Page images
PDF
EPUB

but that this may have come in from an adscript to the purport that Trygaeus was to be a μéтoikos among the birds.

Vv. 174-5. The Oxford editors should certainly have noted the change of punctuation suggested by Blaydes (πρόσεχε τὸν νοῦν, ὡς ἐμὲ ἤδη στροφεῖ κ. τ. λ.), which gets rid of the extremely doubtful phrase προσέχειν τὸν νοῦν ὡς. V. 180:

πόθεν βροτοῦ με προσέβαλ'; ὦναξ Ηράκλεις

τουτὶ τί ἐστι τὸ κακόν ;

It has been disputed whether φωνή or ὀσμή is to be understood with pooßade, but both the point and the construction of the passage have been missed. It may be asserted, without any hesitation, that to understand' in the grammatical sense of the term an unexpressed subject with pooẞade is impossible. A Greek could not have said βροτοῦ με (or μοι) προσβάλλει when he meant προσβάλλει ὀσμή. It follows that the sentence πόθεν βροτοῦ με προσέβαλ' is incomplete. The ὀσμὴ βρότειος has fallen so vividly and offensively on the nostrils of the god that he breaks off his question, holds his nose, and utters an ejaculation. This ought to be indicated in our texts by the sign of aposiopesis

πόθεν βροτοῦ με προσέβαλ ̓ ἀναξ Ηράκλεις
τουτὶ τί ἐστι τὸ κακόν ;

V. 316:

οὔτι καὶ νῦν ἔστιν αὐτὴν ὅστις ἐξαιρήσεται.

No explanation of kaì vuv has been discovered. I suspect that this is a case of kaì for μo (as in 337, where Blaydes restores μή τί μοι νυνὶ γε χαίρετ').

V. 350. This verse seems to be rightly assigned to Trygaeus by Paley, and the Oxford editors should have noticed this view.

V. 382. The Oxford editors accept without comment the unmetrical λακήσης (cp. διαλακήσασα, Clouds 410).

V. 420. It should have been mentioned that this line was condemned by Meineke. He is followed by Herwerden, and surely the omission of the verse is a great gain

to the text.

V. 427. elocóntec is inexplicable. Herwerden's ingenious εἰ ἰόντες deserved to be mentioned.

ει

V. 536:

†κόλπου γυναικῶν διατρεχουσῶν εἰς ἀγρόν.

It is satisfactory to observe that the Oxford editors have obelized κόλπου. They have even suggested βολίτου, which is certainly better than кóπрoʊ, and better, perhaps, than any other proposal. If we could ascribe any importance to кóλжоυ yurakós in the scholion, I should suggest

κάλπου γυναικὸς διατρεχούσης εἰς ἀγρόν

(káλrov, a pitcher, with a play, possibly, on káλπns Spóμos). V. 605:

πρῶτα μὲν γὰρ ταὐτῆς ἦρξεν Φειδίας πράξας κακῶς.

No suggested alteration of auris is acceptable. It has all the appearance of an adscript to some word which fell out, and no word would have been more natural than κακών. I therefore propose:

πρῶτα μὲν γὰρ ἦρξε Φειδίας κακῶν πράξας κακῶς.

In this play there is a remarkable number of trochaic verses like this, without diaeresis after the fourth foot. For an exact parallel, with caesura in the fifth trochee, cp. v. 645.

V. 607:

τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον.

Commentators pass over this phrase without explaining the construction. We must suppose that there was a col

loquial expression, such as αὐτοδὰξ ὀργίζεσθαι (cp. Lysistr. 681, αὐτ. ὠργισμέναι); then τὸν αὐτοδὰξ τρόπον is a colloquial brachylogy for τὸν αὐτοδὰξ ὀργιζομένων τρόπον, and might be indicated as such in modern texts by putting avrodás in inverted commas or spaced type. For such brachylogy cp. Alexis, Sikyonios, fr. 206, ed. Kock, τῶν βαβαὶ βαβαί.

Vv. 608-10. The punctuation, I think, should be removed from πόλιν to ψηφίσματος, and ἐξεφύσησ ̓ οὖν be read in 610. Thus :

πρὶν παθεῖν τι δεινὸν αὐτός ἐξέφλεξε τὴν πόλιν,

ἐμβαλὼν σπινθῆρα μικρὸν Μεγαρικοῦ ψηφίσματος.
ἐξεφύσησ ̓ οὖν τοσοῦτον πόλεμον κ. τ. λ.

V. 740:

τοῖς φθειρσὶν πολεμοῦντας.

Schol. ἀντὶ τοῦ εὐτελεῖς ἄνδρας καὶ †ἀδύους. Read ἀλούτους. Cp. φθεῖρας δὲ καὶ τρίβωνα τήν τ ̓ ἀλουσίαν in Aristophon, Pythagoristes, fr. 13, ed. Kock (ii., p. 281).

V. 961:

σείου σὺ ταχέως.

This is unmeaning, and, whether v. 960 is to be transposed or not, we should read, with the late Professor Palmer,

θείου σὺ ταχέως.

V. 1071:

εἰ γὰρ μὴ νύμφαι γε θεαὶ βάκιν ἐξαπάτασκον

μηδὲ Βάκις θνητούς μηδ' αὖ †νύμφαι Βάκιν αὐτόν.

Herwerden's comment, immanis tautologia,' is not too strong. It seems unquestionable that vúupa is corrupt, and the probability is that it was inserted, from the previous line, to replace another word which had accidentally fallen out. The verse can be restored thus:

μηδὲ Βάκις θνητούς μηδ' αὖ βάκ<ιδες Βάκ>ιν αὐτόν.

This accounts for the corruption, and gives a good point. Hierocles and his fellows are the supreme deceivers.

[merged small][ocr errors]

V. 1079:

χὴ †κώδων ἀκαλανθὶς ἐπειγομένη τυφλὰ τίκτει.

The ingenious corrections introducing ὠδίνω (κὠδίνουσ' Blaydes), or dis (ñ 7' wdiv' van Lennep) are not satisfactory diplomatically. What we expect is an epithet which an oracle might apply either to the bird (fringilla carduelis), or to the bird's name. The name ἀκαλανθίς (cp. ἀκαλήφη) and the equivalent name ἀκανθίς connote spikes, or pricks. I therefore propose:

χὴ κνώδων ἀκαλανθὶς ἐπειγομένη τυφλὰ τίκτει,

'the spiky finch.' It is probable that кvwdwv (odoúc) was originally an adjective.

J. B. BURY.

OBSERVATIONS ON DR. MERRY'S ODYSSEY.

THE

HE following notes are intended for junior students thousands of whom every year use Dr. Merry's admirable edition. Some of these observations may possibly recommend themselves to Dr. Merry for use in future editions. Even if none of them should, no harm will have been done by putting them forward. The larger edition (extra fcap., 8vo, 2 vols.) of 1895, 1896, Clarendon Press, has been taken as representing Dr. Merry's latest views. On the whole, the edition would be improved, in my judgment, by a freer use of brackets to indicate plainly spurious passages; and new forms now generally recognised, such as the gen. in -oo, should find a place in the text.

III. 10:

οἱ δ' ἰθὺς κατάγοντο ἰδ' ἱστία νηὸς ἐίσης.

If this verse is sound, it is almost the only place where id is elided, though d' is changed to id by a conjecture otherwise also unsatisfactory in Soph. Ant. 969. In 8. 604 Dr. Merry reads '. In B. 571, which is admittedly. post-Homeric, id' is elided, but it is also without the digamma. Here we could easily read kaí, or d' as Dindorf would in every case where, as in the present, idé is assumed to have the initial digamma found in the verbal root id, with which, of course, the conjunction has no connexion.

III. 49:

ἀλλὰ νεώτερος ἐστιν, ὁμηλικίη δ' ἐμοὶ αὐτῷ.

Here bundukin is plainly an abstract substantive, and is so explained by Dr. Merry, there is to me equality of

« PreviousContinue »