« AnteriorContinuar »
271. I should prefer to make táxos the object after ¢£lKOITO rather than cognate.
282. Tapanev årpyklov uépos. P=mapúrpyelley. It seems to me easier to translate "did not neglect the messenger's part or duty."
299. Stanley's conjecture &OTE seems to me better than Hermann's eite which has been adopted by Mr Paley. I think ei te not only weakens the force of the preceding eita, which is already defined by what goes before; but is scarcely suited to the following čoknYEV which means 'shot,' 'swooped,' 'pounced, not simply ‘alighted' or 'stopped.'
312. à piktov. P. 'a cry distinct not confused.' Is it not better to take it “a cry that will not blend, discordant, is plainly audible (TTPÉTT ELV)”?
314. Surely it is an unnecessary passage to the ridiculous, to make Aeschylus here “reproach the oil and vinegar for their unsociable behaviour.” The analogy of mpoo ayopeuw seems to show that TT POO EVVÉTTW may mean 'to style,' 'to call,' as well as 'to address.
358. The force of the passage is very much injured by taking eitrei as equivalent to bote citev. Translate “they can tell of the stroke of Zeus," i.e. they know what it is to be smitten by Zeus.
406. Mr Paley is I think not justified in speaking of its being the object of the poet in these exquisite lines “to describe the uxorious not to say sensual character of Menelaus. For purity and delicacy of sentiment they approach very nearly parts of Tennyson's In Memoriam. Compare with the lines which follow, the poem beginning “Tears of the widower when he sees, A late-lost form which sleep reveals.”
568. Hermann's interpretation of lovTIGELV is exceedingly forced. The position of the words shows that the opposition lies between Κλ. and εμέ, not between μέλειν and πλουτίζειν, as it would do if Clytemnestra were the subject of the latter. I should take either tauta, or you, the herald, as the subject of
. translating, “and that along with this, your news (or you) should enrich (i.e. cause happiness to) me.”
595. xałkou Bapás. The literal sense (staining of brass) seems to me quite allowable if we conceive Clytemnestra in her consciousness of falsehood as catching at any far-fetched comparison to heighten her assertion of innocence.
640. Toljévos kako otpoßw. The interpretation “through the unsteady guidance of the incompetent helmsman” is forced in itself, and it is besides inconsistent with the description given of the storm in the subsequent lines. If it was so violent that only a god could have saved them, how could the shipwreck be imputed to the unskilful pilot? I see no objection to understanding rolunu kakós either of Typhon, like “dux turbidus Hadriæ,” or “of some unseen malignant power” according to Mr Paley's second suggestion.
645. I am not satisfied with Mr Paley's defence of the reading Entńoato. Deós cannot be an after-thought: it is a necessary part of the supposition and is already implied in tis, but is added afterwards for the sake of emphasis. The explanation of an 'after-thought' would only be allowable if the preceding clause as a whole were ambiguous, i.e. left it open whether the action should be ascribed to a man or a god; and above all the verb immediately preceding ought to be predicable of a god, or there is a palpable poetic non sequitur. Hermann's emendation e Emphoato gives an excellent sense, and the rarity of the form accounts for the ordinary reading.
744. årouotows. P. ‘unskilfully :' rather, “unpleasantly.' . 844. Tņu kátw ydp où Xéryw. P. “because if reference had been made to the earth under the body the figure employed would have been incorrect,” but surely this critical examination of a metaphor is most unlike Aeschylus. On the other hand it is very like a scholiast, and when I read molds ävedev only four lines below and observe the awkwardness of tollúv here, I have little doubt that the whole line is spurious. If it is retained, I should understand kátw of the under world, as a kind of absit omen. - 872. I must protest in passing against the doctrine enunciated in the note that "the inspiration of a poet in penning a noble passage is not to be held liable to trifling criticism.” The more noble the inspiration the more sensitive will it be to any weakness or want of truth in the expression, and thus the more noble the passage the more right has criticism to challenge any slight blemish as showing another than the master's hand, though elsewhere we might be willing to accept the explanation “dormitat Homerus."
903. If apásool' äv is read, it can only have the potential force, could, might, would. There seems no occasion to translate the optative as a future in the passages quoted. I should prefer however to read mpáo colpev here.
1016. I do not quite understand Mr Paley's translation here. The meaning of the passage is “whether you obey or not, you are within her toils, you cannot help yourself.” Just as 1365, os $8 XÓVTwv, xaipoit' åv ei xaipout “these things are so whether you like it or not,” lit. “if you rejoiced, you would rejoice with the knowledge that these things are so, and cannot be altered.” · 1134. I agree with Klausen in taking útal adverbially. In the instances quoted it is used to introduce 'accompanying circumstances, but I do not think it could ever denote the simple instrument as in Mr Paley's translation.
1239. Mr Paley's emendation årý $8' án é fouai, seems to me objectionable on the score of rhythm, and it also breaks the connection between ite and Touriçete, both of which I take of the otéon &c. of the prophetess. The order of thought is excellently preserved in Hermann's reading éyco. 8 äri Peyroual.
1242. The fact seems to me inconsistent with Mr Paley's explanation of uetá, ‘her countrymen shared in the insults heaped upon the prophetess. It was her countrymen who had so long mocked her pretensions to prophetic insight; the insults she met from her enemies were of a different nature, and it is farfetched to suppose that her friends were taunted by them on the ground of the supposed absurdity of Cassandra's prophecies. I think mérya should be read for uetá and I would then translate piawv éxOpôv 'by friendly foes,' i.e. by unkind friends. * 1369. I see no reason for separating αραίων and κακών. Is it not better to take poráv of death, than of return home?
1382. The emphatic repetition of amó in this line, like that of katá 1530 seems to show that the words should be read continuously, and the stop placed after åpás.
1446. ioonkuxov, 'equally malignant' rather than 'equally imperious.
1537. Mr Paley's note seems to me to miss the point of this and the following lines. “The reproach which comes instead of reproach” is surely Clytemnestra's defence of the murder as an act of vengeance due to the Manes of Iphigenia : dúouaya kpival, “it is hard to judge between them, she (Clyt.) spoils the spoiler (Agam.) and the slayer (Agam.) pays the full penalty.” In the next line ev xpóvæ should go with madeiv "as long as the sovereignty of Zeus remains, it remains for the sinner to suffer in the end.” : 1547. The terms of the bargain do not seem to me quite so favourable to Clytemnestra as Mr Paley states them to be. Her reply to the chorus begins with an acknowledgement of the universal law that the guilty must suffer; this (which involves her own death) she is willing to submit to, if it will avert the other part of their foreboding, and end the curse of the race.
JOSEPH B. MAYOR.
OLD LATIN PALIMPSEST FRAGMENTS AT PARIS.
In the third volume of Sabatier page 507 be refers to “MS Reg. n. 5367 exhibens fragmentum vet. Versionis capitis 3 and 4 Act. Apost.”—This fragment Mr Hort lately requested me to examine and to correct any mistakes in Sabatiers quotations : which I readily promised to do provided I could find it.—The proviso was not unwise : for a request for No. 5367 brought me as I rather expected quite a different MS. Then I betook myself to Mons. Claude, the superintendent of the MS reading room, whose unvarying kindness during my many visits to the Bibliothèque Impériale I am glad to have an opportunity of acknowledging. We examined the catalogue of the Latin MSS: but in none of those containing partes Ni Ti could we hit on the track of our fragment. Then he took me to the printed books department (which is entirely separated from the MSS, perhaps for good reasons, but not without decided inconvenience to some students, for instance to any one who would have liked to compare a reprint with the original MS) and introduced me into the Salle du Travail, in hopes that by examining Sabatiers prefaces and notes I might find some better clue. The examination only sent me back to the manuscript room and to despair. But the indefatigable courtesy of Mons. Claude knew no despair: and at last he discovered I know not how the object of our search.
The title and number of the MS is “Boethii et Isidori quaedam, Lat 6400 G:” on the first page is the old number 5367. “Isidorus de Mundo et de officiis Ecclesiasticis” is written in a character not later than the eighth, perhaps of the seventh century, upon 33 palimpsest leaves. The first 18 (fol. 112