« PoprzedniaDalej »
the word can be interpreted in any other sense; but they are ready to consider carefully any other interpretation, which the learned Reviewer may propose. They add, that the interpretation of λéλoyxs in an active sense, is not peculiar to Volger and themselves. λελογχε « Constructio sic concipienda : 'Ο ἔρος ἀελίω λελογχέ μοι τὸ λαμπρὸν xai Tò xaλóv." Schweigh. The version of Dalechamp can scarcely be admitted by the Reviewer, because it is quite at variance with the interpretation of Clearchus. "Ego delicias amo; feri tamen hominis mihi sorte amor contigit, et honestus, et splendidus."
"Huic Volgero, qui dissuadentibus nobis edidit Fragmenta Sapphus, Editores Thesauri etiam in rebus metricis aliquid tribuere videntur, ut ex eo colligimus, quod in adnotatione subiecta his verbis eius mentionem faciunt: Versus in ordinem redigendos aliis relinquimus, (v. Volger. p. 89.)' at in re metrica quum omnino núlla est huius auctoritas, tum hoc in loco omissionis signo ante pos ponendo fecit id, quod quivis, ubi meliora desunt, facere potest.'
With metrical questions the Editors do not meddle, because they are incompetent to the discussion of them. But for this very reason they think it to be their duty to refer the student to such writers, as have touched on them. They do not, however, conceive that in doing so they are responsible for the opinions of those writers, whether right or wrong, unless they commit themselves by direct approbation or censure of them. In the present instance the Editors have not so committed themselves.
"Eiusdem Volgeri longam adnotationem, in qua inauditi quidam trimetri trochaici, et perinepte quidem restituuntur, non dubitarunt totam exhibere p. 301."
The Editors here also have not expressed any approbation of the verses as restored by Volger. They have merely, conformably to their plan of collecting materials for the use of future editors of classical works, recorded what Volger has said about the metre, and also what he has said about the sense of the corrupt passage in question. The very folly and ignorance, and inaccuracy of some writers, have not unfrequently conducted the Editors, while employed in the detection of them, to the right reading or the right interpretation of passages, which neither the acuteness, nor the learning, nor the accuracy of others could correct, or explain.
The Editors have no hesitation in expressing their entire assent to all, which the learned Reviewer has written about this word.
5. Ηγάθεος, Θεῖος, Δίος.
The Editors have equal pleasure in acknowledging the propriety of all, which the Reviewer has said about these words,
"Quod obiter addunt doctissimi Editores, in Bekkeri Anecd. 1, 361. (Αἰγύπτης· συβότης, νομεύς,) scribendum sibi videri Αἰγιβότης vel Aiyoßórns, id nobis quidem parum verisimile videtur, quia addita interpretatio außórns, vousùs, non satis quadrat. Periculosum est, huiusmodi verba tentare, ac præstat, ut nos quidem censemus, exspectare, dum aliunde certius quid proferatur.'
Though the Editors may have failed in their conjecture, yet this very failure may incite some critics to more successful efforts, which, but for the Editors, might never have been made. So far therefore from discouraging all attempts at conjectural criticism in such difficulties, the Editors would strongly recommend them as likely to elicit sooner or later the true reading. The more conjectures the critic has before him, the greater will be his chance of hitting the mark. With respect to their substitution of Alyßórns Αἰγιβότης Θ' Αἰγοβίτης for Αἰγύπτης, they do not agree with the learned Professor in thinking that the explanation subjoined to the gloss, (außórns, voμsùs,) does not sufficiently suit that conjecture. On the contrary, it seems to them to derive confirmation, from that very circumstance. For, if oußórns could not have been used by the Grammarian to explain αἰγοβίτης, so neither could νομεύς be conjoined with συβότης, as if it were synonymous with it, because vousùs is applied to sheep, and cattle, and it may be, to goats, but not to pigs. In the absence of the passage, which the Grammarian had in his eye, it is impossible for the learned Reviewer to decide whether aiyoßórns could not have been the word, because the sense might not have been affected whether we understood a shepherd, or a goatherd, or a swineherd.
7. Τήκων, ῥήσσων αιθέρα.
"P. 260. afferunt Fragmentum ex Orphicis, servatum a Macrob. 1, 18.
Τήκων αἰθέρα θεῖον, ἀκίνητόν περ ἐόντα.
In adnotatione subjecta, quoniam et Damascius de hac ipsa re dicat νεφέλης ραγείσης, et Suid. v. Ορφεύς scribat, "Εφησε δὲ ὅτι φῶς ῥῆξαν τὸν αἰθέρα ἐφώτισε τὴν γῆν, coniciunt τήκων glossam esse, qua expulsa fuerit genuina scriptura poov. In ea re nos nullo modo assentientes habent. Primum enim Tyxwv ailépa aperte poeticum est, nec mirum, qui prosa oratione utebantur, a poetica dictione abstinuisse. Deinde negamus etiam omnino, proov scribere potuisse, qui versus illos fecit, non propter verbum, sed propter tempus verbi. Týnwv enim recte ille dicere potuit, quod id paullatim fit; poowy autem non potuit, quia rumpi ætherem unius momenti est, sed debuisset as dicere, quemadmodum et Damascius et Suid. aoristo sunt usi.” The Editors allow that Orpheus could not, for the reason assigned by the Reviewer, have said poowy. But, while they admit that Txwv is poetical, they must ever think that pygas would have been more so while they admit that there is nothing surprising that the prosaic word should differ from the poetic, they must ever be surprised at the fact, that the prosaic word should be by far the strongest and the most appropriate expression. How can we reconcile to our notions of divine majesty and power that Horus should have been produced by the slow and gradual liquefaction of the æther, and not by the instantaneous bursting of unanimous clouds? How can we account for the fact that the poet describes the birth of Horus by a term far below the dignity of the being produced and the majesty of the producing God, when the prose writers have employed an expression worthy of both? In one way only can we reconcile the glaring contradiction by substituting for τήκων some word, which is analogous to the νεφέλης ῥαγείσης of Suidas, and the Pas pav Tov ailépa of Damascius. Whence could these writers, Suid. and Damasc., have drawn their phrase but from the Orphic theology? and if, as there is good reason to believe, both of them had in view these very verses preserved by Macrobius, can there henceforth be a doubt in the Reviewer's mind that Orpheus, whose doctrines they are delivering, used some word perfectly synonymous with the one employed by themselves? What this word was, whether the same word, 'Pas d'altépa dïov, άxívηtov πpìv éóvτa, or some other word, the Editors will not pretend to say, but are ready to receive the suggestions of the learned Reviewer himself; for he is well qualified to decide on such
"Quumque Homerus, qui auctor Epicis et dux fuit in plerisque. rebus, feminino genere dicat ailépa diav, videndum erat, ne ita scriptum ab Orphico illo existimare deberemus, Τήκων αἰθέρα διαν, ἀκινήτην πρὶν ἐοῦσαν.”
On the first perusal of this passage the Editors were disposed to think, that by a blunder of the press, άxivýτŋv had been substituted for anivηrov, but on referring to the Ms. of the Reviewer, they found that it so stands in his own hand-writing. They are, however, persuaded that the mistake is to be attributed to the pen, and not to the head of the writer.
8. Ο Κισσεὺς ̓Απόλλων, ὁ Καβαῖος, ὁ μάντις,
"P. 261. b. Aeschyli Fragm. e Macrob. 1, 18. afferunt Editores doctissini, Ο Κισσεὺς ̓Απόλλων, ὁ Καβαῖος, ὁ μάντις. De eo ita scribunt: Ubi Barnes. ad Eurip. Bacch. 408. pro Kaßaios reponit o Zabalos, sed Meurs. (probante Butlero ad Aesch. 8, 250. qui quæ fuerint ipsa verba Aeschyli, definire non audet,) legit ó xaì Baxxos, idque omnino recte. Macrob. enim testatur, Aeschylum in illo versu ad eandem cum Euripide sententiam dixisse Apollinem Liberumque unum eundemque deum esse. At nisi cum Meursio legas, i xal Báxxos, nihil ibi est, e quo Macrobii mens erui possit. Nemo enim dixerit, Macrob. hac una de causa versum attulisse, quod Aeschylus Apollinem Korea appellarit, quo epitheto Bacchus alibi ornatur. Suid. Kioσsús ó Aióvuros.' Addunt deinde alia, quæ ad Bacchum Korea pertineant. At primo vellemus, quæ Meursii et Butleri culpa est, non etiam in se admisissent Editores præstantissimi. Nam illud, ó xaì Baxxos, Scholiasta, nou Poeta dignum est, nec fieri ullo modo potuit, ut ita Aeschylus scriberet. Deinde vero, etsi aßášios potius, quam Zaßaios dici solet Bacchus, tamen vix putamus dubitandum esse, quin probanda sit Barnesii conjectura: ad quam refutandam quod afferunt Editores, confirmandæ inservit. Etenim si Zapatos Bacchi, non Apollinis cognomen est, quis non videt, perinde esse, utrum ille Zapatos, an Baxxos dicatur? ut minime necessarium sit, ipsum hic nomen Baxxos legi. Denique in eo quoque repugnare sibi videntur, quod nomen Koσes satis esse ad Bacchum significandum negant. Hoc enim si demonstrare volebant, etiam alios deos isto cognomine appellari ostendendum erat: nunc vero, quum Bacchi esse eam appellationem doceant, quid aliud, quam id ipsum, quod negabant, efficiunt, non posse alium, quam Bacchum, intelligi ?"
The Editors have not denied that the appellation Kiσes would be a sufficient designation of Bacchus, (for the examples, which they have cited, prove the contrary,) nor did they mean to insinuate that
it might be taken for the name of some other god. But their meaning was this, that, if the verse of Aeschylus had contained no other proof of the identity of Bacchus and Apollo except the junction of the words, ὁ Κισσεὺς ̓Απόλλων, Macrobius would scarcely have inferred that identity without expressly adding that Kirosus was a sirname of Bacchus, and could not for certain reasons be applied to Apollo, except on the notion of their being one and the same god. Under this impression they rejected the conjecture of Barnes ὁ Σαβαῖος, for the corrupt reading ὁ Καβαῖος, and adopted the reading of Meursius, ὁ καὶ Βάκχος, as if ὁ Σαβαῖος and ὁ Βάκχος were not, as they indisputably are, one and the same god. Dr. Butler also approves of Meursius's conjecture under the same notion tható Zaßaios and ó Báxxos are not the same. They must, how ever, now declare that they agree with the learned Professor in rejecting ỏ xaì Báxxos as a phrase more worthy of a Scholiast than a Poet, and in adopting the emendation of Barnes, ó Zaßaios. The Editors conceive that Eschylus is speaking not of Bacchus, but of Apollo. For, if he were speaking of Bacchus, he would scarcely have applied to him the appellation ó μávrig. Macrobius inferred from this verse the identity of Bacchus and Apollo, because the names ὁ Κισσεύς, ὁ Σαβαῖος, which were considered as peculiar to Bacchus, are there applied to Apollo.
"Ubi Butleri mentionem faciunt Editores, non debebant illud addere,' Qui quæ fuerint ipsa verba Aeschyli, definire non audet.? Nam quæ quis sensu cassa scribit, cur quæso repetantur? Ipsa verba Aeschyli sunt, quæ Macrobius posuit. Illud volebat Butlerus dicere, veram se horum verborum scripturam definire non audere.”
Nor did the Editors suppose that Dr. Butler had any other meaning. It is their general practice to employ, for fear of mistakes, or the suspicion of mistakes, the very words of the Authors, whom they quote, and in the present instance they wished to convey to their readers in Dr. Butler's own language, the fact that he had not attempted any arrangement of the words, or any criticism respecting them, except by expressing his approbation of Meursius's reading ὁ καὶ Βάκχος.
9. Ηλιε παγγενέτος, παναίολο, χρυσεοφεγγές.
While the Editors now admit that Orpheus might have applied to lày the epithets αιόλος, and χρυσεοφεγγής, they do not think