between the readings given in the text and those commented on in the notes. The latter nearly always correspond with the common texts, e.g. Conington's or Dindorf's: the text prints Dr. Blaydes' own conjectural restorations. This does not, indeed, greatly affect scholars to whom the play is familiar, but it is very perplexing for beginners. Something, too, of additional lucidity might be desired in the statement of the MS. readings. Like some of the poems of Catullus, the choruses of the Choephoroi are so deeply vitiated, that they ought to be presented (for critical purposes) from beginning to end exactly as they are given in the MSS., or, better perhaps, in M (Mediceus). For this purpose it is, of course, best to have the facsimile (recently published) of M. Short, however, of this, the transcript of Merkel, published by the Clarendon Press, is very useful. For in spite of the numerous recastings, by the most eminent scholars, from Porson and Hermann to our own time, these lyrics still remain open to question and debate. I will instance as a signal specimen the chorus νῦν παραιτουμένῃ μοι, πάτερ (783 Dind.), the final word on which is still unsaid, and will, I expect, remain so, unless from some old Egyptian' papyrus yet to be unearthed, whether by Messrs. Grenfell and Hunt, or their successors, some quite new and unexpected light be found to illumine the obscurity. ་ This notice would be imperfect if it did not contain some statement as to Dr. Blaydes' own corrections. I select the following from a very large list : 122. μ' αἰτεῖν for μουστίν. 290. μάστιγι for πλάστιγγι. Or has the λ been transposed from μάσθλητι ? 294. σvvovec, which seems to have also occurred to Burges. 303. εὐδόξῳ χερὶ for εὐ. φρενί. This seems very likely. 350. τέκνων τ ̓ ἐν πολίταις ἐπίστρεπτον αἰῶ for τέκνων τ ̓ ἐν κελεύθοις. 407. τῶν φθιμένων ἀραὶ for ἀραὶ φθιμένων. 440. Here Dr. Blaydes retains the мs. reading, ëπpaσσe d' åπep (not åtep) viv åde fátтel, translating, "and she was the author of the deed, she who thus ignominiously buries him." 493. πέδαις ἀχαλκεύτοισιν ἠγρεύθης, πάτερ for ἀχαλκεύτοις ἐθηρεύθης. Here Blaydes advances a step further than Conington, who conj. ἀχαλκεύτοισι θηρευθείς. 567. Blaydes accepts Herwerden's TouкTile for Telkáčev. 574. ἐρεῖ καθῆσο for ἐ. σάφ' ἴσθι (? καθῆσθαι). 584. ὀρθῶσαί τέ μοι for ὀρθώσαντί μοι, and so Zakas. 584. θηρίων δάκη for θ. ἄχη. Cf. δάκη θηρῶν, Hipp. 646. 603. φρίσσει for ἴστω. A very hazardous temptamen. 605. πυρδαἢ πίνοιαν for πυρδαἢ τινα πρόνοιαν. With many critics, Dr. Blaydes rejects the unsupported compound, tupdañtis, which Hermann wished to substitute here. But, on metrical grounds, the new emendation which I have just mentioned seems to me doubtful. In strophe 3, éteì d' éteμvnoáμny, &c. I could have wished the parallel which I quoted (Classical Review for 1893, p. 103) from Choricius' Orations Tepè yáμov and Miltiades, had not escaped the attention of our editor. It appears to me to make the emendation ἐπεικότως ἔβαν (first mentioned in Scholefield's edition) more than probable. I have myself supplemented this correction by suggesting dndoîo' (or Snλovo') for dyous of MSS., thus supplying a participle, on which yaμýλevμ' and μýridas might depend.1 Our editor is here, I think, over-venturous. The passage is so greatly re-written by him as to be quite different. 691. With great justice, Dr. Blaydes rejects the emendation imas for ẻvâσ', which no one expert in palæographical corruptions can fail to see points to something very different. The most probable suggestion (palæographically) is eμπas (Müller), but the shortness of the -as (spite of ễμña) is not sufficiently made out. Dr. Blaydes gives éμpavŵs, Bamberger's (to me very dubious) emendation. 1 In 633 I offer, for dnmodel of MSS., dǹ wóλe, to be constructed with * κατάπτυστον. 698. Verrall's solution should have been mentioned. In so disputed a passage I may be allowed to quote Dion C. xxxix. 53, τὴν τε μέλλουσαν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐλπίδα ὡς καὶ παροῦσαν ἔργῳ ἐλάμβανον, καὶ πάνθ ̓ ὅσα καταπράξειν προσεδέχοντο ὡς καὶ ἔχοντες ἤδη ἠγάλλοντο. It is possible that we should write νῦν δ ̓ ἢ παρῆν δόμοισι βακχείας καλῆς ἰατρὸς ἐλπὶς, μὴ παροῦσαν ἐγγράφει. 773. Dr. Blaydes warns us against the doubtful word κUTTós, of which κupòs is the classical form. He returns to the Ms. reading κρUTтós. Here, again, a further discussion would have been of service. 837. ἐξαπόλλυ for ἐξαπολλύς. It will be apparent from these specimens that the new edition opens up a multitude of questions anew, and does not profess to be satisfied where so much of doubt still clings. That the editor is at times rash in his speculations is a fault which he shares with many others who have preceded him on the same ground, and it is probable that his Agamemnon will be thought a more matured work than his Choephoroi. Conington thought the Choephoroi the hardest of all Greek plays. Perhaps the advance of palæographical study may some day bear its fruit in a recension which will give to the scholars of the twentieth century a glory, not indeed equalling, but rivalling, the achievements of Porson and Hermann in our own. I add, as the occasion allows, some remarks which, in reading the new edition, have occurred to me. 416. ) πρὸς τὸ φανεῖσθαί μοι καλῶς. 417. τί δ' ἂν πάντες τύχοιμεν ἢ τάπερ. It seems probable that the first three letters of paveîo bai φαν are no original part of 416, but have come in from TaνTES of 417, Távтes (which is without meaning) having been corrected to pávτes. This leaves in 416 only #рos тo eiσbai, which may be a corruption of προσταθεῖσα. 595. If tavтóλμovs should seem to carry too far the undeniable tendency of the poet in this chorus, to repeat several times the same syllable in different words, e.g. δεινὰ δειμάτων, πεδαίχμιοι πεδάοροι πεδοβάμονα (585, 6, 7), ἀπέρωτος (but M had ἀπέρωπος originally) έρως (598, 9), δαεὶς πυρδαῆ δαφοινὸν δαλὸν (602, 5, 7), it is not impossible that κávóλßous should be substituted for it. 797. For πλουτογαθῆ μυχὸν νομίζετε the plural μυχά may be suggested, like μvɣà πávra, Callim. H. Del. 142. 806. For λαμπρῶς, possibly λαμπρόφως, cf. λυκόφως, σεληνόφως, σκιόφως. On this the difficult genitive δνοφερᾶς καλύπτρας might depend, "the bright light of the gloomy veil," ie. the light contained in it, and soon to emerge. 815. Among the emendations of Aoûrov recorded by Wecklein I do not find κρότον. 835. λυπρᾶς οἱ M possibly conceals λύτρα τ', " an expiation which satisfies wrath," i.e. a requital by which the anger felt against the murderers of Agamemnon is gratified (reading χάριτας for χάριτος of M). 844. πρὸς γυναικῶν δειματούμενοι λόγοι seems right, “ words made frightful by women," words which women make alarming to hear, and scare their hearers by telling. 849. The reading of M points to ὡς αὐτόσ ̓ αὐτῶν ἄνδρα πεύθεσθαι 66 πέρι. αὐτόσε πεύθεσθαι, as that a man should come to the spot (where the messenger is), and ask about them (ie. the circumstances)." 956. πως should be transposed, κρατεῖται τὸ θεῖόν πως παρὰ τὸ μή. The verse is one form of dochmiac. 958, by omitting &', is another, ἄξιον οὐρανοῦχον ἀρχὰν σέβειν. For the normal __ is substituted. In 960 I suggest μéya τ' ἀφῃρέθην ψάλιον (ἐξ) οἴκων. 464-473. ὦ πόνος ἐγγενής—θεῶν τῶν κατὰ γᾶς ὅδ ̓ ὕμνος. These verses form the concluding section of the Kommos. Kirchhoff, Wecklein, and Verrall believe them to be sung by Orestes, Electra, and the Chorus together. Scholefield, Conington, and Blaydes give 464-468 to Electra, 469-473 to Orestes. Preferably, I imagine, the order observed else where in the Kommos, Orestes, then Electra, then the Chorus, should be preserved here. By each of the three are recited three verses; the last verse by all together, as follows: 464. Or. 467. El. 470. Chor. ὦ πόνος ἐγγενὴς καὶ παράμουσος ἄτης τῶνδ ̓ ἄκος οὐδ ̓ ἀπ ̓ ἄλλων δι ̓ ὠμὰν ἔριν αἱματηράν. Or. El. Chor. θεῶν κατὰ γᾶς δ ̓ ὕμνος. } On this view the first verse of Orestes' part corresponds. metrically to the last of Electra's; the second and third of Orestes' to the first and second of Electra's: a chiastic arrangement. This gives upoтov a more natural sense, = with the lint in it, i.e. still unstaunched (SvσKATάTAVσTOV). 470-472. "To those that are here (primarily Orestes and Electra, but also including the Chorus) belongs the cure (akos, Schütz, for ekàs of M) brought, not from others outside, but from themselves alone, so to keep alive the still dripping strife of blood." The cure involves a new murder (of Clytaemnestra and Aegisthus), and this consequence is represented as a purpose. There is nothing in M which. stands in the way of thus ordering the verses. ROBINSON ELLIS. |