known when no one before had done so.' In either case οὐράνιά Te σnμara are rather out of place; we may suppose, however, either that Sophocles chose to refer generally to discoveries which he afterwards unfolds more at large, or that some other epithet originally stood with onuara, which in this connexion would naturally mean the watchwords of the army. Probably the corruption, if any there be, as well as the transposition, was made before the time of Achilles Tatius, who quotes the whole passage with reference to the stars, seemingly supposing vv. 4-6 to mean, that Palamedes first found out the number of the heavenly bodies, as in Virg. Georg. 1. 137, 'Navita tum stellis numeros et nomina fecit,' whereas it is plain that he is meant to have been the discoverer of number generally, as in the fragment quoted by Stobæus, Phys. 1. 1, and attributed by Matthiæ to the Palamedes of Euripides. These suggestions, as against the view taken by others of the order of the verses, are strongly confirmed by Plato, Rep. VII. 522. D, who evidently refers to this very passage, though with the exception of Bullialdus (censured by Stallbaum, 1. c.) no critic appears to have perceived the allusion, our ἐννενόηκας ὅτι φησὶν [Παλαμήδης] ἀριθμὸν εὐρὼν τάς τε τάξεις τῷ στρατοπέδω καταστῆσαι ἐν Ἰλίῳ καὶ ἐξαριθμῆσαι ναῦς τε καὶ τἆλλα πάντα, ὡς προτοῦ ἀναριθμήτων ὄντων καὶ τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος, ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐδ ̓ ὅσους πόδας εἶχεν εἰδότος, εἴπερ ἀριθμεῖν μὴ ἠπίστατο; There is indeed nothing here to shew that Plato did not find the passage in the order in which it stands in Tatius, himself choosing to connect the insertion of number with the arrangement of the army: but it would be difficult to believe that Sophocles intended kåkeîv' in a connexion like this, to refer to any, other word than euphuara. In v. 2 it matters little whether we correct στάθμη δ' into στάθμην τ' with Grotius, or into σralμŵv with Heath. V. 9 is rightly understood by Keil and Wagner, of the use of the stars to sentinels (comp. Eur. Iph. A. init., Rhes. 527, sqq.), though neither the former's ὕπνου φύλαξιν ἐσθλὰ σ., nor the latter's ὕπνου φυλάξεις πιστὰ σ. quite satisfactory. The Vat. MS. gives puλágeis i0oa, which seems to lead to puλagi milavá. With v. 11 comp. Virg. Georg. 1. 138. φύλαξι πιθανά. Soph. Hoμéves. fr. 16 (483): λόγῳ γὰρ οὐδὲν ἕλκος οἶδά που χανόν. The line is quoted by Suidas, v. Opnveîv éñwdás, to illustrate Aj. 582, so that the reference is plainly to the healing of wounds by song. This however does not come out from the words as they stand, where λóyo, even if connected with xavóv rather than with οἶδα, would yield no sense. If we read εὕδειν for οὐδέν, the meaning will appear at once, 'I know that gaping wounds are lulled by song. Comp. Phil. 650, κοιμῶ τόδ ̓ ἕλκος. εἶδον would be rather more idiomatic, but would create a confusion with χανόν. Soph. Polyxena. fr. 3 (491). ἀκτὰς ἀπαίωνάς τε καὶ μελαμβαθεῖς Αχέροντος ὀξυπλῆγας ἠχούσης γόους. This arrangement, which is Jacobs's, agrees better both with the sense and with the order of the words in the MSS., than Grotius and Heyne's, where ἄρσενας χοάς takes the place of ἠχούσης γόους, and vice versa. The meaning is clear without any alteration, being in fact explained by Virgil's 'tenebrosa palus Acheronte refuso. χοάς is the water of the lake formed by the overflow of Acheron, ἄρσενας probably expressing not infecundity, as explained by Porphyry, ap. Stob., but violence, like κτύπος ἄρσην πόντου, Phil. 1455, compared by Ellendt and Schneidewin. ἠχούσης seems better than ἠχούσας, though the latter is nearer the ἠχοῦσα or ἐχούσας of the MSS. possibly also μελαμβαθούς would be an improvement on μελαμβαθεῖς. The lake is said to resound the wails of Acheron, which keeps pouring into it, much as Virgil (Georg. II. 163) describes the Portus Julius as echoing with the sea that breaks against its embankment. Soph. Ριζοτόμοι. fr. 4 (502). Ηλιε δέσποτα καὶ πῦρ ἱερόν, τῆς εἰνοδίας πολλὴ φέρεται καὶ γῆς, καίουσ ̓ ὠμῶν σπείραισι δρακόντων. Possibly ἔγχοs may be an error for ἔντος (a word only occurring in the singular in one other passage), in the sense of a chariot, as in Pind. Οl. IV. 22, χαλκέοισι δ ̓ ἐν ἔντεσι νικῶν δρόμον. If ἔγχος is right, the allusion may be to the arrow of Abaris the Scythian. Soph. Scyrii. fr. 4 (521). οἱ ποντοναῦται τῶν ταλαιπώρων βροτῶν, νέμων could hardly stand with νείμειεν, and χάριν would be better without the addition of πλούτου. Should not we read οὔτε τις θεῶν μέδων πόντου JOHN CONINGTON. (To be continued.) V. On Schneidewin's Edition of the Edipus Rex. THE Tragedies of Sophocles edited by Professor Schneidewin (the Trachiniæ alone is yet unpublished), belong to the Leipsic Collection of Greek and Latin Classics superintended by Doctors Haupt and Sauppe. Prof. Schneidewin is a good scholar and an able interpreter of Sophocles. His edition is a step in advance. But he has left gleanings in the field; and I cannot always side with him. I propose to notice the places in which Schneidewin differs from former editors, as well as those in which I am at variance with him. And I begin with the dramas of the Theban cycle. But first-there are two features in the diction of Sophocles, which an interpreter of that poet must carefully note and constantly bear in mind. For convenient reference, I shall call them Observations I. II. and III. Obs. I. In his collocation of words, or (as old grammarians would say) in his use of the figure Hyperbaton, Sophocles is more audacious than any other poet, especially where such freedom is in some degree licensed by the mysterious or impassioned tone of the speaker. Schneidewin has correctly pointed out the prophetic obscurity of the language of Tiresias. But I shall have frequent occasion to notice the free collocations of Sophocles in passages marked by no ethical peculiarity. For instance. the Classical Museum (Vol. VI. p. 6), appeared a new interpretation of Soph. Antig. 31, 32. (τοιαῦτά φασι τὸν ἀγαθὸν Κρεοντά σοι καμοί, λέγω γὰρ κἀμέ, κηρύξαντ ̓ ἔχειν, In "Such is the proclamation which they say has been published by your good Creon, aye and mine, for I own I too thought him so.”) This (I will venture to say) certain interpretation would not have been gainsaid by Mr Conington and others on the ground of objection to the hyperbaton of the word oo, if they had noted the many and far bolder trajections of this kind which occur in Sophocles. The same explanation has been given by Schneidewin-independently, I presume, or he would have thought it right to acknowledge the obligation. [It seems, however, that Schneidewin seldom does notice the labours of any predecessors, either for praise or blame: a practice hardly to be considered fair or wise.] Obs. II. Sophocles especially delights in that oxĥμа πρòs тò onμawóμevov, which consists in adapting the tenour of his thoughts and language to suppressed clauses, which the mind must supply from the context. All poets claim this license more or less: but none, I believe, has used it so largely and boldly as Sophocles. A striking instance is found in the following passage of the Edipus Coloneus, which, like that of the Antigone, Scholiasts and Editors have hitherto failed to understand. Ed. Col. 308, 9: ἀλλ ̓ εὐτυχὴς ἵκοιτο τῇ θ ̓ αὑτοῦ πόλει ἐμοί τε. τίς γὰρ ἐσθλὸς οὐχ αὑτῷ φίλος; Hermann, Wunder, Schneidewin and others have committed the æsthetical sin of referring the latter clause тis yàp K.T.λ. to poí, and thus placing in the mouth of the Sophoclean Edipus a maxim more fit for the Bagstocks and Bounderbys of Mr C. Dickens, that " every good man studies his own interest." By referring the latter words to a suppressed clause, which the context suggests, we obtain the just and beautiful sentiment embodied in the following interpretation: "May he (i.e. Theseus, for whom a messenger has been dispatched) come fraught with blessing to his own city and to me:—to himself I need not say :— for what good man is not a blessing to himself?" Obs. III. The student of the Œdipus Rex must particularly observe, that the condition, character, conduct and language of Edipus have been adapted by the poet with the most studious nicety to heighten the tragic effect of the peripeteia and catastrophe of that wonderful drama. The petty pedantry of Voltaire (Preface to Edipe) has raked together a heap of objections against this play-such as the self-glorification of Œdipus, the improbability of his being unacquainted with the details of the fate of Laius, &c. Without replying to these cavils individually, as we might, it is enough to say that our poet, like bold painters (a Poussin, a Turner, or a Martin), has cast into the shade minor considerations, and concentrated his whole power in the production of one grand and terrible effect-"how art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" With this view the admiration and sympathy of the spectators are enlisted in favour of Edipus as a great and wise king and the father of his people (v. 1); and if his self-assertion and confidence, his hot temper and haughty spirit, tend in any degree to diminish our respect, on the other hand they heighten the horror of his fall and the pitiable effect of his sufferings. ŒEd. R. 3. Ικτηρίοις κλάδοισιν ἐξεστεμμένοι. Wunder, in his Excursion on this verse, has assembled many passages, chiefly from tragedy, relating to the apıĝıs of suppliants to the altars, with ἱκτήριοι or ἱκτηρες κλάδοι, called in one word ikeσial. They were boughs, he says, of olive wreathed with wool, hence called στέφη οι στέμματα, borne in the hands, laid down on the altars by the suppliants when seated on ẞálpa, taken away when they rose with favorable hopes, otherwise left there. Wunder follows the Scholiast in explaining teoreμμévo to mean no more than κεκοσμημένοι (ἔχοντες κλάδους ἱκτηρίους), and this he thinks may be said of the suppliants even when they have laid down their boughs on the altars. Schneidewin, following Matthiæ (though not citing him), considers ἐξεστεμμένοι = ἐχόντες ἐστεμμένους, the wreathing of the boughs being transferred to the suppliants themselves. Of these interpretations I prefer the latter, for, as éģeoteμμévov is afterwards (v. 19) used alone to describe the guise of suppliants, I think it must include the idea of the wreathed boughs. But, after all, have we not here one of those many tantalizing ancient customs, which we can but imperfectly comprehend in the absence of minute description, or (what would be better still) glyptic representation? For instance, what was the size and form of these kλádoi? That they were not cumbersome, appears from their being laid in numbers on the altar, and from the fact that Jocasta comes on the stage with several of them in her hands at the same time. In the first book of the Iliad (which Wunder has omitted to |