the collation of manufcripts, and the opinion of ancient grammarians, can have no weight in deciding the difpute. He reads 717, 150, 211; άλλοισι, 295 ; ήπείλησεν, 388 ; πρησε, 481 ; ἔθες, 483 ; εὗρεν, 498 ; ὀφέλα λωσί, 510. 85. A fcholiaft remarks, does not feem to understand. not an unfrequent barbarism. οἶσθα χωρὶς τοῦ Σ,” which the Profeffor The fcholiaft alludes to airbas, which is 91. ἄριστος ἐνὶ στρατῷ. For ἐνὶ στρατῷ Profeffor Heiné fubftitutes Axa in the text, which has the authority of Ariftarchus, Aristophanes, Sofigenes, and Zenodotus. 103.g is the diaphragm, and us the liver. It is curious to obferve how perfectly material an uncultivated language is. ib. ἀμφιμέλαιναι. Profeffor Heyne reads ἀμφὶ μέλαιναι. 117. Although an example occurs five lines before, of the fupprefGon of πᾶλλον before or after βούλομαι, none of the ancient critics were able to divine the meaning of this line; and Zenodotus boldly rejects it as fpurious. Agamemnon declares, in a style very proper for a commander in chief, that he would rather the army fhould be faved than perifb.' This patriotic fentiment is not unfrequently tranflated, not care whether the army be preferved or destroyed." I do 129. As or do? We prefer dr, from the analogy of the fecond perfon : τίθης, τίθησι ; λέγης, λέγνησία 133. éhess. Most of the ancient editions read ì xes, which laft is not an Homeric word. See ver. 273. 149. άvaideiny. This word, and all others which resemble it in form, we believe to be barbarous, and that the proper orthography is avaiding, andiny, in which the penult is made long from neceflity, as is frequently done in gy, and many fimilar words, which have no pretenfion to be written with the diphthong. (See ver. 205.) We do not believe that the Attic mode of forming fubftantives in a from adjectives in -5, was known to Homer; and if it were, he would have written, as they did, avadar, with the laft fyllable fhort. Neither poetic licenfe, nor the Ionic dialect, converts a fhort in the end of a word into Min, which is frequently found in our prefent editions of Herodotus, ought to be altered to ua. It is exactly fuch an Ionism as xeçar and yuvaav are Dorifms. Profeffor Heyné has not attended to this confideration. 153. Αἴτιος in Homer is ὑπὸ αἰτίαν κείμενος. 159. Τιμὴν ἀρνύμενοι 13 τιμωριαν εἰσπραττομένοι. 164. Profeffor Heyné prefers veror to raidor, on which fubject he has an Excurfus. We differ from him, although not confidently, and we think that the participle has a tendency to combinations of this kind, even where the verb rejects them, as, εύκτιμένος, δακρυχέων, καρηκομόωντες, νουνεχοντως. 168. ἐπὴν κεκάμω and έπει κι κάμω are both Greek; but we are furprifed that Profeffor Heyne does not figmatize ἐπήν κε κάμω as a grof barbarifm. 170, 171. oids 'ow, &c. This desperate passage does not receive much new light from the Profeffor's animadverfions. Whether we fuppofe VOL. II. NO. 4. Co ἀφύξειν aue to relate to Agamemnon or to Achilles, it is impoffible to force the words into order, without violating the common laws of conftruction. The most probable folution of the difficulty is to read ' for Compare quas árdęà xoλáceμsv. ver. 78. which the Profeffor perfifts in tranflating puto virum iratum fore, inftead of I think that I jball exafperate, &c. We cannot allow to ftand for rot. 171. apavos Is the Profeffor ferious, when he records the etymology of this word, a‡' iràs iviautoũ, the fruit of one year? 187. ἴσον ἐμοὶ φάσθαι. The Profeffor's interpretation is φάσθαι ἑαυτὸν divas irov quaí. If he, or any one else, fupposes that part is more capable of bearing this fenfe than 4a, they are mistaken, as the two forms are perfectly fynonymous. 191. For go the Profeffor fubftitutes ago, for good reafons, and on good authority. 193. On occafion of the interpofition of Minerva to prevent Achilles from laying violent hands on Agamemnon, Profeffor Heyné remarks: Semel monendum eft: quod nunc inter vulgo nota habetur, ante xx annos non æque quicquid homines cogitant, fufcipiunt, peragunt, ita ut concilii fufcepti cauffa aut obvia non fit, aut ratio quomodo res gefia fit, vulgo non occurrat; id ad numen referri, quod id aut clam moneat, aut homines ad id impellat aut eos afflet, aut clam adjuvet rebufque agendis ipfum interfit. We entreat the reader to obferve the wonderful progrefs of philofophy within the laft twenty years. 203. i ve üßer ions. The Profeffor reads on, but the reading of Euftathius, on (for fonas), is certainly the beft; and, as a general rule, we would always reftore the uncontracted forms in Homer when it is poffible. We would read μετατρέπε 160. ἀφαιρεται 182. Πατρόκλεις 336. ' 504. 204. The Profeffor reads τελέεσθαι inftead of τετελέσθαι; and obferves, that the readings of Ariftarchus, Zenodotus, and the other grammarians, are in general nothing more than conjectural emendations, and confequently have no more authority than thofe of Bentley or himself. We acquiefce moft perfectly in this opinion. 216. Profeffor.Heyné obferves, that Apollonius Rhodius ufes Tigos, which is properly a dual, for rerigos. We confider the Ionifms (redius Lafms) of Apollonius, and the Atticifms of Lucian, as far inferior in authority to the Latinity of Bembo or Erafmus. 244. This verfe is confidered as fpurious by Bentley and Profeffor Heyné. One great part of the criticism of the ancients on Homer confifted in rejecting paffages which they did not understand, or which did not fuit their ideas of the poet or the poem. The boldeft of these men feems to have been Zenodotus. In our account of the Profeffor's notes, we have taken no notice of their opinions, because we do not think that in general they deserve the smallest regard. One critic con ceives it to be unfuitable to the gravity of Agamemnon to tell Chryfes that he loves his daughter better than Clytemneftra, his xovgidin aaoxos. Another wishes to reject the fcolding fcene between the two heroes. A third does not approve of Minerva pulling Achilles by the hair. Pro feffor feffor Heyné has in general exhibited the fentiments of thefe ingenious critics very faithfully. 230. . Profeffor Heyné reads any. 258. Tigi Bouλý. The Profeffor has judiciously restored the accufative for the dative, on the authority of the Venetian manufcript. He compares N, 621. Od. A, 66. E, 247. 255. Onvía Alguider. This verfe is wanting in fome of the best manufcripts, and was probably interpolated by the vanity of the Athenians. As to the quantity of the laft fyllable, which Clarke fufpects to be long, we muft obferve, that there is a perfect analogy between the genitive and accufative. Homer does not ufe Rais, confequently he did not use Bariatā. In Attic profe, the long form only ought to be used: in verse, both are employed. 273. ξύνιος. The Profeffor reads ve for tuviera, which is the common form. 277. μηδὲ σὺ, Πηλείδη, θέλ'. Ας θέλω does not occur in Homer ex cept in this line, wonderful pains have been taken to get rid of it. Profeffor Heyné cuts the knot, and reads 'x' with the apoftrophus. 278. The Professor suspects pugs to be an aorift we believe it to be a perfect, for a very fimple reason, which is, that or a does not become in the aorist. If it were an aorift, it would probably be written ἔμμαρι. 283. Airσqu' Axa, &c. None of the ancients have commented on this verfe, except Euftathius, whofe explanation is received by Profeffor Heyne : λιτανεύει τὸν βασιλέα παύσασθαι τοῦ χόλου τῷ ̓Αχιλλέα. 291, προθέουσι. We know not what to make of this word, but we cannot allow it to fand for προτιθέασι. In the first place," 294. εἰ δή σοι πᾶν ἔργον ὑπείξομαι έττι και εποις. fays Bentley, • Homer never fays ἔργον εἰπεῖν, but always ἔπος εἰπεῖν, Secondly, a requires the digamma. Correct, therefore, s ὑποείξομαι.” Profeffor Heyne properly fubftitutes έπης for εποις, but declines giving an opinion on the other points. 296. Σήμαιν, οὐ γὰρ ἔγων' ἔτι σου πείσεσθαι των This verfe is rejected by Longinus, Bentley, and Profeffor Heyné in his notes, who all put a ftop after an và quays in the preceding line, 298. T. Profeffor reads 301. avv. The Profeflor reads av iλ. 344. MaxOTO 'Axa. In order to avoid this ugly biatus, Barnes and Bentley both read paxsolar, with the approbation of Profeffor Heyné. We have no doubt that the real reading is paxorras in the future. There is hardly any ancient form of speech which the transcrib ers have fo diligently laboured to extirpate, as ones followed by a fu ture. 361. ἔπος τ' ἔφατ' ἐκ τ' ονόμαζε. One of the ancients tranflates this phrafe, which occurs fo often, Spoke verbs and nouns. όπος is the fame as pūμx, a verb. 423. ἐπ' Ωκεανόν. The Profeffor reads ἐς Ωκεανόν. 424. μstà duita. The Profeffor inferts xarà data in his text, on what appears to us to be infufficient authority. Cca 428, 428. ἀπέβησατο. We prefer the other form απέβησετε, and alfo δι σετο. 444. öpg' inaσóueda avata. This reading, which admits the digamma, is at laft received into the text, not only on the authority of Dawes and Bentley, but also on that of most of the manufcripts. 483. κέλευθα. The Profeffor reads κέλευθον. 489. Inλéos vids. We are furprised that Profeffor Heyné chooses to make a crafis of the two laft fyllables of Inxios, not having the fear of the digamma before his eyes, rather than to adopt Barnes's reading Пnaños, which requires the firft fyllable of vins to be fhortened: a licenfe, for which it is unneceflary to produce other authority than Agua τος υἱος. Ζ. 130. 491. The Profeffor obferves that 4eview is fynonymous both with Φθείρω and φθείρομαι. . Φθινύθω is the fame as φθίνω, which, in an active fenfe, has the future pire, and the aorift fire. The paffive future and aorift are, bioquai and pipe. We mention this circumftance, becaufe learners who find a verb ufed indifcriminately in one of its tenses, fometimes fuppofe that it may be confounded in all of them. The verb zatia is ufed in the fame manner by Attic writers. 513. Inftead of gero, which is an Attic form, the Professor restores εἴρετο. 522. μή σε νοήση. The Profe for reads μή τι νοήσῃ. 533. Zeus de sòv zgos dua. The digammated form of òg was, as Profeffor Heyné remarks, EFOE rather than FEOE. Many words which appear to have had a digamma after the initial E, fometimes lofe the E, in the fame manner as EFOE becomes FOX. Such are EFEΙΚΟΣΙ, EFEPгO, EFEANON, EFEAANP, EFIZO2. In the prefent verfe, he thinks that ZEYE AE FON is allowable. Perhaps, on the fame prin ciple, we may venture to correct ver. 18. Εκπέρσαι Πριάμου πόλιν, εὖ δὲ FOIKAA' ixia. Bentley reads xai for i d', which is too violent an alteration. Profeffor Heyné wishes to fubstitute "Agyos for oixað. 543. νοήσεις. The Profeffor reads νοήσῃς. 549. Profeffor Heyné juftly fufpects y to be, in every part of Homer, an invention of the grammarians. 555. μή σε παρείπη. As παρεπη requires the digamma, Bentley boldly fubftitutes agily. Profeffor Heyné is of opinion, nobis reclamantibus, that, in compound words, the digamma may be dropped at pleasure. 566. μή νύ τοι οὐ χραίσμωσιν ὅσοι θεοὶ εἴσ ̓ ἐν Ὀλύμπῳ ἆσσον ἰόνθ ̓, ὅτε κέν τοι κάπτους χειρας ἐφείω. Profeffor Heyné remarks, that arrov va means to attack, and that confequently éve must be the accufative applied to Jupiter, and governed by χραίσμωσιν, which form he illuftrates by Y, 296. οὐκ αὐτῷ χραίσμησεν ὄλεθρον. 585. vxgo. The Profeffor reads iv xagi. 6Q8. minor idvino. Profeffor Heyné has reftored the true reading for reino sidvince, which does not admit the digamma. He also reads ταῦτα ἰδυίη, ν. 366. We We shall not continue our researches any farther, as we prefume our readers are fufficiently convinced how little advantage is to be derived, in an edition of Homer, from the most accurate and attentive examination of all the documents which at present exist. The great obftacle which ftands in the way of the critic, in his attempts to restore these venerable remains to their original purity, is the abfolute impoffibility of diftinguishing the parts which are interpolated from thofe which are genuine. We have already mentioned, that the criticifms of the Alexandrian grammarians, are much better calculated to mislead those who confide in them, or to amuse those who defpife them, than to elucidate cbfcurities, or to detect impofitions. In a lower and more humble style of criticifm, much may be done, and much of what was poffible has been executed by Profeffor Heyne. His work will, in a great meafure, preclude the neceffity of farther collations, from which nothing of confequence can be expected; and when the Greek language is better understood than it is at prefent, it will be reforted to as a rich repofitory of philological information. We had almoft forgotten to mention, that this book is printed on three different papers. The two beft have the recommendation of being extremely dear, and of containing a great number of head and tail pieces, fimilar to those which adorn the Profeffor's edition of Virgil. We shall now take our leave of this useful and valuable publication. Profeffor Heyné is, we believe, feptuagenario major; but we do not despair of being called upon, in a fhort time, to give our opinion of his edition of the Odyfley. So much of the labour which is common to both poems, is anticipated in the Iliad, that the publication of the Odyffey will be attended by very little trouble. We regret that the fituation in which Profeffor Hayné is placed, does not permit him to devote the whole of his time to purfuits for which he poffeffes fo many qualifications. Literature, in Germany, is a trade, and a liberal education is confidered as unneceffary to youths whofe circumftances enable them to fubfift without the exercife of a profeflion. For this reason, inftances of men of learning, whofe time is not occupied by the duty of public inftruction, are much rarer in Germany than in England. In England, we have not derived from the labours of fuch perfons, the advantages which we might have expected. Mental indolence is the faithful companion of wealth; and, in our own country, as well as in every other, the most meritorious exertions in literature have been made by those who were unable to devote to their favourite purfuits more than a few irregular hours stolen from the performance of duties on which their fubfiftence depended. ART |