Obrázky na stránke

in the third year after the Scythian invasion, which itself took place (see the same chapter) in the third year after Miltiades had been sent to the Chersonesus by the Pisistratidæ. But this would be inconsistent with the date of the expulsion of the Pisistratidae; there is perhaps, therefore, no remedy but to alter the last part of this chapter, as Dobree has done : ταῦτα μὲν πρότερον ἐγεγόνεε-τότε δὲ

Another way of explaining the last words of this chapter is by considering them to contain nothing more than a repetition (which is not unlike the manner of Herodotus) of what was stated in the earlier part of the chapter. The words τῶν τότε μιν κατεχόντων must refer to the events of the following chapter, and the preceding words иatexóvtwv, &c. may also refer to the same events, and not to the death of Stesagoras, &c. In this way the difficulty may perhaps be removed*.

VI. 95. presents another chronological difficulty in T προτέρῳ ἔτεϊ ποιεύμενοι, for it clearly does not refer to the year immediately preceding the expedition of Datis, but to the year of Mardonius' expedition, which was in the third year preceding that of Datis. Dobree suggests тpire πрóтeρov ÉTEï. -See Mr. Clinton, Appendix, p. 24.

VI. 99. οὔτε ἔφασαν ἐπὶ πόλεις—στρατεύεσθαι. σασέσθαι ? σтραTEνGOμÉvav recte duo MSS. VII. 1.' The example in VII. 1. where two MSS. have oтpaтEUσoμέvwv, which is Schweighæuser's reading, is not to the purpose. After such verbs as ἐλπίζω, φήμι, οἴομαι, &c., the present or past tense is sometimes used in the sense of a future in Xen. Anab. I. 7, 5. I. 3, 7. VI. 5, 17. VII. 1, 4. VII. 2, 4+. VII. 6, 38. Krüger is one of the few editors of the Anabasis, who has contributed to put this usage in a clear light. See Krüger, Anab. School Edition, 1830, at the passages quoted. We have in Xenophon, VII. 1, 16. Qaσav, not connected with a negative, followed by a future κατασχίσειν. But οὐκ ἔφη is also followed a by a fut. inf. Herod. VIII. 113. 116. All then we contend for is, that the usage is not invariable, and that when such formulae as οὐκ ἔφασαν στρατεύεσθαι are supported by good MS authority, there is no sufficient reason for altering them.


VI. 103. Evεíxxofa, &c. Dobree suggests, Eandem gloriam, quam Miltiades adeptus est,' instead of another translation, which he calls the common one. Schweighæuser in his Lexicon appears to give the same translation as Dobree,

*See Schweig.'s note. Some may object to his interpretation of girw ἔτεϊ τούτων.


The insertion of v according to the critics, Anab. I. 5, 9. is not necesIn that passage we should either take μaxola with the best MSS., or we should read μάχεσθαι. The ἂν that goes with the clause ὅσῳ θᾶττον ἔλθοι, may be preserved or not: usage in Xenophon rather requires its omission.

which is the right one. The German translator Lange says 'he transferred the victory to, &c.,' which is the wrong way of translating the passage in question. VII. 10. xai dn nai σuvnVEIXE. Istud* xxi dele cum Lipsiensibus in Aldo et MSS. parte.' We believe the xai in dispute is in all the MSS. Schæfer omitted it in his edition. That the second xai is not used in the common Attic formula is perfectly certain, but it is not equally clear that Herodotus did not use it: he abounds in such words, which it is always. somewhat hazardous to expunge.


VII. 10. un BouλEVEO. Lege Bouλeu :-on which Professor Scholefield remarks, Et sic Gaisford, J. S.' On which we may also remark, Et sic Schweigh.'

We do not wonder that Dobree should have made an alteration already made by Schweighauser, as he was in the habit apparently of using Wesseling's edition, and could employ his time better than in looking after all the little changes which critical ingenuity is continually hatching.

We could likewise excuse the editor of the Adversaria the trouble of such historical details, particularly when they are not exact. But we cannot comprehend why Professor Scholefield should drop altogether the name of Schweighauser, who took so much pains with Herodotus, and certainly understood him well. The reason probably is, that Gaisford's book is now more used than Schweighauser's, though the difference consists in a very few orthographical variations, the fresh collation of the Sancroft MS. having added very little new value to our text of Herodotus.

Again, in VII. 16. utrobique legendum vel ovxì vel à où καί. As there is no note here, we will make one. "Hovni ed. Wess. cum præcedent. Editt. et Schæf. ed. 1. Et sic plerique, quod sciam, MSS. oùn iv tỷ MS. F. où nai scripsi cum Schæf. ed. 2. et Borh., &c.' J. Schweig.'s remark, Var. Lect. vii. cap. xvi. 1. 31. T. 36.

VII. 36. Turpiter hic Larcherus, et nescio an ceteri onines, quasi esset (1. 8.) τὰς μὲν Πόντου ἐπικαρσίας, τὰς δὲ ‘Ελλησπόντου narà poor quum apertissimè dicat Herodotus unamquamque navem fuisse ἐπικ. μὲν Πόντου, κατὰ ῥόον δὲ Ελλ.

This remark, and the proposal to change Пlóvrou into zopou, show that Dobree had not read Schweighæuser's note; for, as the editor has remarked at the bottom of the page, Schweighæuser also has proposed to read πόρου for Πόντου ; but he afterwards changed his mind. Larcher's interpretation is certainly wrong, while that in Schweighæuser's last note

*This little word is often incorrectly used in the Adversaria. It may appear hypercritical to notice such a fault; but its frequent recurrence is disagreeable,



is completely satisfactory. Herodotus, as usual, is multiplying his explanation. After saying that the ships were at right angles to the Pontus,' he adds, and in the direction of the stream of the Hellespont;' the two things being the same. For the direction of the Hellespont is ἐπικάρσιος, with respect to the Black Sea, and so also is that of a ship in it, when it lies in the direction of the Hellespont current.

VII. 38.—6 χρήσαις ἄν τι τεῦ βουλοίμην τυχεῖν; Malim ex Arch. χρήσας, i. e. χρηΐσαs vel χρίσαιο, i. e. χαρίσαιο.” Χρηΐσας would be an improvement, and more in harmony with xpnice, which comes shortly after, and was restored by Schæfer in place of Xpov. Perhaps the reading would be still further improved by omitting the interrogation :- There is something I should like to have for asking, a small matter for you to grant,' &c.*


111.—καὶ ποκιλώτερον.

VII. 111.-nai ovdev Toniλáтερov. Dobree proposes to read ovdév ő,ti noinid. et nullum est oraculum hoc sapientius. We do not know how either to explain the original or admit the correction.

VII. 173.— Lege μεταξὺ Οὐλύμπου τε οὔρεος ῥέοντα. Non εἶναι sed ῥέειν fluvios dicit Herodotus. The common reading is ἐόντα, which refers to Τέμπεα, the position of which would be left very vaguely undefined, according to the proposed correction. Besides, the striking out of the dè after META is quite inadmissible. This usage of de requires no comment for those who are well acquainted with the text of Herodotus.

VII. 176. Interpunge, ix dè TOU σTEIVOU, THS Eußoins on, &c.' This punctuation is found in the English reprint of Schweighæuser, and we presume also in the German copy. It indicates the right interpretation undoubtedly, but the meaning is equally clear to a careful reader of Herodotus, if there were no point at all, which we should prefer.

VII. 205.—ἄνδρας τε τοὺς, &c. Quære an verti possit, istos de quibus ante dixi adultæ ætatis viros 300, et eorum filios si quibus erant (ut Megistiæ, cap. 221).' This is an ingenious suggestion, but not, we think, to be received. Megistias was an Acarnanian, a vris, who followed the army with his son ; but this fact has no immediate connexion with the three hundred picked Spartiatæ of Leonidas.

VII. 223.-The remarks on this chapter are good, and the explanation of rò μèv égʊue appears to be the only correct one. But there is hardly any reason to suspect corruption

We do not understand the word rs, unless it may be a form of rou, or an interpolation. To, enclitically used, is common in Herodotus for coi; but we know no instance of re for do in this writer. See II. VIII. 37. TεOO.

in this part of the text. The whole passage runs thus:'The Greeks now advanced much farther into the more open ground than at first, for on the previous days of battle part guarded the wall, while another part advanced only a little beyond, as far as the narrow pass.' This is the meaning of the passage, though not a literal translation. After hav it seems highly probable, as Dobree conjectures, that something is lost; or Herodotus may have written carelessly.

VIII. 76. It seems hardly necessary to resort to the conjecture of κυκλούμενοι πέριξ τὴν Σαλαμῖνα, for the purpose of reconciling Herodotus with Diodorus. The text certainly means, as Dobree partly explains it, the Persians moved their western wing, making a sweep or circle towards Salamis.' That it cannot mean, as Dobree arranges the words, ἀνῆγον πρὸς τὴν Σαλαμῖνα, κυκλούμενοι αὐτὴν, encircling it (Salamis), is clear from the fact that they did not encircle it. The battle was fought in the bay of Eleusis, and the west wing of the Persian fleet, composed of the Phoenicians, was turned in the direction of Eleusis.-(VIII. 85.)

VIII. 111.— Lege oυdénote yag av.' We object to this conjecture, because it is totally unnecessary.

VIII. 120.—gos Tou EaλnozóvτoOU, &c. Dobree's interpretation of Larcher's interpretation appears to be correct, and to be the meaning of Herodotus, who intends to say that Abdera is east of Eion; but his mode of expressing this seems rather awkward, at least to us. Herodotus speaks as if he were in Greece, properly so called, and were considering the position of Abdera on a line that runs through Eion and the Hellespont; accordingly he adds, for the purpose of disproving the story of Xerxes setting sail from Eion: Now Abdera (where Xerxes left presents on his retreat) lies on that part of this road which leads to the Hellespont, and not on that part which leads to the Strymon and Éion.' If this explanation is correct, which we believe is Larcher's meaning, it is certainly not necessary to adopt the latter part of Dobree's note.



IX. 2.—ἕξεις—τὰ κείνων βουλεύματα is explained by referring to exes in VII. 234, a manifest improvement on Larcher's 6 VOUS DECONCERTEREZ,' But Schweigh.'s translation is the same omnia illorum consilia in tua potestate habebis.' IX. 15.-пαρйиe dè avтou, &c. is translated, fronted first Erythræ, and then Hysiæ, and reached into the territory of Platæ, which is perhaps not the common interpretation, though certainly the right one. See chaps. 19, 59, &c. bree remarks, that the words in themselves might mean, 'reached from Erythræ and through Hysiæ;' but the de


scription of the military operations shows that the first is the true meaning.


ΙΧ. 106. 6 βουλεύειν· Qu. βουλευτέα εἶναι.’ If we must give an answer, it must be in the negative. There are two clauses depending on ̓Αθηναίοισι οὐκ ἐδόκεε: these are Ιωνίην ... ἀνάστατον, and Πελοποννησίους . . . βουλεύειν. The Athenians did not at all approve of removing the inhabitants of Ionia, nor indeed did they like the Peloponnesians making any proposition about their colonies.' In the same chapter the point, according to Dobree's suggestion, should be placed after pouμws, or rather omitted, for the meaning cannot be doubtful.

If the limits of such a Journal as this would allow it, we might extend our remarks on the annotations on Herodotus; but we have done enough to show that the short notes which Dobree has left behind him are those of a profound scholar, and, what is much more, of a judicious and careful student of the subject matter of his author. Those who may differ from him in opinion will still find his suggestions worthy of due consideration. But though we think all his notes deserve attention, there are but few of his corrections that are likely to be finally received.

The notes on Herodotus hardly occupy twenty pages, and cannot fairly be taken as a specimen of the whole annotation. That on the Orators is most complete, but it is not our object at present to enter upon it.

The labour of the editor has been limited, as in such cases it ought to be, to insuring an accurate representation of his predecessor's meaning; and we are well assured there will be no reason for finding fault with the way in which he has executed his task.


Gymnasium, sive Symbola Critica, by the Rev. Alexander Crombie, LL.D. in two volumes. The fourth edition, 1830 (pp. 833, Price 21s.)

Clavis Gymnasii, sive Exercitationes in Symbolam Criticam, partim, sicut in veteribus extant, data, et partim a Rev. Alex. Crombie, LL.D. Latine redditæ.


(pp. 112, Price 6s.)

In the consideration of this work, it will be found perhaps convenient to make some arrangement of our own, rather than to follow that of the Gymnasium itself,

« PredošláPokračovať »