658. Πῶς νιν προσόψει καὶ σὺ, καὶ δέσποινα σή. We would read χη δίσ ποινα σὴ with Markland.

007. τὸ γὰρ παρ' ἡμῖν πάθος Παρὸν δυσεκπέρατον ἔρχεται βίου. We believe the professor to be right in supposing that the genitive Bíov depends upon the verbal adjective: δυσεκπέρατον βίου is, which brings an unfortunate exit from life.

690. εὗρον οὐχ ἃ βουλόμην. It should rather be written & βουλόμην. There is no synalaphe, but a crasis. In v. 709, read ἁνθάδ ̓ εἰσηκούσατε. 697. Εἰ δ' εὖ γ' ἔπραξα, καρτ ̓ ἂν ἐν σοφοῖσιν ἦν. The professor defends the common reading, and illustrates this usage of the first indefinite, if I had succeeded.

712. ἓν δὲ προτρέπουσ ̓ ἐγὼ Εὔρημα δή τι τῆσδε συμφορᾶς ἔχω. Brunck gives προστρέπουσ'. Mr. Monk conjectures προσκοπούσ'.

745. Κρηναί τ ̓ ἀμβρόσιαι χέονται Ζανὸς μελάθρων παρὰ κοίταις. None of the commentators on Milton have pointed out his allusion to this passage in the Lycidas, v. 15. Begin then, Sisters of the sacred well, That from beneath the seat of Jove doth spring. Milton, with whom Euripides was a favourite poet, seems to have read, with Lascaris, κοίτας, which we conceive to be the true reading.

790. 1. We entirely concur with Mr. Monk, in thinking that these verses should be transposed. In the following verse, Οὐ γάρ τι μ' ὡς θεωρὸν ἀξιοῖ δόμος, the particle τι is by no means redundant, or superfluous, as Valckenaer and the professor suppose. Οὔτι is, not in any res spect. To the instances adduced by Valckenaer may be added Æsch. Prometh. 275. Theb. 38. 201. Sophocl. Philoct. 1331. Eurip. Phoniss. 110. Alcest. 419. Suppl. 544.

803. ἢ τὸ συμφορᾶς τινός; We should prefer ἢ ἀπὸ with a crasis.

818. Τίς ἄρα σαν τάλαιν', ἀμαυροῖ ζωάν. Mr. Monk has restored ζόαν. We would read, τίς ἄξα σαν, τάλαινα, μαυροῦ ζόαν; Μαυρόω occurs Asch. Agam. 297. Εumen. 358.

823. Κατακονᾷ μὲν οὖν ἀβίωτος βίος. The Scholiast explains this strange word κατακονᾷ by μαραίνει. The conjecture mentioned in the note, και ταμονὰ μὲν οὖν αβίωτος βίου, is the more probable, because μάκιστ' and κάκιστ' are confounded just above. V. 811, to 888, are judiciously arranged by Mr. Monk.

870. ἐμοὶ μὲν οὖν ̓Αβίωτος βίου Τύχα πρὸς τὸ κρανθὲν εἴη τυχεῖν. Με. Monk explains it thus; contingat igitur mihi propter id quod factum est conditio vitæ non vivendæ, id est, ne diutius vivam. We cannot bring ourselves to believe, that αβίωτος βίου τύχα could ever be intended to express θάνατος. We imagine that for οὖν should be read ἂν for me, considering what has happened, a life scarcely tolerable will probably my lot.

be

As

907. τὸ μέντοι πρᾶγμ', ἐφ ̓ ᾧ τινι στένεις. Valckenaer thinks it possible, but not likely, that Euripides wrote ἐφ ̓ ᾧ τὰ νῦν στένεις, since Aldus and the author of the Christus Patiens' insert after T. We are inclined to believe that the true reading is, ἐφ ̓ ὧγε νῦν στένεις. Οrest. 81. Ελένη, τί σοι λέγοιμ' ἂν ἅγε παροῦσ ̓ ὁρᾷς. 428. Οὗ γ ̓ οὐ μετῆν μοι. 526. ἅγ ̓ εἰσορᾶν πάρα. Electr. 770. δις σοι ταὔθ ̓, ἅγ ̓ οὖν βούλει, λέγω. 910. Θρύλλουσ', αγ' εἰπεῖν ἤθελον. Sophocl. Electr. 923. Πῶς δ ̓ οὐκ ἐγὼ κάτοιδ ̓, ἅγ ̓ εἶδον ἐμο

φανώς

φανῶς; 941. Οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅγ ̓ εἶπον. Asch. Prometh. 254. ̓Αφ' οὗγε πολλὰ εκμαθήσονται τέχνας. Eumen. 25. Εξ οὗγε Βάκχαις ἐστρατήγησεν θεός.

[ 911. ἡ φάος τόδε Οὔπω χρόνον παλαιὸν εἰσεδέρκετο. We have little doubt but that the genuine reading is ἦ φάος τόδε.

· 920. Ὦ πολλὰ μανθάνοντες ἄνθρωποι μάτην, Τί δὴ τέχνας μὲν μυρίας διδάσ κετε ; Valckenaer puts a comma after άνθρωποι, and connects μάτη, with the following words. But, unless we mistake, Τί, followed by δὴ οι δῆτα, is always the first word in any member of a sentence. See vv. 806. 859. 1063. of this play. Hec. 985. Phoen. 746. 752. 941. 1631. Med. 672. 676. 925. Alc. 530. 688. Androm. 84. 397. Suppl. 734. 946. 1004. Iph. Α. 1444. 1548. Heracl. 163. Ion. 253. 275. (where δὴ is to be read for δαὶ) Sophocl. Ajac. 109.

949 Εκ τοι πέπληγμαι· σοὶ γὰρ ἐκπλήσσουσι με λόγοι, παραλλάσσοντες ἔξεδροι Φρενών. • Corrigendum censet Blomfieldius έξεδρος. We suspect that this is a false print for ideov, which we conceive to be the true reading. Heracl. 709. Τί χρῆμα μέλλεις, σῶν Φρενῶν οὐκ ἔνδον ὤν. sch. Choeph. 231. Ενδον γενοῦ, χαρᾷ δὲ μὴ ἐκπλαγῆς φρένας, where we would read φρενός.

957. Ὀρφία τ ̓ ἀνακτ ̓ ἔχων Βάκχευι. No one of the commentators has perceived the full force of this passage. It appears, we think, from Theophrastus, Char. 25. p. 56. ed. Schneider. that the Ορφιοτελέσ rai were looked upon at Athens as a sort of conjurers, who imposed upon credulous and superstitious persons. The incantations of Orpheus are mentioned in the Cyclops, v. 642. Alcest. 967.

983. Οὐδ' αἱ θαλάσσης ξύννομοι Σκειρωνίδες Φήσουσι πέτραι. Mr. Monk quotes from the Helena σύννομοι νεφέων. But we should prefer, in the verse before us, θαλάσση ξύννομοι. sch. Choeph. 596. ἔρωτας ταισι συννόμους. Aristoph. Αν. 208. ἄγε, σύννομά μου.

993. The passage of Aristotle, referred to by Valckenaer and Mr. Monk, was pointed out by Hartungus, in the Fax Critica of Gruter, Obs. Crit. 11. 9.

1093. "Αρηρεν, ὡς ἔοικεν. Mr. Monk follows Brunck in adopting the Doric form ἄραρεν, and enumerates several Dorisms admitted by the Attic writers. To these we will add two, which are not commonly known, Rhes. 797. Πίπτω δὲ πρηνής. It should be written πρανής. See Pierson on Mæris, p. 318. Ruhnken on Timæus, p. 221.-Æsch. Choeph. 697. Εἰ δ ̓ οὖν ἀμείψω βῆλον ὅρκειον πυλῶν. It should be βάλον. Lex. Rhetor. Ms. Βατὴρ σημαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸν τῆς θύρας οὐδόν, ὃν Ὅμηρος βῆλον, οἱ δὲ Τραγικοὶ, βᾶλον. Hesych. Βᾶλον. οὐδόν.

1090. φευξόμεσθα δή. Nir. Monk preters φευξούμεσθα. We apprehend that the Attics used φευξόμεσθα and φευξούμεθα, but not φευξούμεσθα.

1119. Οὐκέτι γὰρ καθαρὰν φρέν ἔχω. Mr. Monk supposes the metaphor to be taken from troubled waters, and cites an apposite passage from Shakespeare, Troilus, and Cressida III. iii. We may add Eurip. Alcest. 1067, Θολοῖ δὲ καρδίαν. Pherecrates in the Etymologicum, p. 750, 12. Ὑπὸ τῆς ἀνίας ἀνεθολοῦθ ̓ ἡ καρδία.

1126. ὅθι κυνῶν Ωκυπόδων ἐπέβα Θεᾶς μέτα, θῆρας ἐναίρων. Brunck omits θεάς. The professor mcloses ἐναίρων in brackets. We should prefer ὅθι κυνῶν Ωκυπόδων μέτα θῆρας ἔναιρεν. In this opinion we are confirm

ed

ed by the occurrence of info in the next verse but one. Besides, ἐπιβαίνειν is never used by Euripides in the sense of going against. We think, moreover, that it is very unlikely that vaip should be the addition of a copyist. The augment is not always used in the choric

verses.

1174. μυρία δ ̓ ὀπισθόπους φίλων ἅμ ̓ ἔστοιχ ̓ ἡλίκων ὁμήγυρις. We have little doubt but the professor is right in conjecturing ἡλίκων θ ̓ ὁμήγυρις. If the common reading be retained, φίλων must be taken as an adjective.

1212. Κρείσσον θέαμα δειγμάτων. Valckenaer proposes δειμάτων. Musgrave φθεγμάτων. The professor defends δειγμάτων. If any change is necessary, we should prefer θαυμάτων. Bacch. 666. Ω δεινὰ δρῶσα, θαυμάτων τε κρείσσονα. Hecub. 705. "Αῤῥητ', ἀνωνόμαστα, θαυμάτων πέρα. Iph. Taur. 839. θαυμάτων πέρα.

1323. Κύπρις γὰρ ἤθελ ̓ ὥστε γίγνεσθαι τάδε. Amongst other instances of the pleonasm of wore, Mr. Monk and his illustrious predecessor nẻtice v. 581. of the Supplices, Ούτοι μ ̓ ἐπαίρεις, ὥστε θυμῶσαι φρένας ; in which passage, however, as it stands, ὥστε does not abound. θυμῶσαι is not to be angry, but to irritate. If we adopt Musgrave's correction, θυμοῦσθαι, the particle will be redundant, as in the verse before us.

1339. Mr. Monk gives us a very good note on the quantity of νεαρός, and proposes that in Sophocles Ed. Col. v. 475. for Οἰὸς νεαρᾶς νεοπόκῳ μαλλῷ βαλών, should be read Νεαρᾶς απ' οιός ν. μ. β. We suspect Oἰς νεόγνου.

1352. Ω στυγνὸν ἔχημ ̓ ἵππειον, ἐμῆς Βόσκημα χερός. There are some passages in the tragedians where the metre requires the form ἵππιος ; we do not at present remember any other than the verse before us where it requires ἵππειος. We would therefore read Ὦ στυγνὸν ἔχημε ἱππικὸν, ἀμῆς Βόσκημα χερός.

1362. Οδ' ὁ σωφροσύνῃ πάντας ὑπερέχων. Mr. Monk judiciously adopts υπερσχών, the correction of Valckenaer, which is also sanctioned by the approbation of Mr. Gaisford. We would read πάντος. #sch. Pers. 708. Ὦ βροτῶν πάντων ὑπερσχὼν ἔλβον εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ. He remarks with Mr. Gaisford, Rarissime in legitimo systemate anapæstum dactylo subjecerunt tragici. In Alcest. 30. Ὅστις ἂν ἐνέποι, πότερον φθιμένην, corri gendum opinor Οστις ἂν εἴποι. In Electr. 1328. lego Θάρσει· Παλλάδος ἥξεις ὁσίαν Πόλιν' ἀλλ ̓ ἀνέχου. pro vulg. ὁσίαν ἥξεις.” These corrections, though probable, are not absolutely necessary. Troad. 101. Μεταβαλλομένου δαίμονος ἀνέχου. 177. Τᾶσδ' Αγαμέμνονος ἐπακουσαμένη. Ion. 89. Σμύρνης δ ̓ ἀνύδρου καπνὸς ἐς ὀξόφους. where of course should be read καπνὸς εἰς ὀρόφους.

1365. The Professor enumerates several instances of the indiscriminate use of the terminations in EIA and IA. We add ἱερία Iph. Τ. 34. 1399. ἀμελία Iph. Α. 850. ἀνδρία Herc. F. 475. εὐγενίας ibid. 696. where the editions have εὐγενείας. εὐσεβίᾳ Ion 1094. where the editions have εὐσεβεία, δυσσεβία Æsch. Eumen. 531. ἀλαζονία Aristoxenus in Hephaest. Ρ. 40. εταιρίας Soph. Ajac. 692. where Suidas has ἑταιρείας, which Por son prefers. εὐτυχία is the common form, but Sophocles in Etymol. Μ. p. 462. has εὐτύχεια.

VOL. VIII. NO. XV.

1381.

1381. ᾤμοι μοι, τι φῶ; Brunck has ᾧ μοι μοι.

We never could per ceive whence this iota was subscribed. It should always, we think, be written ou or

μου.

1442. κατ ̓ ὄσσων κιχάνει μ ̓ ἤδη σκότος. Mr. Monk restores κιγχάνει, the correction of Porson, who has applied the same medicine to v. 520 of the Choephori of Eschylus. Mr. Hermann, in his treatise on Greek Grammar, p. 59. excogitates another form, xxxáva, according to the analogy of which, we should have ματθάνω for μανθάνω, πυτθάνομαι for πυνθάνομαι, τυκχάνω for τυγχάνω, which Mr. Hermann probably is not prepared to acknowledge as legitimate forms. The Professor does not agree with the grammarians, who deduce these forms in a from obsolete verbs: but derives μανθάνειν, λαμβάνειν, &c. from the aorists μαθεῖν, λαβεῖν.

The note on v. 1458 gives an excellent account of the passive future tenses of verbs, which we transcribe, as a specimen of the Professor's style of philological illustration.

Notandum tironibus, quatuor esse apud Græcos formas futurorum passive significantium. Exempla rem apertam facient. Primi igitur generis esse ponamus τιμήσομαι, στυγήσομαι, λέξομαι : secundi, quod paulo post futuri nomine distinguunt grammatici, ßßanoquar, yiyçaψομαι: tertii βληθήσομαι, ἀπαλλαχθήσομαι : quarui, quod apud tragicos rarius est, ἀπαλλαγήσομαι, φανήσομαι. Prima forma, cui futuri medii titulum dederunt Grammatici, usus passivus Atticis maxime placuit. Vide Hemsterhusium ad Thom. Mag. p. 852. Exempla horum futurorum passive significantium, quæ inter tragicorum lectionem enotavi, exscribam. ioua Hec. 901. Alc. 323. Iph. T. 1047. Herc. F. 852. Soph. Ed. C. 1186. roopas Fragm. Eur. Erecthei I. 54. Soph. Antig. 210. Esch. Ag. 590. orignoopas Eur. Electr. 310. Hipp. 1458. Soph. Electr. 1210. Antig. 890. ngútoμai Phœn. 1646. åλúœμai Andr. 190. Soph. Ed. T. 576. Ed. C. 1064. Ant. 46. iácoμas Iph. A. SSI. μισήσομαι Τr. 663. Ion. 623. στυγήσομαι Soph. (Ed. Τ. 672. δηλώσομαι Soph. Ed. C. 581. Bouλsúcoμas Esch. Theb. 204. iviĝıra Orest. 509. gopa Asch. Pers. 591. dagopa Helen. 1446. Soph. Ant. 726. izr tatouaι Suppl. 521. Alia quædam hujusmodi in tragicorum reliquiis deprehendet lector. Apud ceteros Atticos frequentissima sunt. vid. Pierson. ad Mær. pp. 13. 361. Præiverat Homerus in Odyss. A. 123. Χαῖρε ξεῖνε παρ' άμμι φιλήσεαι. Iis, quæ descripsi, addi posset εξογκώσεται supra v. 942. Sed hujus futuri usus videtur a ceteris jam notatis nonnihil distare, et reciprocam potius quam passivam significationem capere.'

It will be perceived from the above remarks, that there are very few points of importance, about which we have occasion to differ from the Professor. We think highly of the skill and learning which are displayed in his critical and philological notes; but are bound more particularly to commend the caution and judgment which have led him to defend, wherever it was possible, the common reading, rather than incur the charge of innovation. This he owes, in part, to his initiation into the school of Porson, one pecu

liar characteristic of which is, the not making any alteration in the received text, except on the strongest grounds. His selection from the voluminous commentary of Valckenaer is judicious, and his additional matter valuable. With regard to the style of Mr. Monk's notes, if we have any thing to object, it is that, now and then, it is somewhat redundant. In all critical annotations one great object to be aimed at is perspicuity, which is best attained by shortness and simplicity. We should prefer, in works of this nature, a style remarkably plain, or even jejune, to an ambitious and ornamented phraseology; it appears to us that the flowers of rhetoric are misplaced in discussions on the position of an accent, the luxation of a dochmiac, or the hallucination of some sinful copyist. We do not mean to insinuate that the Professor's style is either ambitious or highly ornamented; but still we think that it may, in some respects, be chastised with advantage.

We must not omit to remark, that Mr. Monk has considerably the advantage of his predecessor, in the treatment which he gives to other critics; he writes, as every scholar should write, like a person whose principal object is, not the detection and exposure of other men's mistakes, but the promotion of sound learning. This is certainly more than can be said of Mr. Porson; who, when he is commenting upon his author's text, is exceedingly brief; but who can, upon occasion, write a note of seventeen columns to expose the errors of former critics. We could perhaps wish that Mr. Monk had treated with rather more kindness a scholar, who has unquestionably rendered great service to the republic of letters; we mean Philip Brunck, who, although he was eminently deficient in labour and extent of research, had certainly a very acute perception of the niceties of the Greek language, and a very classical taste. Had Brunck read more and published less, he would better have consulted his reputation; but with all his blunders, and oversights, and inaccuracies, he must ever continue to hold a respectable rank amongst the illustrators of the Greek drama.

These are the principal points, in which Mr. Monk's plan strikes us as being capable of some improvement; and these we urge, not from a wish to find fault with what he has so ably done, but under an impression that he intends to add to the obligation which he has already conferred upon the literary public, by giving us useful and handsome editions of some of the remaining plays of Euripides.

An accidental delay in the printing of this article affords us an opportunity of adding our δεύτεραι φροντίδες, which may perhaps merit the encomium bestowed by Phædra's nurse on second thoughts; viz. that of being ropτepai.