tatem de se spem excitavit, qualem nemo ante eum huic studiorum generi addictus adolescentulus. In the second place, we have to express our obligations to the zeal of Mr. E. in collecting facts connected with the history of Greek MSS. still existing in the different libraries of the Continent; and while we congratulate him on the partial success of his exertions on this no secondary point, we feel as 'acutely as he must the death of all the hopes, so long cherished by first-rate scholars, of finding some venerable documents, which confirming all the better conjectures hitherto made, and preventing all the worse to be made hereafter, might present a text to be neither hacked by emendatory, nor tortured still more by explanatory criticism. It seems however that the readers of Euripides must be content to endure whatever audacity and dulness may inflict corrupted text, from the want of documents of unexceptionable authority. on a Of the five MSS. to which Mr. E. has had access so little is the value, that he does not hesitate to avow, that he should not be surprised were the reader to deny that any advantage had been obtained from the libraries in Italy. In fact, no other opinion could be expected, even before the appearance of this volume, from those whom Mr. E. in his preface to the Medea (No. 6.) had led to consider the Palatine MS. (No. 287.) as a transcript of that identical one, which Aldus used as the basis of his edition. Such at least was the impression left upon our minds; and we have only to add that should this conjecture be found eventually to be the fact, it will tend to diminish considerably the regret now felt for the loss of the MS. itself, from which the Aldine copy was derived.. In two only of the five MSS. is the Bacchæ found as entire as in the edition of Aldus. But even the Florentine (Laurentian. Plut. xxxi. 1.) was, like the other three, deficient originally, though subsequently supplied from the Aldine edition, whose very typographical errors are faithfully copied. With the knowledge of such a fact, who does not laugh at the sober caution of superstitious editors, unwilling to disturb even a printed text? and who consider that what is supported by a MS. is something too sacred to be touched by profane hands, ignorant all the while of the real value that ought to be placed on either the printed or written copy, and little dreaming that the latter might even be a modern transcript of the former. Before we leave the subject of MSS. we beg to say a word on the unfounded suspicion thrown out by Brunck against the veracity of Stephens, who is accused of having quoted readings from MSS. which never existed. A similar charge was made by one Fischer against the same immortal scholar, in the case of the MSS. of Plato, and on no better foundation. We are sorry to find Mr. E. giving his assent to the suspicions of that critic, whose knowledge on points connected with MSS. was so little as to lead him to puff off a miserable, Paris copy, (N. 2712.) as one, quo nec melior nec antiquior alter in Erudi torum notitiam venit, while he totally neglected another MS. (N. 2713.) in the same library, which is beyond compare the oldest and most valuable MS. of Euripides in every respect at present existing. The real fact we suspect will be found to be, not that H. Stephens collated MSS, himself, but that he met with two veteres codices; by which appellation he meant to designate two copies of the Aldine edition collated, probably, by Victorius with MSS., one of which seems to have been the same as that subsequently inspected by Vossius at Florence, and at present preserved at Copenhagen; and the other, a MS. Since lost, though similar to the Palatine. This conjecture, that H. Stephens was in communication with Victorius, is confirmed by the fact, that Stephens published the Supplement of the Agamemnon from Victorius's papers; and by observing that the other plays of Euripides, whose various readings were not published by Stephens, and which form the first volume of the Aldine edition, are preserved in two copies, one at Paris and one at Munich, (the last of which is known to be in the hand-writing of Victorius,) little doubt can remain that each copy of the second volume of Aldus, containing, like the first, collations by Victorius, fell into the hands of Stephens, and were afterwards, "as being useless, destroyed, and that, consequently, all attempts to recover the second volume must be considered perfectly nugatory. That H. Stephens saw MSS. or collations of MSS. is quite clear; as he was the first to supply more than one lacuna from his MSS., verified by the inspection of other documents, and which supplements were of such a nature as to do away all idea of forgery on his part. But in truth, Brunck's intimacy with Euripides was very little; and on that score we might be disposed to speak harshly of his precipitancy, were we not restrained by the consideration of the great and valuable services, which he has done to Greek literature by his other deservedly esteemed publications One point more connected with the preliminary matter, and we have done. Mr. E., in the Addenda ad v. 261, discusses the right of pro prietorship between Scaliger and Duport to certain conjectures, and expresses a wish to know, quo auctore tot Scaligeri conjesturas Duporto tribuerit Barnesius. " If Mr. E. will look into the book mentioned by Mr. Burges in his preface to the Troades, p. ix. note ‡, he will discover the -source of Barnes' mistakes; and if he wishes to know what is the copy of Canter's edition, to which reference is made in the Harleian MS. 3321. we can inform him that it is the identical one preserved at Leyden amongst Vossius' books, N. 217. from which we have seen a transcript of all the Scaligeriana, done by, and in the possession of, Mr. Burges, who has likewise 'some MS. notes of Valckenaer more full than those which Mr. Gaisford has communicated to Mr. E., and to which Mr. B. alluded, when he announced his intended edition by the following title: Εὐριπίδου Βάκχαι, EURIPIDIS BACCHE. Huic editioni versus circiter trecenos haud ita pridem repertos inseruit, notulasque e schedis MSS. Ludovici Casp. Valckenaeri et Joannis Piersoni evulgavit, suasque addidit Georgius Burges, *In the commencement of this article, we have considered Mr. E.'s publication in the character of a reprint. This expression, however, we deem it requisite to modify and explain, Mr. E. we perceive, intends his edition in usum studiosa juventutis. As he means by the phrase, studious youth, young men at the close of their scholastic, or commencement of their academic career, 'neither of whom have the means of obtaining access to large libraries, he has found himself under the necessity of extracting almost all the notes of preceding editors. But we should do Mr. E. manifest injustice, did we insinuate (for that is the weapon which Reviewers prize, for its security to themselves, and employ, for its powerful effect against others) that the present pub lication has no value of its own from the introduction of origi nal matter. In fact, from the specimens bere and there given, we cannot but think that Mr. E. would have better consulted his fame by pursuing the plan adopted in his edition of the Acharnenses, and rescuing his mind from the thraldom of preceding commentators; although we are aware that he would make his edition more popular by seeming not to raise himself above the level of the unpresuming editors of the modern school. Yet had Mr. E. aimed at the higher ambition of continuing to imitate the Scaligers and Bentleys of the best days of Grecian literature, he might have left to others the merit of following the steps of John Brodæus, or sitting in the chair of Joshua Barnes. 2 C VOL. XXIII. CI. JI. NO. XLVI. . Amongst the novelties of this edition must be reckoned the Greek life of Euripides, transcribed from a MS. at Milan, containing the first three plays. A similar piece of biography attributed to Thomas Magister is found prefixed to the Aldine edition of Euripides, and another somewhat different in Suidas v. Εὐριπίδης, extracted from Hesychius Illustrius De claris Scriptoribus. From the collation of these three pieces, a doubt suggests itself, whether the first wife of Euripides was Χοιρίλη οι Χοιρίνη. The latter we suspect to have been the real name, and the other a pun upon it, through the word χώρος, whose signiacation in Comedy is well known from a celebrated scene in the Acharnenses. To the same kind of joke upon Euripides old and vixen wife, we would refer the gloss in Suidas: Χοιρίλη, ἡ Εκάβη. Upon the words δοκεῖ δὲ αὐτῷ (Εὐριπίδη) καὶ Σωκράτης ὁ φιλό σοφος καὶ Μνησίλοχος συμπεποιηκέναι τινα, ὥς φησι Τηλεκλείδης" Μνη σίλοχος δὲ ἐκεῖνος Φρυγικόν τι δράμα καινὸν Εὐριπίδη καὶ Σωκράτης υποτίθησιν, Μr. E. aptly quotes Diogen. Laert. ii. 18. ἐδόκει δὲ συμποιεῖν Εὐριπίδῃ ὅθεν Μνησίλοχος οὕτω φησί· Φρύγες ἐστὶ καινὸν δράμα τοῦτ ̓ Εὐριπίδου, ᾧ καὶ Σωκράτης τὰ φρύγανα υποτίθηση: but unfortunately he leaves to others the difficulty of eliciting the words of the comic poet Teleclides from such a mutilated representation. Had Mr. E. given us a clue by proposing some kind of conjecture, we might, perhaps, have approximated nearer to the truth than by reading, A. Πόθεν δ ̓ ἐκεῖνος. Μνησίλο χους Β. ήν τις Φρυγών Α. Φρύγες δὲ τί; Β. καινὸν δρῶμα τοῦτ' Ευριπίδου, τι καὶ τὰ φρύγαν ̓ ὑποτίθησι Σωκράτης, to which last verse, due to the sagacity of Menagius, there lies one objection in the use of the active voice instead of the middle. Compare Aristophanes in Pac. 1026. Ούκουν δοκῶ σοι μαντικῶς τὸ φρύγα τον τίθεσθαι: where Suidas in Φρύγανον τίθεσθαι seems to have read οὐκ εὖ. 3. At the words μάλα ἔπραττε παρ' αὐτῷ, Mr. E. writes Exci disse videtur εὖ, λαμπρῶς, aut ejusmodi aliquid, ante ἔπραττε We are surprised he should have overlooked an obvious emen dation, μεγάλα for μάλα. - By comparing the words of the Milan biographer, ἐλέγετο δὲ καὶ βαθὺν πώγωνα θρέψαι καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ὄψεως φακοὺς ἐσχηκέναι, with those of Thomas Magister, ἦν δὲ σκυθρωπός, καθὰ καὶ ̓Αριστοφάνης σκώπτων φησὶν, Στρυφνὸς ἔμοιγε προσειπεῖν Εὐριπίδης, (which frag ment, by the way, Brunck, if we mistake not, has omitted,) a las cuna may be supplied in the Acharnenses, ν. 395, where from the words of the scholiast, τοῦ Δικαιοπόλιδος κρούσαντος τὴν θύραν Κηφισοφῶν ὑπακούει, it is quite plain that Cephisophon's name must have been mentioned in the text. The whole passage as ito came from the hands of Aristophanes was doubtless to the following effects, αυτά Κηφισοφών. ΚΗΦ. τίς οὗτος; ΔΙΚ, ἔστ ̓ ΕὐριπίδηςΚΗΦ. ἔνδον τε κοὐκ ἐστ ̓ ἔνδον, εἰ γνώμην ἔχεις. ΤΟ ΑΙΚ. πῶς ἔνδον, εἶτ ̓ οὐκ ἔνδον; ΚΗΦ. ὀρθῶς, ὦ γέρον ὁ νοῦς μὲν, ἔξω συλλέγων ἐπύλλια, οὐκ ἔνδον, αὐτὸς δ ̓ ἔνδον ἀναβάδην ποεῖ Είναι τραγωδίας. ΔΙΚ, ὦ τρὶς μακάρι ̓ Εὐριπίδης, ἂν ὁ δοῦλος εὖ, καὶ φὰς σοφόν γ', ὑποκρίνεται· bas file ἐκκάλεσον αὐτόν. ΚΗΦ. ἀλλ ̓ ἀδύνατον ΔΙΚ. ἀλλ ̓ ὅμως οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἀπέλθοιμ'· ΚΗΦ. ἀλλὰ κόψον τὴν θύραν, αυτός αὐτός· προσειπεῖν ἦν ἔμοιγ' Εὐριπίδης στρυφνός. ΔΙΚ. βαθὺν πώγωνα θρέψαι λεγόμενος ἐπί τε προσώπου σου φάκους ἐσχηκέναι, Εὐριπίδιον ἄκουσον, εἴπερ τού ποτε I To those, who know that the slave Cephisophon was reported to assist his master Euripides in the double character of a writer and actor, the joke in the words Κηφισοφῶν ἐστ' Ευριπίδης, and the allusion in the Εὐριπίδης, ὃν ὁ δοῦλος εὖ ὑποκρίνεται needs no explanation, nor will the pun in Κηφισοφῶν and καὶ φὰς σοφὸν be thought unworthy of Aristophanes, who frequently ridicules the similar etymological puns of Euripides. For the alterations, perhaps too violent, made in the text, something ought to be said; but at present the only remark requisite is, that the change of κόψω into κόψον is absolutely necessary. Since if Dicropolis had intended unbidden to knock, he would not have called the servant, who now gives, what is wanting in the common reading, an excuse for not calling his master, and going away unseen by him. The words βαθὺν ἐσχηκέναι are said with a view to apprise the spectators in what dress Euripides will shortly ap pear, where due care is taken in the mention of φάρους to allude to the trade of Euripides' mother. But we have wandered from the Tragic to the Comic poet of Athens; and, though perhaps out of place, we will observe that in Ran. 1302. Σχολιῶν Μελί του καὶ Καρικῶν αὐλημάτων, no allusion is made to a Tragic writer of the name of Melitus, but to Μελίτω the first wife of Eu ripides, and that consequently we ought to read Mexirous here apd in the next verse, Θρήνων τε Χοιρίλων τάχα δηλωθήσεται, instead of Θρήνων χορείων· τάχα δὲ δηλωθήσεται ; where a similar al lusion is made to Χοιρίλη the second wife of Euripides ; neither of which ladies seems to have possessed a tongue most musical |