DOBREE'S ADVERSARIA.

Petri Pauli Dobree, A. M. Græcarum Literarum nuper Professoris Regii, Adversaria. Edente Jacobo Scholefield, A. M. Græc. Lit. Prof. Reg. One vol. in two parts. Cambridge, 1831.

THIS Volume contains remarks of the late Greek Professor Dobree on various passages of Greek prose authors, in which he supposed either some error in the present text, or some inaccuracy in the usual mode of interpretation. They are in the Porsonian style, short and unambitious, but not on that account less valuable.

The first part contains Dobree's short notes on Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, followed by a few on Aristotle, Plato, &c.; but the most valuable part is the annotation on the orators, which is more minute and copious than the rest.

These remarks are now for the first time published under the care of Professor Scholefield, with the exception of some few of those on the orators, which were printed in Mr. Dobson's Collection of the Greek Orators. At present we intend to offer a few remarks on that part of the Adversaria which refers to Herodotus. It was evidently not the intention of the author to make any thing like a complete critical commentary on this historian, as the passages noted are few in number, and many, of no less difficulty than those which he has remarked on, are passed over altogether. We must consider, then, these short notes as nothing more than the opinions of the late professor on certain passages, to which, from some cause or other, his attention was more particularly directed; and in this point of view we shall often have occasion to admire his acuteness and sound learning.

1. 56.—ταῦτα γὰρ ἦν τὰ προκεκριμένα ἐόντα τὸ ἀρχαῖον, &c. Dobree proposes to read vez instead of óvra, the word Ovos being shortly afterwards repeated, according to the usage of Herodotus. If any alteration is necessary, we prefer the second conjecture, τὰ προκεκριμένα ἔθνεα, ἐόντα τὸ ἀρχαῖον τὸ μὲν, &c., for we think the ἐόντα is necessary.

1. 57.—καὶ γὰρ δὴ οὐτὲ οἱ Κρηστωνιήται. For Κρηστωνιήται, Dionysius Hal. (I. 29.) certainly read Kporwviñtai*, and understood Herodotus to be speaking of Cortona in Etruria, or rather perhaps he interpreted him according to his own notions. Dobree is inclined to retain the common reading

* The MS. of Cardinal Passionei has xentava for xgnorava, which is probably an error of the copyist. The same MS. has KgnorwvIÑTHI.

in Herodotus, in which we think he may be right. We doubt indeed if the usual interpretation of this passage is the true one; at least, we believe that another is admissible. 'If we may form a conjecture from that remnant of the Pelasgi, who inhabit the city Creston to the north of the Tyrseni, and were once neighbours of the nation now called Dorian (for the Dorians at that time inhabited Thessaliotis), and if we may also judge from the Pelasgi who settled in Placie and Scylace on the Hellespont, and once lived among the Athenians-if we may take them as evidence, certainly the Pelasgi did not speak Greek.'

That the words oixeov de, according to Herodotean usage, may refer to the Dorians, and probably have no relation whatever to a supposed migration into Italy, known to Herodotus, is hardly matter of doubt. Again, Herodotus is apparently speaking of these Pelasgi from his own knowledge, as he was well qualified to do, being personally acquainted both with the banks of the Hellespont and the country of the Crestonieta; but of Etruria he knew nothing at all from personal knowledge, and how much he may have known in any other way must remain a matter of doubt*. But there still remains some difficulty about the Tyrseni of chapter 57, which is not entirely removed by a reference to Thucyd. iv. 109. It is, however, of the first importance to be sure that the translation which Niebuhr has given to this curious passage about Creston is right, before we build any theory on it. The student should carefully weigh the whole of Niebuhr's note, as well as that in the History of Rome, published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge.

Nothing wants reformation in Herodotus so much as the punctuation, but unfortunately editors seem to differ so widely in their principles of putting stops, that it is hopeless to expect any agreement among them. Some seem to think that the whole mystery of editing consists in putting a little comma here, or another there, to point out an interpretation that after all may possibly be wrong, or is much better indicated by the order of the words than by anything else. Some of Dobree's few notices on the punctuation seem to be improvements, as in the following example :—¿ñoλaugisele, ofa dù εἴπας τὰ (Ι. 86. The word is written εἶπαs in the Adversaria, which, we presume, is a typographical error. Instead of rà the MSS. have wore, which we prefer, because there is no reason for a change. Again, (I. 206.) he writes, ovxwv EDEλnoeis;— èDeλńoeis * He mentions Agylla.

which we think decidedly wrong. The oxovv in this passage (we purposely omit the accentual mark), as well as in I. 11, 24, 59, has the same general signification, and in each case the apodosis begins with the word, which, in the common editions, follows the first full stop. The passage in IV. 118., to which Dobree refers, is punctuated aright, and indeed in the only way that it can be intelligible; but the same principle should be applied to I. 206, and the other passages also.

In I. 174.—καλέεται, ἀργμένης δὲ ἐκ τῆς χερσονήσου τῆς Βυβασσίης. 'Eovons dè, &c.—is an improvement, as will be seen by examining the passage. But the recommendation to insert av before yvero in the same chapter is apparently founded on a slight misunderstanding. Herodotus is always superfluous in his explanation, and says almost more than is necessary. After describing the Cnidian Peninsula, and saying that the Cnidians wished to make it (Txapny) into an island, he adds very naturally, and all their state or district lay within, for where the Cnidian territory terminated on the land side, there is the Isthmus at which they were labouring*.' He wishes to mark distinctly the Cnidian territory as being confined to the Peninsula, described at the beginning of the chapter, and therefore to insert av is to spoil the meaning. The reader may consult Schweighæuser's note, where he will see that something like Dobree's conjecture has been thought of before.

II. 8.-és Tá eigntai-is well explained, as referring to the eastern bend of the Arabian mountains near Cairo, or opposite to Memphis. But the passage is rather obscure, and only intelligible on the supposition that Herodotus believed the mountains in the neighbourhood of the present Grand Cairo to run eastward into the chain of Arabia Petræa, and so on through Hedjaz, and the rest of Arabia Deserta. This hypothesis of his, though not strictly correct, is sufficiently near the truth to justify his assertion that the chain runs to the east a two-months' journey, and that at its termination is the frankincense region. It terminated therefore, according to him, at some point on the Arabian coast of the Indian ocean, where the frankincense grew, and probably the spices of the east were imported. Those who are accus

tomed to read Herodotus in a proper spirit of inquiry will not think it tedious to spend a few sentences in attempting to illustrate a passage that is so much misunderstood. Indeed it is not too much to affirm that one half of the readers of Herodotus have but a very confused idea of his meaning.

*Cnidus lay partly on a little island, and partly on the small Triopian Peninsula. It requires a tolerable chart to make the topography clear.

JAN.-APRIL, 1832.

X

Instead of being the easiest of Greek authors, he is, in fact, one of the most difficult, when we consider the endless variety of matter that we find in him.

αν

II. 51.-Dobree proposes to read, ὅθεν περ καὶ ἀν ̓ Ἕλληνας ἤρξατο νομισθήναι sc. τὸ τοῦ Ἑρμέω τἀγάλματα ὀρθὰ ἔχειν τὰ aldoia. He also remarks,- here Herodotus says, that the αἰδοια. Pelasgi were not reckoned Greeks till they came and lived in Attica.' We doubt if there is any reason for the change. Herodotus has advanced an opinion (I. 57.), that the Pelasgi and the Hellenes had different languages, and were consequently different people. It is possible that he may be here referring to an event which gave rise to the popular opinion, or to the opinion entertained by some, that the Pelasgi were related to the Hellenes.

Ι. 93.—κατ' ὀλίγους τῶν κέγχρων—is translated, 6 a few eggs [grains of eggs] at a time.' Another interpretation is, about the size of grains.' But the former is undoubtedly the right translation, which is also given by Schweighaeuser, and is made quite clear by comparing this usage of narà with such as EλÉVETO XαT Oλiyous, VIII. 113., and others referred to by Dobree.

6

III. 5.—✯ έOTI. Dobree says, ' dele,' on which his editor remarks, Imo lege cum, Gaisf., ut sit transpositio Herodotea pro ἔστι ἡ Σύρων.

In reading this passage we can hardly help considering the before ori, as a relative which would naturally refer to Toλos; but as we advance further in the sentence, we find this will not do. The simplest plan is to strike out the, which is perhaps better than Schweighæuser's reading, ǹ koti Zúpwv.

The passage in III. 105. about the camels, can only be explained by omitting xai before zapahúsobat, and translating it, the males are let loose, as they lag behind, but not both (let loose) at the same time.'

III. 116. The word aurai, which stands awkwardly at the end of this chapter, is changed into avrà or auraì by Dobree, who, however, prefers the former: this usage of the word avròs in reference to a noun preceding it, is fully defended by III. 118. яva aútav referred to by Dobree, and other similar passages. Aura is the reading of two MSS., and of Reiz and Borheck.

IV. 2. For περιστίξαντες Dobree proposes πέριξ στήσαντες, which seems a probable correction; or we may take regioтnπεριστής GavTES with four MSS., and Stephanus.

IV. 45. From chap. 42 to 45, Herodotus is occupied in demonstrating that Europe is broader (from north to south) than Asia and Africa, as Dobree explains the passage.

But there is some little difficulty in the expression sugɛos dè περὶ οὐδὲ συμβαλέειν ἀξίη φαίνεται μοὶ εἶναι. It cannot mean, as some explain it, that Europe is narrower than Asia and Africa; but rather Herodotus means to say, that as Asia and Africa are known in their breadth, and Europe is unknown, it is not worth while even instituting a comparison between them as to this dimension. The question of their relative length is easy, as he has just remarked that Europe runs from west to east, side by side with Africa and Asia, and extends eastward as far as Asia extends.

Dobree proposes to transpose in chap. 45, dè dù Evρúπn —ἔχοντα γυναικῶν, and καὶ οὐρίσματα—λέγουσι, in which we certainly should not follow him, for it is quite unnecessary according to our understanding of the passage. The reasons for this proposed transposition are not given.

IV. 64. Dobree proposes to read δέρμα δὲ ἀνθρώπου ἦν ἄρα σχεδόν δερμάτων πάντων καὶ παχύτατον καὶ λαμπρότατον λευκότητι, οι πάντων μάλιστα καὶ παχὺ καὶ λαμπρὸν λευκ. If any correction is necessary, which we do not think is the case, we prefer Dobree's to Schweighæuser's, who in the common text changes väga into väga, (in which he is followed by Gaisford,) and tries to explain it, but not successfully. The common reading requires no alteration at all, unless we choose to put xxi before λaungóтarov with two MSS. Now a man's skin, being both thick and white, is perhaps of all skins the very clearest white.' Compare with this, the usage of ἦσαν, Π. 148.

V. 23. It is suggested to change the position of μiodov and Swpeny, which would be a little improvement; and in 43, for Λαΐου χρησμοί, a very ingenious alteration is suggested-Λάσου Xenouoi, with a reference to VII. 6.

V. 67. εἰ ἐκβάλοι. Dobree suggests ἐκβαλεῖ, or ἐκβάλλῃ. That the form of the optative and of the future indicative are often interchanged in the MS. is well known; and exßaλ is certainly admissible in this passage. But this usage of with the subjunctive, for which Dobree refers to I. 75.* at the same time correcting several other passages in Herodotus where & is used with the optative, is an important one which deserves more attention, and we believe ought to appear in our texts of Herodotus oftener than it does.

There is a difficulty in the words τρίτῳ ἔτει πρότερον, &c. (VI. 40.) which Dobree places in a clear light. The last words of the chapter refer to the expected attack from the Phoenicians, which took place, according to the received text,

* See also I. 53. II. 52. εἰ ἀνέλωνται. VIII. 118. εἰ μὴ γένηται.