CLII. Cum in suscepto opere restituendæ Homericæ linguæ, complurium verborum formæ haud paullo immutandæ erunt, plus ad rem arbitratus sum ea verba in ordine recensere, atque rationes, quas in singulis immutandis, sequutus sim, singulis subjungere, quam crebris repetitionibus earundem observationum in annotationibus, lectorem pariter ac me ipsum defatigare. In his autem, si a viris summis Bentleio, Heyneo, &c. haud raro dissentiam, ne mihi obsit eorum nomen et auctoritas; at judicium suum integrum ac sincerum lector unusquisque adhibeat, etiam atque etiam precor. In re tam obscura, quotus quisque criticorum non sæpe et egregiè hallucinatus est? neque me communi sorti exemptum esse speravi at dummodo critici non rabulæ more in alienos errores animadvertam, parem indulgentiam in meos me poscere æquum est. Ob multos libro de hac re Anglicè scripto piacularem esse profiteor: attamen cum pari jure gloriari liceat, plura conjecturis assecutum esse, quæ, viris criticis tunc fastidita, veterum monumentorum fide nunc comprobata sunt, verecundiæ simul ac modestiæ consultum iri putavi, si neutra sigillatim retractarem aut perscrutarer curiosius quam opus esset ut vera elucerent, falsa proderentur: nam hoc saltem, salva modestia, gloriari licet, veritatem non victoriam in omni disputatione, tam critica quam philosophica, animo me meo finem unicè propositum habuisse, neque ullam unquam præsumptam opinionem tanto amore amplexum esse, ut non, meliora edoctus, sponte ac libenter repudiarem. De re etymologica multa atque ingeniosa protulit Daniel Lennep, sed omnia e suo ipsius aut magistrorum Tiberii Hemsterhuisii et Ludovici Caspari Valkenærii ingeniis deprompta, omni veterum inscriptionum et dialectorum auctoritate neglecta, neque ulla ratione habita vel sermonis vel metri Homerici; e quibus solis leges ac normas in regulis suis generalibus stabiliendis accersere et accipere debuerat. Ipsæ itaque regulæ, perinde atque omnia ex iis deducta, harum rerum studiosis maximè præcavendæ sunt; neque ullo modo auscultandum docenti, "AMNOZ Latinè AGNUS ex ΑΜΕΝΟΣ participio verbi ΑΜΩ formatum esse; quod ΑΜΕΝΟΣ et AMNOX is propriè diceretur, sensu medio, qui complecteretur et amplecteretur; vel, sensu passivo, quem amplecteretur alius, sive, qui amaretur, quod tenerrimo agno non incongruum nomen.' Hisce et talibus gaudeant ii quibus argutiæ e longinquo petitæ in deliciis sint; nobis autem, quo minus doctrinæ tam reconditæ et exquisite insit, eo etiam minus sensu communi sic carere licet; ita ut non aliunde AMNOZ et AGNUS quam ex A privativo cum MΕΝΟΣ et ΓΟΝΟΣ deducenda videantur-ΑΜΕΝΟΣ et ΑΓΟΝΟΣ, contracta in ΑΜΝΟΣ et ΑΓΝΟΣ. Neque aliter in 1 Etymolog. Vol. I. p. 132. aliis, obvia et simplicia abstrusis et eruditis omnino præferenda erunt. Quam vero sit periculosum in via tam lubrica et distorta cæcutientes errare, nugæ hujusmodi, quas viri tanti tam cumulatè congesserunt, satis superque demonstrant. Ut enim concedamus verba primitiva quamplurima periisse, quis tamen discreverit, quæ fuerint deperditorum formæ, nisi quorum fragmina aut reliquiæ in dialectis aut monumentis antiquis supersint? Atque si e conjecturis analogicis primitiva pro libitu supponamus, ut exinde de rivata et vulgata ad normam qualemcunque refingamus et constituamus, qua denique ratione evitabimus errores, qui e falsis principiis sponte pullulant, et quibus etymologica Lenneppiana haud minus quam antiquiora ubique scatere fatendum est. Audacter tamen progrediamur quatenus veterum dialectorum auctoritas, monumentorum fides, et justa metri ac sermonis ratio viam ostendant; at non ulterius. REMARKS ON LONGINUS. TO THE EDITOR OF THE CLASSICAL JOURnal. On reading over some remarks of an anonymous correspondent of yours, on Longinus (Classical Journal, vi. p. 340.) I am induced to trouble you with some observations on the 1st passage commented on. Speaking of the emulation excited by prizes awarded at the public games of old, he says, ἑκάστοτε τὰ ψυχικὰ προτερήματα τῶν μητόρων μελετώμενα ἀκονᾶται, καὶ οἷον ἐκτρίβεται, κ. τ. λ. Your Core respondent thinks the author uses "two distinct metaphors, the first taken from a whet-stone, the second from a fire-stone." p. 342. But he might have considered that the word exrpißoμai, by no means conveys the idea of sudden collision necessary to extract a spark from the flint or "firestone" by steel; but rather a continued rubbing, or friction. Ruhnken justly observes, in a passage quoted by the author, that the allusion was borrowed from Plato, Polit. iv. and nearly in the same words; which metaphor was likewise copied by Philo, with the addition of the name of the instrument (rupeiov), by means of which, fire was generated by friction : τρίβοντες . . . καθάπερ ἐκ πυρείων. v. 1. p. 683. An unfor tunate scholiast, on a passage in Lucian's Ver. Hist. 1. Tà Tuρsĩα συντρίψαντες, καὶ ἀνακαύσαντες (sc. πῦρ·) says, τὰ πυρεῖα, τοὺς πυρεκβο Airas Aibous, from whence came the idea of the "fire-stone." There is, however, a quotation from Apoll. Rhodius, where the action of ... προστρι exciting fire by the πυρεῖον is more distinctly noted, Τοὶ δ' αμφε πυρήνα δινεύεσκον, where the term αμφιδινεύω expresses the rotatory motion made use of; and here the scholiast is not satisfactory in describing the instrument; as he says, τà Tugia Tauтα τà TеOOтgiβόμενα ἀλλήλοις, πρὸς τὸ πῦς ἐγγενῶν: though evidently the one part of the instrument is Stationary; and in the latter part of this passage I suspect a corruption in the text. It is thus continued: ὧν τὸ μέν ἐστιν ὕπτιον, ὁ καλεῖται στορεύς. Two parts are evidently implied, which is the fact respecting this instrument, and one only has a name given it; and, as the word oropeus, from oropeúw, sterno, must mean the same as oxapa, which will be presently described, it cannot be applied to Tov, the upper or superior part. I would read τὸ μέν ἐστι τρύπανον (v. infr.) ὁ δὲ στορεύς. This instrument, which we may aptly call a wooden tinder-box, is, however, minutely described by an ancient author,' whose works are seldom perused. In his 4th book, Tepi úтwy, c. 9. he says it Cúrwv, consisted of two parts: the first called oxaga, the term used by the Greeks, for the hearth-place of a chimney, and very appropriate to its nature. It is described as a flat piece of dry timber, with a circular excavation in the centre: the second was called Tрúnavov, analogous to the instrument called the Terebra. The mode of exciting a flame, was by a brisk circulation of the Tρúnavov in the cavity of the oxapa, which was furnished with dry leaves, or something easily taking fire, (hence it might likewise have the name of σTOGEús). Theophrastus seems to have studied the nature of this instrument; for he says, it is proper to have the distinct parts of wood of different quality; the one soft and porous, the other closegrained and hard: and, as the former is more susceptible of ignition, he calls them, úλa Ospuá. He hence seems to think the effect is produced from innate, or latent heat, and not from friction; and he instances an effect produced on the edge of instruments by soft wood: viz. ἀμβλύνει τὴν βάφην σίδηρον, from whence we may infer, that the process of steeling, by " immersion," (Bán) in cold water, was not unknown to the ancients. I believe the fact is incontrovertible, that soft woods blunt the edges of tools more than hard ones. The wood of the Korivos, or wild olive, from its great hardness, was generally used for the Tρúnavov, and that of the Дav, or bay tree, for the oxapa, 1. 5. c. 8, 9. I will not detain your readers with many other curious particulars respecting the qualities of woods to be met with in the same valuable author; whose pages have lately occupied a great deal of my attention. ξύλα θερμά. • Theophrastus. 1 J. S. Critical and Explanatory Remarks on the HIPPOLYTUS STEPHANEPHORUS of EURIPIDES, With Strictures on some Notes of PROFESSOR MONK. NO. III. V.47. ἡ δ ̓ εὐκλεὴς μὲν, ἀλλ ̓ ὅμως ἀπόλλυται "Kanov," says the Professor, "pro xaxiv habent E. P. Schol. Aristoph. Ran. 314. probantibus Marklando et Heathio, et sic edidit Brunck. Utrumque xaλóv. xaxòv Lascaris. Sed Aldi et ceterorum Codd. lectionem xaxov defendunt Esch. Eum. 637. πατρὸς προτιμᾷ Ζεὺς μόρον, 737. Alcest. 773. τῶν ἐν ̓Αδμήτου κακῶν Οὐδὲν προτιμῶν: deinde Codd. nonnulli τοῦ μὴ οὐ mendose : constructio To μo T. subaudita præpositione frequens est apud Atticos: vid. Soph. Trach. 622. Eur. Phoen. 1192.: pessime Valckenaerius post porno distinctionem posuit." 1. I must first observe that I agree with the Professor in the propriety of rejecting the stop, which Valckenaer puts after poriμhow, so as to connect xaxov with what follows, thus making two complete sentences. The reason, which Valckenaer gives, is this: "Mutata fuit distinctio, quia jungenda videbantur xaxov, Tò μǹ où τapaxv, etc.: fateor lectionem istam (xaλò) esse speciosam, sed hac admissa versu tamen sequente τὸ μὴ οὐ παρασχεῖν necessario requi ritur; qui modus loquendi Veneris esset indignabundæ, ante infinitivum, in talibus usitatum, omittentis voces où nanov, vel où deivóv éσti, vel harum similes: quia tamen in optimis legitur Codd. xxxò, servandum existimavi, jungendumque cum sequentibus :κακόν, ut in Or. v. 478. τὸ μέλλον ὡς κακὸν τὸ μὴ εἰδέναι.” 2. But I beg leave to remark that the Professor is too severe upon Valckenaer, when he says-" Pessime post poruńow distinctionem posuit ;" for, resolved as Valckenaer was to retain` xxxò, upon the authority of the best MSS., his good sense suggested to him this change in the punctuation, because it restored perspicuity to the passage, and violated no usage whatever of the tragedians. 3. I do not, however, approve of the Professor's retaining xxxov. The sense of the passage, if we reject the punctuation of Valckenaer, clearly requires xanov-For I will not suffer any consideration about the dignity of her character to stand in the way of a satisfactory revenge upon my enemies: τὸ τῆσδε καλὸν refers to exλns, as Heath has seen, whose words are these: "Ap. Schol. etiam ad Aristoph: Ran. v. 317. qui hunc versum laudat, legitur xaλòv, quomodo legendum vel ipsa clausulæ hujus VOL. VIII, Cl. Jl. NO. XV. F sententia satis monet; vox enim hæc ad ea, quæ præcesserant, ý súxλens μèv, manifeste spectat." So too thought another learned man, as will appear by the following note: «Schol. ad Ranas ν. 317. αὔρα τις εἰσέπνευσε μυστικωτάτη (quem adfert etiam Schol. Eurip. ad Hec. v. 444. legens vuσe) observat, ultimam in aupx produci, ut et in Paipa, quod posterius probat auctoritate Euripidis, Φαίδρα τὸ γὰρ τῆσδ ̓ οὐ προτιμήσω καλόν : respicitur hic procul dubio ad Hipp. v. 48. ubi tamen in fine xaxov legitur in editis, et ap. Schol. utrumque ferri potest: xaλov tamen præcedenti versui, quo de Phædra Venus dicit, ἡδ ̓ εὐκλεὴς μὲν, ἀλλ' ὅμως ἀπόλλυται Φαίδρα, melius cohærere videtur, dum in sequentibus propositi rationem reddit, τὸ γὰρ τῆς οὐ προτιμήσω καλὸν τοῦ μὴ οὐ παρασχεῖν τοὺς ἐμοὺς ἐχθροὺς ἐμοὶ δίκην τοσαύτην, e quibus per se liquet quod hic ap. Schol. post paidpa sit distinctio ponenda: ceterum idem potuisset Sch. probare ex Eurip. de v. auga, vid. in Hecuba v. 444." Misc. Obss. V. III. T. 1. p. 107. Valckenaer himself admits this reading to be " specious," and it is supported by the authority of the Scholiast upon Aristophanes, though it must be confessed that the Scholiast upon Euripides found κακὸν in his copy ; for he says, Οὐ τὸ ταύτης κακὸν ἔμπροσθεν θήσομαι, μὴ τιμωρήσασθαι τοὺς ἐχθροὺς, ἀντὶ τοῦ, μὴ φροντίσω τῆς ἀπω λelas autñs. 4. Musgrave defends xaxov, and says: "MS. E. Lib. P. et Lasc. xaλòv, ut emendandum censet Marklandus: mihi vulgata potior videtur: si xaλòv recipitur, delenda erunt voces no: alioqui dicet Venus, se Phædre decus non majoris facere, quam Hippolytum inultum relinquere, quod admodum ineptum est: deinde, cum proprie dicantur zgorãolas quæ bona sunt, habet quiddam exquisitioris elegantiæ contrarius verbi usus, sc. cum gоTμão dicuntur mala: vid. Æsch. Agam. v. 1424. Eum. v. 643. et 744. Aristoph. Ran. p. 155. Nostrum Alcest. v. 774." As to the second reason, which is here assigned by Musgrave for retaining xaxov, I value it not a rush. As to the first reason, I value that a little more; for the plain interpretation of the passage, which I have given above, does not make the reading of xanov at all incompatible with u ou, which is merely a strong negative, and this double negative is frequently used after a nega tive in the precedent clause, as in the Phon. 1183. quoted by Valckenaer, ΜΗΔ ̓ ἂν τὸ σεμνὸν πῦρ νιν εἰργάθειν Διὸς, τὸ ΜΗ ΟΥ̓ κατ ̓ ἄκρων Περγάμων ἑλεῖν πόλιν. |