ἑδράνων, Ω γέρον, ἄκοντά τις άξει. Here we cannot read άξη, because, as we have already observed, άγω has no other aorist than Αγαγον. Αγάγη, the reading of the Vatican MS., is incompatible with the metre. We have sometimes suspected #py to be the true reading. Compare v. 264, 358. Π. Εl. 1052. ̓Αλλ' είσιθ'. αὖ σοι μὴ μεθέψομαί ποτε, οὐδ ̓ ἣν σφόδρ' ἱμείρουσα τυγχάνης. The aorist μετάσπωμαι is too unlike the future to be substituted for it on mere conjecture. III. Aristoph. Ran. 508. μὰ τὸν ̓Απόλλω, οὐ μή σ' ἐγὼ Περιόψομ ̓ ἀπελθόντ',

✦ We observe that Markland constantly attributes this Latin version to Canter. Markland

nutiæ are very apt to escape the attention of an editor, particularly when a tolerable sense is produced by the punctuation which he finds already established. The following passage of Sophocles, for instance, is printed in every edition with a comma after the word δυσσεβέστατον : Αj. 1293. ̓Ατρέα δ', ὃς αὖ σ ̓ ἔφυσε, δυσσεβέστατον Προθέντ ̓ ἀδελφῳ δεῖπνον οἰκείων κρεῶν.

IPHIGENIA IN AULIDE.

V. 46. Σῇ γάρ μ' ἀλόχῳ τότε Τυνδάρεως Πέμπεν φερνην, Ξυννυμφοκόμον τε Fixasoy. Nota Timer sine augmento, quod nescio an in anapasticis legitime factum. G. Compare Med. 1413. Οὓς μήποτ ̓ ἐγὼ φύσας ὤφελον (ὄφελον Bentleius) Пgos cod posμévous écidéoda. Mr. Porson has received Musgrave's emendation, ὤφελον Ἐκ σοῦ. Can πρός σοῦ be considered as a gloss for in oo? Bentley's emendation derives support from Æsch. Pers. 917. Εἴθ ̓ ὄφελες (vulgo ὠφελες), Ζεῦ, κἀμὲ μετ' ἀνδρῶν. Perhaps, however, the true reading is, "EλES, ZED. The augment is certainly omitted in Agam. 1561. Τοῦτο. πρὸς ἡμῶν κάππεσε, κάτθανε. In the passage now before us, we read Téμ without hesitation.

very

V. 73. ἀνθηρὸς μὲν εἱμάτων στολῆ, Χρυσῷ τε λαμπρὸς, βαρβάρῳ χλιδήματι. Scribi posset de, ob præcedens uir; sed Clemens retinet T. M. Me is significant in this expression, and has no corresponding d. Compare Bacch. 453. Ατὰς τὸ μὲν σῶμ ̓ οὐκ ἄμορφος εἶ, ξένε. Read λευκήν τε Bacch. 457.

V. 171. ̓Αχαιών στρατιὰν ὡς ἴδοιμ' ἄν. V. 192. Κατεῖδον δὲ δύο Αἴαντε ovvedew. Heathius legit wç av idorp' av, propter antistrophen. Verum puto, ὡς ἂν ἰδοίμαν, pro ιδοίμην. Μ. Neither the emendation of Heath, nor that of Markland can be admitted, as we av, in order that, always governs the subjunctive. Read therefore, as ioidoipar. In v. 649 of this play, read with Barnes ioog, instead of gwv. In the edition of Aldus, v. 617 of the Phenissæ is thus represented : Εξειμι. πατέρα δέ μοι δος ἰδεῖν. οὐκ ἂν τύχοις. Mr. Porson reads ἔξιμεν from the conjecture of Mus grave, and side on the authority of many MSS. In the edition of Barnes we find the following most harmonious tetrameter trochaic, of Markland was deceived by the title-page of the Geneva edition of 1602: Euripidis Tragedia que extant. Cum Latina Gulielmi Canteri interpretatione. The Latin translation, which appears in this edition, is copied verbatim from the edition of Commelinus, which was printed at Heidelberg five years before. In the title-page of the Heidelberg edition the following words occur: Latinam interpretationem M. Aemilius Portus, F. P. C. F. passim ita correxit et expolivit ut nova facie nitidoque cultu nunc primum in lucem prodeat. The Latin version which Portus corrected and polished, was that of Gaspar Stiblinus, printed in the Basil edition of 1562. The Geneva editor has also suppressed poor Portus's dedication, in which he mentions the translation as his own work. It may be presumed, that the name of Canter was introduced by the Geneva bookseller, in order to promote the sale of the edition. In the Geneva edition of Stobaeus, printed in the year 1609, the name of Gesner is carefully suppressed, probably with the intention that Canter, who really translated the Ecloga, might pass for the translator and editor of the whole work. We see, therefore, that the booksellers knew the value of a name two hundred years ago quite as well as at present. Here we may remark, that the tradesmen of Geneva have long been celebrated for finesse. The public justice of the city is quick and good, and is more commended than the private justice of those that deal in trade: a want of sincerity is much lamented by those that know the town well.'-Burnet's Travels, p. 9, ed. 1724.

which only the three first feet are vitious : Εξειμι πατέρα δέ γέ μοι δὸς εἰσιδεῖν. οὐκ ἂν τύχοις. Another reading is proposed in Barnes's note, which is, if possible, still more happy than than that which is exhibited in his text. "Εξειμι χθονός· πατέρα δέ μοι δὸς ἰδεῖν. οὐκ ἂν τύχοις.

V. 209. Εξεπόνασε». Forte, ἐξεπόνασσεν. Μ. Quid voluerit Marklandus, nescio. G. Read ἐξεπόνησεν. In the Doric of the tragedies ἐκπονεῖν cannot make ἐξεπόνασεν in the aorist.

V. 225. Πυῤῥότριχας, μονόχαλα δ' ὑπὸ σφυρὰ Ποικιλοδέρμονας, οἷς παρεπάλλετο Πηλείδας ξὺν ὅπλοισι παρ ̓ ἄντυγα. These are three tetrameter dactylic verses, which in the editions are otherwise divided. The common reading is Πηλείδας σὺν ὅπλοις. The resolution of the diphthong is lawful in a choral song. So Οἰνεΐδας Rhes. 906. Read also Ερεχθείδαι

Med. 824.

V. 349. Ταῦτα μέν σε πρῶτ ̓ ἐπῆλθον, ἵνα σε πρῶτ ̓ εὕρω κακόν. Scribendum opinor, εὗρον κακὸν, et ita Reiskius. M. If Markland had recollected his own emendation of Suppl. 1211, he would have removed all doubt, if any doubt can exist, of the propriety of reading εὗρον οι ηὗρον.

ν. 407. Ξυνσωφρονεῖν σοι βούλομ', ἀλλ ̓ οὐ ξυννοσεῖν. Συσσωφρονεῖν γὰρ οὐχι συννοσεῖν ἔφυν Plutarch. p. 64. C. et ita omnimo legendum. PORSON. This is one of the many passages in these three tragedies, in which the accidental assistance of Plutarch or Stobæus has prevented the true reading from being irrecoverably lost. We regret that Plutarch has not also quoted Iph. Τaur. 678. Δόξω δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖσι, πολλοὶ γὰρ κακοὶ, Προδούς σε, σώζεσθ' αὐτὸς εἰς οἴκους μόνος. These two passages, together with Iph. Aul. 1141, of which we shall propose a correction in its proper place, are, we believe, the only instances of the elision of the diphthong AI which occur in these plays.

V. 417. Μήτηρ δ' ὁμαρτεῖ, σῆς Κλυταιμνήστρας δέμας, Καὶ παῖς Ὀρέστης. We should prefer ση Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ. So Iph. Τaur. 22. Παιδ ̓ οὖν ἐν οἴκοις σὴ Κλυταιμνήστρα δάμαρ Τίκτει.

V. 508. Ταραχή γ ̓ ἀδελφῶν τις δι' ἔρωτα γίγνεται, Πλεονεξίαν τε δωμάτων. ἀπέπτυσα Τοιάνδε συγγένειαν ἀλλήλων πικράν. The anapest may be expelled by reading, Ταραχή γ ̓ ἀδελφῶν διά τ' ἔρωτα γίγνεται. This emendation is so obvious, that we suspect that Heath, Markland, and others, were prevented from proposing it, by a doubt whether διά τ' ἔρωτα was equivalent to δι' ἔρωτά τε. A few examples will remove all doubt on the subject. Suppl. 383. Ελθὼν δ' ὑπέρ τ' Ασωπὸν, Ἰσμηνοῦ θ ̓ ὕδωρ. Ion. 1283. Ὑπέρ τ' ἐμαυτοῦ, τοῦ θεοῦ θ ̓, ἵν ̓ ἔσταμεν. Herc. 477. Κήδη ξυνάψων, ἐκ τ' Αθηναίων χθονός, Σπαρτῆς τε, Θηβῶν θ'. So also Soph. Ed. Tyr. 253, Aj. 53, 492, Phil. 1294, El. 599, &c. Sometimes, instead of ΤΕ, the second conjunction is καί. So Aristoph. Vesp. 126. Ὁ δ' ἐξεδίδρασκε διά τε τῶν ὑδροῤῥοῶν, Καὶ τῶν ὀπῶν. These examples are sufficient to defend the common reading of Soph. (Ed. Tyr. 541, ̓́Ανευ τε πλήθους καὶ φίλων, where Mr. Elmsley reads "Ανευ γε.

V. 638. ̓Αλλ ̓, ὦ τέκνον, χρή. φιλοπάτως δ ̓ ἀεί ποτ ̓ εἶ Μάλιστα παίδων τῶνδ ̓, ὅσους ἐγὼ ̓τεκον. Read παίδων τοῦδ'. Mr. Porson properly attributes these two verses to Clytemnestra. He also rejects as spurious vv. 630, 635, 636, 637, and places 633 and 634 before 631 and 632. V. 664. Μακρὰν ἀπαίρεις, ὦ πάτερ, λιπὼν ἐμέ; Omnes codd. μακράν γ'

ἀπαίρει;.