4. Τελεσσιδώτειρα, The Editors have no hesitation in expressing their entire assent to all, which the learned Reviewer has written about this word. 5. Ηγάθεος, Θεῖος, Δῖος. The Editors have equal pleasure in acknowledging the propriety of all, which the Reviewer has said about these words. 6. Αἰγύπτης. "Quod obiter addunt doctissimi Editores, in Bekkeri Anecd. 1, 361. (Αἰγύπτης συβότης, νομεύς,) scribendum sibi videri Αἰγιβότης vel Alyoẞórns, id nobis quidem parum verisimile videtur, quia addita interpretatio rußóτns, voμeùs, 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 bitting the mark. With respect to their substitution of Alyiẞórs or Αἰγοβότης for Αἰγύπτης, they do not agree with the learned Professor in thinking that the explanation subjoined to the gloss, (cußorns, voμsùs,) does not sufficiently suit that conjecture. On the contrary, it seems to them to derive confirmation from that very circumstance. For, if σußórns could not have been used by the Grammarian to explain αἰγοβότης, 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. 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 poowy. In ea re nos nullo modo assentientes habent. Primum enim rýxwv ailépa aperte poeticum est, nec mirum, qui prosa oratione utebantur, a poetica dictione abstinuisse. Deinde negamus etiam omnino, poowv scribere potuisse, qui versus illos fecit, non propter verbum, sed propter tempus verbi. Txwv Τήκων enim recte ille dicere potuit, quod id paullatim fit; proov autem non potuit, quia rumpi ætherem unius momenti est, sed debuisset pas 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 poowv. But, while they admit that Tyxwv is poetical, they must ever think that pas 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 ραγείσης of Suidas, and the Dos pav Tòv aitépa 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, 'Prkas & ailépa dĩov, ȧxívητov πρìv 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 matters. 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 αιθέρα διαν, ἀκινήτην πρὶν ἐοῦσαν.” On the first perusal of this passage the Editors were disposed to think, that by a blunder of the press, άxivýτny had been substituted for axívnτov, 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 doctissimi, Ο Κισσεὺς ̓Απόλλων, ὁ Καβαῖος, ὁ μάντις. De eo ita scribunt: Ubi Barnes. ad Eurip. Bacch. 408. pro Kaßaïos reponit i 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, o 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. KIGGEús 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 xal Baxxos, Scholiasta, nou Poeta dignum est, nec fieri ullo modo potuit, ut ita Aeschylus scriberet. Deinde vero, etsi aẞáčios 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 Zaßaios Bacchi, non Apollinis cognomen est, quis non videt, perinde esse, utrum ille Zaßaios, an Báxxos dicatur? ut minime necessarium sit, ipsum hic nomen Báxxos legi. Denique in eo quoque repugnare sibi videntur, quod nomen Kroes 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 Kioσeus 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 Kiosus 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 that i Zaßaios and ó Bάxxos are not the same. They must, however, now declare that they agree with the learned Professor in rejecting ó xaì Báxxos as a phrase more worthy of a Scholiast than Poet, and in adopting the emendation of Barnes, i 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 pávris. Macrobius inferred from this verse the identity of Bacchus and Apollo, because the names ὁ Κισσεὺς, 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 nou 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, παναίολε, χρυσεοφεγγές. While the Editors now admit that Orpheus might have applied to Πάν the epithets αιόλος, aud χρυσεοφεγγής, they do not think i that the reading Пlàv alóλs is, as the learned Reviewer intimates, necessary to establish the truth of Macrobius's remark. The words are these:-"Solem esse omnia et Orpheus testatur his versibus: Κέκλυθι τηλεπόρου δίνης ἑλικαυγέα κύκλον Οὐρανίαις στροφάλιγξι περίδρομον αἰὲν ἑλίσσων, If Orpheus calls the Sun Jupiter, Bacchus, the Father of the World, the Father of the Earth, Macrobius might perhaps justly infer, "Solem esse omnia" according to the Orphic theology. Though Pan be called in Hymn xi=x. xóσμ010 tò cúμπаv, yet thè Editors think that the Reviewer reasons too acutely in concluding 1. that Orpheus wrote Пlàv aióλs in that sense, and 2. that Macrobius so understood these words. If Macrobius had so understood them, he need have cited only the last of the four lines to prove that in the Orphic theology the Sun is every thing,"Ηλιε παγγενέτος, Πὰν αἰόλε, χρυσεοφεγγὲς, and as the words Πὴν αἰόλε do not necessarily involve this idea, but might be taken by his readers in the common sense, he would no doubt have added some remark to prevent such misinterpretation of them. As to the thirteen verses attributed to Hermes in Stobæus, which Heeren considers as Orphic, the Editors are now disposed not to adopt his opinion; for, as the learned Reviewer observes, et argumentum paulo aliud videtur, nec dicendi genus plane cum ceteris convenit.” 66 "Quod vero ad undecim illos, sive decem potius, versus attinet, ab eodem Stob. in Eclogis 1. 3. p. 68. servatos, eos etiam negamus Orphicos esse, si non aliis de caussis, certe propter dialectum Doricam. Quare, quod aiunt, vindicasse Heerenium hos versus Orpheo, id vellemus argumentis demonstrassent. Namque illi Orphicorum conditores non alia dialecto usi sunt, aut uti potuerunt, quam ea, quæ ab omnibus Græcis antiquissimorum poetarum lingua haberetur: unde iis a Dorica abstinendum fuit. Præterea vero nihil in istis versibus est, quod non æque a quovis alio, quam ab Orphico scriptore, dici potuerit. Eoque minus, ut speramus, mirabuntur Editores doctissimi, quod neque quum Orphica ederemus, versus. illos commemorandos putavimus, neque nunc adducimur, ut eos Orphicis adnumerandos esse nobis persuadeamus." The Editors have stated the grounds, on which Heeren attributed VOL. XIX. CI. JI. NO. XXXVII. H |