ARISTOPHANIS EQUITES. Recensuit ADOLPHUS VON Velsen. Leipsic, Teubner, 1869.

THIS is a critical edition of the text based upon a most minute and accurate collation of the principal Italian manuscripts, a collation undertaken and completed by the editor, Mr Adolf von Velsen of Saarbrück, with the energy and conscientiousness of a true German, in spite of feeble health and, at times, of failing eyesight.

The MSS. of Aristophanes are so numerous that it would be the work of a life-time to collate them all, and in many cases so late and unimportant that it would be a waste of time to do so.

I have myself seen in various European libraries a hundred and thirty-nine. Most of these contain either the Plutus alone, or the Plutus and Nubes, or the Plutus, Nubes, and Ranæ, and are transcripts made in Italy in the 15th or 16th centuries. Only one MS., the Ravenna, contains all the eleven extant comedies. The principal Venice MS contains, besides the Plutus, Nubes and Ranæ, the Equites, Aves, Pax and Vespa. Next to the three plays which were favourite text-books with professors at the revival of Greek learning, the Equites and Aves seem to have been most studied.

Of the Equites there are in the Vatican library four MSS., one containing a fragment only, in the Barberini two, in the Laurentian five, in the Riccardi library at Florence one, in the library of Modena two, at Ravenna one, in the library of St Mark at Venice two, in the Ambrosian at Milan three, and in the Imperial Library at Paris six. Of these twenty-six MSS. Mr von Velsen has collated one at Ravenna, one at

Venice, three at the Laurentian library, one at the Vatican, and one at Milan. For the collation of the most ancient Paris MS. he has depended upon a collation of mine, which is, I trust, accurate as far as it goes, but is less minute than his own work. A recollation of the principal MSS. was absolutely necessary, for Bekker's collation of the two most important, viz. the Ravenna and Venice MSS., adopted by all later editors, was very hasty and imperfect, and the others ostensibly collated by Dindorf were collated by deputy-which is always unsatisfactory. Mr von Velsen adopts the nomenclature used by Dindorf, calling the Ravenna MS. R, the Venice V, the three Laurentian I, O, and A. The Ambrosian he calls M. (Bekker's 'M' is, I have no doubt, the same as that which is now found at Verona, but which does not contain the Equites.)

It is perhaps convenient to retain such designations when only a few MSS. are referred to, but in a complete edition of Aristophanes, embracing the readings of a larger number, it would be well to adopt a different terminology. I should propose to arrange the MSS. of each library as far as possible in chronological order, 1, 2, 3, &c., and prefix to the numeral an initial or abbreviation indicating the city or the library where they respectively are. Thus R. would stand for the solitary Ravenna MS.; P. 1, P. 2, down to P. 25 for the Paris MSS.; L. 1, L. 2, . . . L. 13, for the Laurentian; Vat. 1, Vat. 2, . . . Vat. 33 for the Vatican MSS.; Ven. 1, Ven. 2, ... Ven. 7 for those of Venice; A. 1, A. 2, . . . A. 14, for the Ambrosian; Mod. 1, Mod. 2,... Mod. 6, for those of Modena.

The selection which Mr von Velsen has made seems a very judicious one and is amply sufficient for all practical purposes. The only MS. which I should have wished to add to the list is one at Modena, which I think he has not seen, marked in the catalogue iii. D. 8, my Mod. 1,' a MS. written apparently towards the close of the thirteenth century, nearly coeval with the earliest Paris MS., Dindorf's A., in my list 'Par. 1,' closely akin to it and of equal authority. It has, however, in many places been so carefully corrected that it is impossible to say what the original reading was.

I hope that at some future time Mr Von Velsen will give us

an account of the relationship which exists between the different MSS., and an estimate of their relative importance. The minuteness and thoroughness of his examination will well qualify him for the task and give authority to his judgment.

All the extant MSS. seem to me to be derived from one archetype, perhaps itself a late recension, and full of conjectural emendations to an extent which we have no means of estimating. The more ancient scholia and the quotations of Suidas in a few cases lead us to an earlier and purer text. The Ravenna MS. of the 10th or more probably the 11th century, approaches most nearly to this archetype. It contains three lines not found in any other MS. The Venice MS. (474 in the catalogue), half a century later than the Ravenna, is certainly further removed from the archetype. The Ambrosian (L. 39 in the catalogue) of the 14th century is still further removed, and therefore of inferior authority. It agrees sometimes with the Ravenna, and sometimes with the Venice MS., and is of importance in settling a reading when these differ. In a few cases it differs from both, and may give us, or lead us to, the true text, when the older MSS. are at fault.

The other MSS., though in no case lineally descended from the Venice MS. (except a transcript made by order of Bessarion, also in St Mark's Library, 475 in the catalogue), yet belong to the same family. They rarely therefore give any independent support; and their agreement with the Venice MS. in any particular case is no ground for preferring their text to that of the Ravenna MS. When however the Ambrosian agrees with the Venice MS., the case is different. I should prefer their joint testimony to the unsupported testimony of the Ravenna. Of the others I consider the earliest Laurentian of higher authority than either the earliest Parisian or Modenese. The Vatican MS. (in the catalogue Palatinus, 128) collated by Mr von Velsen and written by νικόλαος ὁ ντραμάρος in the 15th century, is of still inferior merit, as is another MS., marked 'Vaticanus 1294' and said to be written by Domitius Triclinius, which I have myself collated. The two last mentioned MSS. are nearly related to each other and to the MS. froin which Aldus printed his text in 1498.

I will now briefly refer to a few pages of the play. In lines 31, 32, Mr von Velsen reads:

θεῶν ἰόντε προσπεσεῖν του πρὸς βρέτας.

Οικ. Α. ποῖον βρέτας;* ἐτεὸν ἡγεῖ γὰρ θεούς ;

In the former the Ravenna MS. has, according to my collation, not Tov but Toû, with the circumflex. Here, I think, we should prefer To, in which the Venice and Ambrosian MSS. agree. The other reading is probably due to a corrector who did not understand the meaning of Spéтas Oewv. It means 'an image βρέτας θεῶν. of some god,' just as Kvvídiov Zepipiwv in the Acharnians 542 means a puppy belonging to some Seriphian.' In the next line the reading BρETTÉτas preserved in the Venetian and first Laurentian will guide us to what I think the true text, πoîov ВрETETÉTαs; The slave mimics his comrade, whose trembling lips have hardly been able to enunciate the alliterative line preceding. If this were the original reading it would be sure to be altered as a mistake by some transcriber. Later MSS. have attempted to remedy the metrical defect by reading βρέτας· ποῖον βρέτας; Another suggestion would be ποῖον βρέτας θεῶν; taking ev as a monosyllable,

In 68 I should retain the reading of all MSS. ci μý μ3 ἀναπείσητ' instead of reading with Dindorf ἀναπείσετ', or with Bergk ἣν for εἰ. Compare Pax 450, κεί τις στρατηγεῖν βουλόμενος μὴ ξυλλάβῃ.

In line 73 I should certainly retain the ẻkcívŋv tǹV μóλwμev of the MSS., instead of adopting, as Mr von Velsen has done, Bergk's conjecture ékeivŋv v póλwμev.

Line 114, τὸν νοῦν ἵν ̓ ἄρδω καὶ λέγω τι δεξιόν. ‘Delendum esse vidit Wielandius', von Velsen. It seems to me that it should certainly be retained. There are some jests which gain by repetition, and this is one of them. So also line 436 of the Acharnians should be retained.

In 204 I prefer the avтó Tov λéyet of the MSS. to Mr von Velsen's conjecture which he has inserted in the text, TOûTó TOU λéyel. The meaning is The thing speaks for itself.'

I see no reason for suspecting, as Bergk does, the genuineness of line 219, ἔχεις ἅπαντα πρὸς πολιτείαν ἃ δεῖ.

In 276 Mr von Velsen adopts Kock's rýveλλá oo for the Týveλλos ei of all MSS. An editor of Aristophanes should be wary of rejecting åπağ λeyóμeva merely because they are such. At all events the MS. reading in such a case should be retained in the text. The word Tveλλos may have been a jocose popular abbreviation of τήνελλα καλλίνικος. A jest which seems frigid to an Englishman or a German now, may have sounded very comical to an Athenian twenty-three centuries ago.

319. κἀμὲ τοῦτ ̓ ἔδρασε ταὐτὸν νὴ Δί ̓ ὥστε καὶ γέλων.

So von Velsen, following Porson. But the transposition of vn Aía from the commencement of the sentence, its natural place, seems awkward and improbable. The MSS. have v Aía κἀμὲ or καὶ νὴ Δία κἀμὲ κ.τ.λ. Taking the former, which is the reading of R, I should suppose Aía to be pronounced as a monosyllable, the iota having the sound of our y, as IIúotos is a dissyllable in Ion 285, τιμᾷ σφε Πύθιος ἀστραπαί τε Πύθιαι. Dindorf, on the authority of Photius and Charoboscus, here and elsewhere reads νὴ Δὶ κάμὲ κ.τ.λ.

In line 386 ἦν ἄρ ̓ οὐ φαῦλον ὧδ ̓ * * * ἀλλ ̓ ἔπιθι καὶ στρόBe, Mr von Velsen conjectures that the lacuna may be filled by ἀλλὰ καλόν. I would suggest οὐδ ̓ ἐλαφρόν. In the next line R reads λaTTov for ỏλiyov. In the MS. from which R was copied the omitted words ovề èλappóv may have been written above and so caused the mistake.

400. The Editor says 'Conjectura scripsi év Kрaτívоν кSí. Affirmat chorus equitum paratum se esse chori partes in quadam Cratini comoedia agere, ei σè un μow.' But in this sense yevolμny seems hardly the verb required. How strange would seem the phrase γενοίμην ἐν ̓Αριστοφάνους Ἱππεῦσι. The old scholiast evidently read γενοίμην ἐν Κρατίνου κῴδιον.· (For ev the MSS. by a natural mistake substituted ềv). His explanation may be the right one, and some current scandal about the symposia at Cratinus's house may have added point to the jest.

423. καὶ ταῦτα δρῶν ἐλάνθανόν γ'· εἰ δ ̓ οὖν ἴδοι τις αὐτῶν. y' is a late conjectural addition, not found in the older MSS. Mr von Velsen conjectures

καὶ ταῦτα ὁρῶν ἐλάνθανον τότ ̓· εἰ δ ̓ ἴδοι τις αὐτῶν.