equinus, and ἵππιος ab equo dictus, as ἵππιος Κόλωνος, ἵππιος Ποσειδών, and the like. 847. τἀπὸ τοῦδ' ἤδη κλύων Λέγοι μὲν ἄλλος. Λέγοιμ' ἂν ἄλλον, Valckenaer. as it is quoted by Mr. Porson. ad. Οrest. 1679. Λέγοιμ ̓ ἂν ἄλλων P. E. which we prefer. To Mr. Elmsley's instances add Med. 652. Εἴδομεν· οὐκ ἐξ ἑτέρων Μύθων ἔχομεν φράσασθαι. 6 849. Παλληνίδος. Quae in vico Atticae colitur, cui Pallene nomen.' MUSGR. Nomen non Παλλήνη, sed Παλληνον fuisse suspicor, ex adverbio Παλλήναδι, cujus loco Βαλληνδε per jocum dixit Aristoph. Ach. 234.' P. E. 893. εἰ λίγεια λώτου χάρις ἐνὶ δαιτί. We approve of Mr. Elmsley's conjecture, ἐπὶ δαιτί. Med. 195. Οἵτινες ὕμνους ἐπὶ μὲν θαλίαις, Ἐπὶ δ ̓ εἰλαπίναις καὶ παρὰ δείπνοις Εὕροντο. Helen. 175. ἐπὶ δάκρυσι, inter lacrymas. 899. τελεσσιδώτειρα. • Analogiae repugnare videtur haec vox per Ω scripta. ὀλβοδότειρα legitur in Bacch. 419. ὑπνοδότειρα in Or. 175. P.Ε. Add βαρυδότειρα, Aesch. Theb. 977. 900. Αιών τε Κρόνου παῖς. We do not remember to have met with this Aeon in any of the more ancient poets, and we cannot help suspecting that he was inserted here by some copyist versed in the writings of Proclus and the Platonists. The line of Pseudo-Orpheus, quoted by Musgrave, we conceive to be the offspring of some Gnostic Christian. We would write the concluding verses of the strophe and antistrophe as follows. Σ. πολλὰ γὰρ τίκτει Μοῖρα τελεσσιδότειρ ̓, Iliad. A. 209. θεοὶ αἰὲν ἐόντες. Α. θεὸς παραγγέλλει, τῶν φρονήματος αεί. Callim. Jov. 9. σὺ δ ̓ οὐ θάνες, ἕσσι γὰς αἰεί. 926. ᾧ θυμὸς ἦν πρὸ δίκας βίαιος. Passim occurrit πέρα δίκης. Ρ. Ε. We understand the words to mean. to whom the gratification of his anger was of more account than jus tice. Plato Crit. 16. μήτε παῖδας περὶ πλείονος ποιοῦ, μήτε τὸ ζῆν, μήτε ἄλλο μηδὲν πρὸ τοῦ δικαίου. 961. Οὐκ ἔστ ̓ ἀνυστὸν τόνδε σοι κατακτανεῖν. Οὐκ ἔστιν ὁσιὸν is the excellent correction of Mr. Elmsley, who quotes Iph. Τ. 1044. It is strongly confirmed by v. 1011. Οὐχ ἁγνός εἰμὶ τῷ κτανόντι κατθανών. . 968. ' Eo sensu quo nostro loco legitur ἀπιστῆσαι, utrumque ἀπιθῆσαι εἰ ἀπειθῆσαι usurpant tragici. Soph. Phil. 1447. Οὐκ ἀπιθήσω τοῖς σοῖς μύθοις. Eurip. Οr. 31. Ὅμως δ ̓ ἀπέκτειν, οὐκ ἀπειθήσας θεῶ. Ρ. Ε. We have little doubt but that in the second of these instances should be read απιστήσας. Ion. 557. Τῷ θεῷ γὰρ (not γοῦν) οὐκ ἀπιστεῖν εἰκός. Aesch. Agam. 1059. Πείθοι ̓ ἂν, εἰ πείθοι, ἀπειθοίης δ' ἴσως, which verse, as it stands, is bad Greek, and of which we are unable to propose a plausible correction. We are of opinion that the Attic poets never used the word ἀπειθέω, because, if we mistake not, they had no such adjective as ἀπειθής, but formed compounds of this sort from the aorist ἐπιθον. The metre requires εὐσιθής, with the penultima short, in Aesch. Prometh. 333. Agam. 984. In Eurip. Androm. 819. for εὐπειθέστεροι at the end of a senarius, nobody will hesitate to replace επιθέστερον. Hesych. Απειθής. ἀνυπότακτος A A 2 ἀνυπότακτος· Σοφοκλῆς Αἰχμαλωτίσιν. We do not consider this authority of any weight. Homer always uses a with the second syllable short. 969. Χρῆν τόνδε μὴ ζῆν, μηδ' ὁρᾷν φάος τόδε. * Φάος τόδε senarium claudunt in Hippol. 907. 993. Alc. 1142. P. E. Alc. 80. Ὅστις ἂν ἐνέποι πότερον φθιμένην Τὴν βασίλειαν χρὴ πενθεῖν, ἢ Ζῶσ ̓ ἔτι λεύσσει φως Πελίου παῖς. We read, πότερον φθιμένην Χρὴ βασίλειαν πενθεῖν, ἡ ζῶσ ̓ Ἔτι παῖς Πελίου λεύσσει τόδε φῶς. Helen. 60. Εως μὲν οὖν φῶς ἡλίου τόδ ̓ ἔβλεπε Πρωτεύς. 845. θανόντος σου, τόδ ̓ ἐκλείψειν φάος. Λέξει. ὅστις ἂν θέλῃ 978. πρὸς ταῦτα, τὴν θρασεῖαν, ὅστις ἂν θέλοι, P. E. Where or has the force of whosoever may, it requires a subjunctive, as here and in Helen. 154. Κτείνει γὰρ Ἕλλην, ὅντιν ̓ ἂν λάβῃ, ξένον. Where it is used for the relative ὃς, it requires either an indicative, as in Helen. 9. Θεοκλύμενον ἄρσεν, ὅστις εἰς θεοὺς σέβων Βίον διήνεγκ', οτ an optative with ὤν. as Alc. 80. ̓Αλλ ̓ οὐδὲ φίλων τις πέλας οὐδεὶς, Ὅστις ἂν ἐνίσοι. Helen. 442. τίς ἂν πυλωρὸς ἐκ δόμων μόλοι, Ὅστις διαγγείλειε τὰμ εἴσω κακά. Read Ὃς ἂν διαγγείλειε. We are not satisfied with the future tense Λέξει after πρὸς ταῦτα, which words, when used as in this passage, are commonly followed by an imperative mood. Med. 1355. Πρὸς ταῦτα, καὶ λέαιναν, εἰ βούλει, κάλει, Καὶ Σκύλλαν. 985. δειλίαν ἔφλειν τινά.—ὀφλεῖν τινα is given by Mr. Elmsley, who observed in his valuable edition of the Acharneans of Aristophanes that ὦφλον is an aorist. 986. Ἐγὼ δὲ νεῖκος οὐχ ἑκὼν τόδ' ἠράμην ἤδη γε σοὶ μὲν αὐτανέψιος γεγώς. Οὐ δῆτα· σοὶ μὲν ἄ. γ. Ρ. Ε. which is no doubt the genuine reading. 1002. πάντα κινῆσαι πέτρον. Diogenian. VII. 42. πάντα κινήσω πέτρου Two accounts of the origin of this proverbial expression, to leave not a stone unturned, are given by Photius, of which Mr. Elmsley prefers the second, which says that it took its rise from those who hunted for crabs. We think it more likely to have been originally said of those, who carefully turned up the loose stones in the pavement of their houses, to see if any scorpions were concealed under them. A drinking song in_Athe næus XV. p. 695. D. runs thus, Ὑπὸ παντὶ λίθῳ σκόρπιος, ὦ τᾶν, Ἀποδύεται. Φράζου μή σε βάλη, (vulg. ὦ ταῖς") which is clearly addressed to some person employed in turning up the stones to search for scor pions. Sophocles Αἰχμαλωτίσιν. — Ἐν παντὶ γάρ τοι σκόρπιος φρουρεῖ λίθω. 1014. Πρὸς ἅγ ̓ εἶπας, ἀνήκουσας-Προσείπας, αντήκουσας. P. E. We prefer Mr. Elmsley's second conjecture, Αγ' εἶπας ἀντήκουσας. Alc. 701. εἰ δ ̓ ἡμᾶς κακῶς Ἐρεῖς, ἀκούσει πολλὰ κοὐ ψευδή κακά. Homer Il. Ψ. 250. Ὅπποιον εἴπησθα ἔπος, τοῖόν κ ̓ ἐπακούσαις. Hesiod. Op. Di. 719. Εἰ δὲ κακὸν εἴποις, τάχα κ' αὐτὸς μεῖζον ἀκούσαις. Alcæus (ap. Procl. in Hesiod. γ. 153.) Εἴκ ̓ εἴποις τὰ θέλεις, ἀκούσαις τά κ ̓ οὐ θέλεις. Read, Αἴκ ̓ εἴπης τὰ θέλεις, ἀκούσεις τά κ ̓ οὐ θέλοις. Terent. Andr. V. iv. 17. Si mi pergit quae volt dicere, ea quæ nonvolt audiet. 1026. Κτεῖν, οὐ παραιτοῦμαι σε τήνδε δὴ πόλιν-Χρησμῷ παλαιῷ Λοξίου "Αρήσομαι — τήνδε δὲ πτόλιν. Ρ. Ε. We apprehend that the true reading is, τὴν δὲ δὴ πόλιν. Οrest. 52. Ηκει γὰρ εἰς γῆν Μενέλεως Τροίας ἄπο, δωλαισι πλαγχθείς τὴν δὲ δὴ πολύστονον Ελένην και προέτσεμψεν. 1040. αλλά 1040. ἀλλὰ μήτε μοι χοάς, Μήθ' αἷμ' ἐάσης εἰς ἐμὸν στάξαι τόπον. For rów Mr. Elmsley receives rápor, the correction of Heath. Not one of the commentators has understood the passage. Eurystheus means to say, 'Do not suffer them (the Heraclidae) to pour out libations (σrážas xos) upon my tomb, nor let them avert the evils I threaten, by performing these offices of friendship to me;' (as Clytaemnestra strove to avert the anger of Agamemnon by sending libations to his tomb. Soph. Electr. 446.). This interpretation in some measure explains v. 1050. where Alcmena says, that after his death he may be given to the dogs for any thing she cares. We cannot imagine why Eurystheus should suppose that blood would be sprinkled on his tomb. The only libations to the dead mentioned by Greek authors, consisted of wine, milk, honey and water. See Iliad v. 220. Aesch. Pers. 610. Soph. El. 434. 894. Eurip. Or. 114. Iph. T. 633. Alcæus in Brunck's Analecta I. p. 490. Antipater ibid. II. p. 26. except in the case of magical incantations, as in Heliodorus Aeth. VI. p. 301. ed. 1611. We think therefore 'that for μήθ' αἷμ' ἐάσης should be read μὴ ῥεῦμ ̓ ἐάσης. In an Epigram of Hegemon are the words Σπάρτας χίλιοι ἄνδρες ἔπεσχον αἷμα τὸ Περσῶν. Mr. Huschke judiciously restores ῥεῦμα τὸ Περσῶν. Then for ΤΟΠΟΝ ΜΕ read ΠΟΤΟΝ. Posidippus in Athenæus I. p. 32. Β. Διψηρὸς, ἄτοπος, ὁ μυρίνης, ὁ τίμιος, read, Διψηρός, ΑΠΟΤΟΣ. The whole verse would read thus, Μὴ ῥεῦμ ̓ ἐάσης εἰς ἐμὲ στάξαι ποτόν. Finally we obs serve, that vv. 1037. 8. 9. and part of 1040. should be included in a parenthesis. we 1054. τὰ γὰρ ἐξ ἡμῶν. 'Sic rawo o apud Soph. Oed. C. 1628. P.E. Soph. El. 1464. Kai dù redeïtaι raw' iμov. Eurip. Iph. A. 1214. vy δὲ, ταπ ̓ ἐμοῦ σοφα, Δάκρυα παρέξω. Heracl. 23. ἀσθενῆ μὲν ταπ ̓ ἐμοῦ δεδορκότες. In v. 1272. for ἀλλὰ ταπὶ σοῦ σκόπει should be written ἀλλὰ τἀπὸ σοῦ σκόπει. In perusing the present volume we have observed the following typographical errors, besides those which are noticed in the errata. V. 782. υπο for ὑπὸ. 986. οὐκ ἑκων for οὐχ ἑκων. p. 56, 1. ̓Αθήνησι for ̓Αθήνησι. 1. 2. Αγόραιος for 'Αγοραίος. p. 119, 18. Agam. 1468. for 1648. The number of pages which we have devoted to the consideration of this small volume, will be sufficient to shew the estimation in which we hold Mr. Elmsley's critical labours. In fact we take some shame to ourselves, for not having assigned a portion of our former numbers to an analysis of his editions of the Oedipus Tyrannus of Sophocles and the Acharneans of Aristophanes. The appearance of a third portion of the Greek drama under the same auspices reminded us of our neglect, for which we have now endeavoured to make amends by giving a tolerably accurate account of the alterations which Mr. Elmsley has made in the received text of Euripides. We should, in all likelihood, have made our article more acceptable to our critical readers, had we quoted more of Mr. Elmsley's observations and fewer of our own. But we recommend them to read his notes entire; and if they fail to derive from them a great deal of information which is both valuable and new, they will either be better scholars or greater dunces than we give them credit for being. An attentive perusal of Mr. Elmsley's publications has convinced us, that he has studied the remains of the Greek theatre with greater accuracy and attention than almost any scholar of his own or former times; and we cannot help expressing a wish, in which every lover of classical literature will join, that he may finish the web which he so ably began on a former occasion, and give to the world a correct and useful edition of the most dignified and polished of the Greek tragedians. ART. VII. 1. Des Progrès de la Puissance Russe depuis son Origine jusqu'au Commencement du 19ème Siècle. Par Mr. LParis, 1812. 8vo. pp. 514. 2. Seconde Guerre de Pologne, ou Considérations sur la Paix publique du Continent, et sur l'Indépendance Maritime de l'Europe. Par M. M. de Montgalliard. Paris, 1812. Svo. pp. 330. "THE grand object in travelling,' said Dr. Johnson, is to see the coasts of the Mediterranean. On those shores were situated the four great empires of the world-the Assyrian, the Persian, the Grecian, and the Roman: all our religion, almost all our law, almost all our arts, almost all that sets us above savages has come to us from the shores of the Mediterranean.' There are few, we imagine, who have not felt the justice of this observation; and it may perhaps be considered as one of the many disadvantages attendant upon the evil days on which we are fallen, that all access to the most interesting parts of Europe has been for some time denied to our countrymen. But though the grand tour, that indispensable part of the education of the fashionable men of former days, be no longer practicable, a more anxious desire for that species of information, which is alone to be gained by foreign travel, has at no time prevailed than at present; and, as in the commercial world, we find, when one channel of communication is stopped, another is speedily opened, the spirit of inquiry has lately led our countrymen into regions which formerly were but rarely visited. The islands of Greece have been explored in every direction, and no traveller can now return home, with any degree of self-satisfaction, unless he have traversed the Krimea, peeped into the Grand Signior's harem, or selected some favored spot in the Archipelago, as a retreat from the tedium of his native country. The events too of the last campaign, have rendered Russia more than ever an object of curiosity, and the great part which she has has to perform in the present momentous struggle, for the freedom of Europe, has imparted new interest to every thing that bears relation to that gigantic power. In modern France, and indeed throughout the greater part of the continent, the art of war is the only one that appears to flourish; and though we hear much of the ostentatious protection shewn by Buonaparte to men of science, and the encouragement afforded to their works, the productions of the French press too clearly evince that the minds of the writers on political subjects in France are as much enslaved by the jealousy of the tyrant, as their persons are by the code of conscription. The same tone which pervades the bulletins of the Grand Army, is discoverable in all their writings on public matters, and no one can doubt that the severe control which Buonaparte has exercised over the press, has been throughout of incalculable advantage to his cause. We require, indeed, no farther proof of the importance which he attaches to this powerful instrument, than the order which was issued by Davoust on regaining possession of Hamburg, by which the inhabitants were required to give up all the publications that had appeared against the French during the short lived freedom of that city. Impressed as we are with this idea, our readers will believe that we did not enter on the perusal of the works before us with any sanguine expectation of meeting with much valuable or impartial information on the subject of Russia. She has proved herself lately the most formidable opponent that Buonaparte ever had to contend with on the continent; and, excepting in some instances, where she has been led into a mistaken policy by the folly of her rulers, or by the pressure of the times, she has always sided with England in her wars against France. The alliance between the two countries is one which mutual interest will naturally point out, and their relations of amity are not liable to be broken by too close proximity, or by too great an equality in point of naval or military force. The The anonymous publication which we have selected for our purpose, is pronounced by those who are enabled to judge from the appearance of the types, to be the production of the Imperial Press, and we believe that it has undergone the revision which all works are subject to published in a similar manner. author does not profess to enter very deeply into the history or geography of the Russian empire, but to contine himself to a detail of the progress of its political power from its origin to the commencement of the 19th century, and with this view he appears to have consulted almost every modern work which has been published on the subject of Russia, or in any degree touched upon the A A 4 politics 1 |