an excellent note, 4, 1, 1, on the versification in several instances capable of improvement. of the Fourth Book, and on the novel words Orelli's old note on the very difficult phrase used in it, faustitas, beluosus, tauriformis, fabuleque manes, 1, 4, 16, is left unaltered : domabilis, inimicare, ad precari, obarmare, the first part of this note (fabulæ, non est remiscere, æternare.

gen. sing. sed nom. plur., Manes fabulosi, id The notes contain some important devia- est, inanes) is very misleading, and the whole tions from Orelli's views, among which the note generally perplexing; it should be following deserve mention. Male pertinaci, clearly pointed out what sense the imitation 1, 9, 24, male is rightly explained as increas- of Persius shows must attach to fabulce, viz. ing the force of pertinaci, as in male raucus. 'names,' 'subjects of talk,' 'mere material Quis sub Arcto ...1, 26, 3, quis is taken as for gossip,' cf. Juv. 1, 145, fabula a nominative, and it is pointed out that the funus, and for the very rare opposition reference is to the King of the Dacians, Lucan, 1, 313, et noinina vana Catones. On whose raids at this time caused alarm, cf. 1, 7, 20, seu te . . . . castra tenent, seu densa 3, 8, 18. In the Archytas Ode the dialogue tenebit the note on tenent rursus aliquando theory is repudiated, and may indeed now be ut antea sepe' is simply wrong; tenent is fairly relegated to the limbo of departed not a future, as the note makes it, but is superstitions. On ciboria, 2, 7, 22, just most forcibly contrasted with the future praise is awarded to a conjecture of F. tenebit, the variation in tense being employed Bücheler, that Septimius had after Philippi to suggest to Plancus how glad Horace would joined Antony in Egypt and remained there, be if he would quit the camp for Tibur. and that this Egyptian word for a 'goblet' The old explanation of notus animi, 2, 2, 6, is used designedly. The nominative of as notus propter animum is retained, and Sabinis, 2, 18, 14, is rightly given as Sabini, also 4, 13, 21, nota artium, although the for Sabina cannot be put for Sabina prædia, construction is unexampled, and the genitive especially in the ablative. Altior Italice may in the first case reasonably and in the ruinis, 3, 5, 40, is 'raised higher by the second case certainly be explained as downfall of Italy,' and not towering higher simple genitive of quality. Those who have than fallen Italy.' It is allowed that read the essay of H. T. Plüss will not be 3, 11, 16-20 is an interpolation. The objec- satisfied that all doubts are refuted' by tions to Tule, 4, 2. 2, are forcibly stated and Bücheler's explanation of quem vocas, Dilecte seem unanswerable, but few will be found to Maecenas, 2, 20, 6, quem vocas ut ego audiam, agree with the emendation approved of in clucam, quoniam cliens tuus sum. In 3, 33, 3, the note Icari factis, and, were it not for the redonabo is not = condonabo; Nauck rightly hiatus in æmulari ille, Peerlkamp's sugges- says, “I will give up to Mars who has a claim tion is infinitely better, the use of ille, which on him,' the use of re being regular. The Orelli calls most frigid,' being exactly eighth Ode of the Fourth Book is accepted parallel to its use (quem . . . illum) in line as it stands, and the weighty objection that 3 of the next Ode. Per laborem, 4, 2, 29, is it alone of the Odes is not divisible into taken as 'laboriously,' and plurimum circa stanzas is passed over, Orelli's careful nemus are connected, as sense and sound remarks on Meineke's canon being omitted. alike demand, but plurimum is explained as The editor follows Orelli in treating all spissum, though why the natural rendering English editions since the days of Bentley full many a grove' is objectionable it is and Cunningham as if they were non-existent.

In an excursus on 4, 8, 13, Probably this is due to the fact that English objection is taken to the explanation of editors have paid comparatively little attendamna cælestia, as referring to the waning tion to spelling, to the scholia, to MSS., and of the moon in heaven, for it is observed to emendations. An opinion apparently that the whole Ode dwells on the lesson prevails in Germany, and is becoming inwhich earth inculcates with its changing creasingly prevalent in England, that these seasons, and damna cælestia is explained as things constitute the most important pordamna cælo (i.e. by its changes, variations, tion of the study of classical literature. It &c.) terræ adlata : as the year advances the may be so. It may be that the Odes of celestial influences gradually take away Horace—the Odes which amid the intelgrowth and vigour, bringing decay and lectual Sahara of Shrewsbury training were death ; but when the new year comes, the a green oasis to the weary soul of Charles swift months soon make good this heaven-sent Darwin-c

can only be properly understood loss.'

by one who is strictly orthodox on the spellThe points referred to show sufficiently the ing of querella, who has groped for treasure great merits of this edition. It is, however, among the antiquarian dustheaps of Por

hard to say

phyrion, Acron and comM. CRUQ., who can and discipline of many generations, because exactly estimate the evidential value of it has been their singular good fortune to ABMostdy, and who is aware that Dr. express imperishable thoughts in language Bentley thinks that capacis Orci would, the perfection of which has never been surpossibly on theological ground, be an im- passed, and rarely rivalled. They will cease provement on rapacis Orci, while Peerlkamp, to be studied if, instead of endeavouring to if he had written the Odes, would have understand the secret of their living force, written Sudare magnos jam vidco duces. It we make it our chief object to attain to a may be so; but, if it is so, then the study of laborious knowledge of dry and unprofitable the classics, long and justly considered a details connected with their survival. We necessary part of liberal education, will not shall find that we have let slip the kernel, long withstand the vigorous attacks with while engaged in learned disquisitions about which it is continually assailed. The great the exact constitution of the husk. classical writers bave served for the delight



[ocr errors]

Sophocles. Oedipus Tyrannus. Professor with the truth of the view that 'the positive JEBB. 2nd Edition. 128. 6d.

worth of the corrections supplied by the

other MSS. is no greater than it easily might PROFESSOR JEBB has subjected his com- have been if the Laurentian were their commentary on the Oed. Tyr., which appeared mon parent.' He therefore adopts (when in 1883, to a careful and laborious revision more specific statement is unnecessary ') a throughout. He most truly says, “The summary and general denotation of the later commentary, as it is now sent forth, will MSS., by which the paramount significance furnish sufficient evidence of tbe desire of the Laurentian is brought into clear and which I have felt to profit by any criticism bold relief.' which has convinced my own judgment, and Notes either entirely rewritten or materito express gratitude for such criticism in the ally altered will be found at lines 34, 43, 98, most practical form.' Nothing need be said 161, 178, 325, 397, 523, 775, 997, 1290, here of the consummate excellence of the 1415. At 171 is a new note; at 1002, book, as it was, and is : the object of the 1520, new notes, with change in translation; present notice is to call attention to some of at 71, a defence of pvoaiunv added ; at 493, the alterations in detail which have been note rewritten, but view maintained ; at made in the new edition, rendering the book 1090, suggested emendation withdrawn, with more than ever a 'vivid exposition' of Prof. new note, and further discussion in Appendix; Jebb's mind in relation to Sophocles.

a corresponding change at 1101 ; at 1219, The critical notes on the text have been defence at greater length of Prof. Jebb's rewritten in English. Latin critical notes ingenious correction onepiádejov xéwv. At were a survival and a luxury, hardly con- 478, J. F. Martin is credited with anticipasistent with an English commentary; and tion of Prof. Lushington's conjecture, Trépas common sense approves the change. But it ioótaupos. entails some sacrifices. The traditional I am encouraged by Prof. Jebb's more Latin of scholars' had its merits. Prof. than courteous reception of past criticisms Jebb was not one to avail himself of its to venture a few remarks suggested by some controversial amenities. He never described of the additions or alterations in this edition. a rejected emendation by the favourite 'tra- 44. In note, the rendering issues of ditional' epithet putidissima, so sweetly counsels' is now explained as concise for suggestive to the modern reader. But we occurrences connected with (resulting from) miss in the sober English of the new critical counsels. But τύχην εσθλήν τήσδε της οδού, notes such felicities as 'vulneris antiqui 0.C. 1506, is the good fortune of this cicatrix,' 'praeposteram lectionem čÉÉOpeye coming' (Prof. Jebb's translation), gen. of kitépvoe,'huius versus causam orare nullo definition. In Thuc. i. 140, τας ξυμφορας των coram iudice reformidem,' quod vereor ut mpaypátwv, the gen. is, I think, objective Sophocleae Xúpites facile patiantur.'

('the way in which things are brought tofessor Jebb is more impressed than formerly gether,' the comings-about of things '), cp.

[ocr errors]


Τhuc. i. 23, παθήματα ξυνηνέχθη γενέσθαι. to you for help in tracking the crime,-I Prof. Jebb says, "Objectors fail to distin- should not have tracked it far by myself. guish between English and Greek gen. They But is it possible to say I will appeal : for, think that because we could not say if I had not appealed, I should have failed. currences of counsels," therefore ovudopa. But now I do appeal.'? Prof. Butcher says, Boulevuátwv in this sense is impossible. It Oedipus has thrown himself in imagination would be just as reasonable to object to into the future, and looks back upon the λυγρών πόνων έκτηρες (185) because we could event.' Could a man say, 'I will jump ; not say “suppliants of weary woes.' But for, if I had not jumped, I should have been Trówv intñpes (if indeed the gen. does not go a coward. But now—I jump'? Surely, if with the verb of emotion επιστενάχουσι) is the sentence ου γάρ κ.τ.λ. referred to the like ενθάκησις ηλίου or απόβασις γης or ερώ- appeal which Oedipus is about to make, we tnous alloù. It is (indirectly) objective; should have ixveúoime. (2) Prof. Jebb avoids corresponding to ικετεύειν περί πόνων as they the logical contradiction' of his former to èvdakeiv (év)ýlív, ároßņval és yộv, épwrâv version (if I had not had some clue; but, Trepi mdow. Prof. Jebb, insisting on the as it is, having no clue.') But he does not, strangeness of ξυμφοραί βουλευμάτων in the like Prof. Butcher, avail himself of the sense collationes consiliorum, seems hardly suppressed protasis ei un étcīTOV [' if I had to give due weight to the consideration that not appealed to you, I should have failed. Sophocles had presumably in his mind the But now I do appeal to you.'] He regards Aeschylean συμφέρειν βουλεύματα. . • If μή ουκ έχων τι σύμβολον as a second protasis Sophocles had intended to suggest ouudépev limiting the first : If I had not appealed to βουλεύματα, «Prof. Jebb says, βουλεύματων you, I should have failed-unless indeed I would have come at once. But ζώσας comes had possessed a clue. But (vūv dè) I possess at once, to warn the hearer that there is none, and therefore I appeal to you." Now something unusual about Evu popás. And in there are two points here. (A) un oỦk čxwv giving up issues,' as he practically does, is made to stand for un éxwv, the oủ being Prof. Jebb loosens bis hold upon tuoas. explained as due to the negatived main verb. • Conferences of counsels' (i.e. counsels (B) un ēxwv is made to mean unless I had when men confer') may be said to live,' possessed (which I did not).' To begin with and so may 'issues of counsels,' but hardly (B). un éxwv cannot be explained, I sub

occurrences.' Again, the new interpreta- mit, as the equivalent of ore un eixov, in a tion' does not say, “Men of experience are case where I had no clue.' A generic clause, most ready to consult other people'; but öte un eixov, with causal force, would indeed · Men of experience may prove their superior make admirable sense ; but (1) it could not wisdom, not only unaided, but also in con- be followed by vû dé, which requires a preference with others.' This does not lower ceding unfulfilled supposition ; (2) its parOedipus 'to the ordinary level,' hut saves ticipial equivalent would be ουκ έχων. μη cit’ ár' 'åvòpòs ololá trou from the appearance éxwv, without article, and adverbial, must be of doing so. Most readers will agree that hypothetical, standing therefore for ei un Prof. Kennedy's collatio exemplorum' in eixov, “if I had not possessed (which I did).' support of his law of ús, since,' does not The Greek for •I should have failed, unless 'live' (or 'breathes but badly ') after Prof. I had possessed a clue,' so as to avoid the Jebb's examination : and the same may be inference " which I did,' is surely oủk åv said of the collection of passages, by means μακράν ίχνευον, ει μή σύμβολον έχων ; or (if of which Dr. Verrall, as Prof. Jebb humor- the inference which I did not' be intended) ously says, has gone near to prove that ciun ei eixov. (A) The translation • Unless &uubopà never means 'occurrence. 155. No I had some clue, I could not have tracked it longer explained • Are we to suffer a new far' implies that a Greek writer would or plague or an old one ?' but ‘Must the mode could have written (as Prof. Jebb says he of expiation be new or old ?' Qu. however could) oủk åv åréfave un oủ Maxóuevos, meanif the normal meaning of earúw (“what ing 'He would not have been slain, unless thing thou wilt work for me') suffices for he had fought.' I venture to think that the this? In Ant. 1178 the normal meaning of nine recorded examples of us où with partiåvúw is hardly suitable to the prophet, and ciple (if Dem. F.L. p. 379 may be spoken of in 0.C. 454 it makes TOTÈ *at length.' as one) afford no support to this view; and 220. (1) Prof. Jebb now says (following in that, if this sentence occurred, it would mean this Prof. Butcher), "The suppressed pro- • He would not have been slain, unless he had tasis is ei un citov, supplied from iepw. refused to fight,' on the principle of ei un “For, if I had not thus spoken,-appealing II póčevov oủx ÚTede&avto, Dem. F.L. p. 364. 314. át' üveyou. The optative and subjunc- He still, however, argues against voo ditouan tive are equally used in 'universal state- But there is nothing 'playful or ironical ments': the difference seems to be, that the about the indic. in Apol. 25B. (*If it is as you optative (in a primary sentence) generalises say, the young men have good reason to hypothetically, suggesting a doubt ; much as congratulate themselves,' might indeed be • It is a man's noblest task to help others, thought fortunate.') *1455. The note has however he might,' differs from 'however he been rewritten. But * οίδα ουκ αν πέρσαι may.' Cp. Apol. 19E, έπει και τούτό γε μου would be more usual' is not consistent with δοκεί καλόν είναι, εί τις οιός τ' είη παιδεύειν The ordinary usage is...with infin. after ανθρώπους. 316. ένθα μη λύη, in al cases verbs of feeling tétolda, etc.' where': čvda un dúci, 'in a case where.' The possible constructions (in order of usualThe former in Latin being indic. (with ubi- ness) are: (1) olda as verb of sense (a) with cumque or the like); the latter, subjunct. ou and partic., (6) with ury and partic. (of (without the cumque). 380. Prof. Jebb now which Oed. C. 656 has always seemed to me takes régm to be the art of ruling. He a most difficult example ; so much so, that still understands τω πολυζήλω βίω, not as

I think Schaefer is right in his conj. oid éyé “the much-envied life (of princes),' but as σ' ου μή τινα...απάξοντ' : indirect for ου μη the life (of men) with its many rivalries': απάξει, like ου μη πέρσoιεν, Phil. 611, ου μη but the locative' dative in this interpreta- apášec, Phoen. 1590). (2) oida = πέπoιθα, , tion seems questionable. 420. Prof. Jebb followed, like trénoba, by infin. with uń. On retains the dislocation of ποιος λιμήν, ποιος the question whether πέρσαι αν = πέρσειεν αν Kebapúr ( what place will not be harbour, or nepo ev äv, Prof. Jebb, who holds for the what of all Cithaeron will not ring? '), and future sense, remarks, 'The poet of Colonus the (to me) impossible 'Tolos Kidaipóv=moov gives Oedipus a presentiment that his end is mépos Kidaipôvos'; but, in accordance with not to be as that of other men.' But is Prof. Butcher's correction, he now translates κακώ quite consistent with this? If πέρσαι τον υμέναιον δν εισέπλευσας “ the marriage into av is prospective, Oedipus is looking forward which thou didst sail.' Surely the rest to a climax of evil. But surely that climax follows. From the storms of that harbour- is past. 1529. Is ólbicely consecutive (no less harbour, even Cithaeron will be a haven.' full stop at én ubev), or imperative Prof. •What haven, what Cithaeron (what haven, Jebb says imper. ; and (in second edition) though it should be Cithaeron itself) will justifies the subject in the accus. by saying not ring with thine outcries?' (Cp. ča ue that the infin, represents an imper. of the ναίειν όρεσιν κ.τ.λ. 1451). Can it be said third person (quoting for this N. 5, 284). that this weakens the figurative force of But can it stand for an imper. of the third λιμήν ' ?

690. Prof. Jebb omits The ei person, no subject being expressed, otherνοσφίζομαι of the MSS. would necessarily wise than by θνητόν όντα, επισκοπούντα και imply that the Chorus do reject Oedipus.



Leontius von Byzanz und die gleichnamigen expected in about twelve months from the

Schriftsteller der Griechischen Kirche (pp. issue of the first, being reserved for a study 317). Von Dr. Loofs. Leipzig : Hinrichs. of Leontius of Neapolis, Leontius presbyter 1887. 10 Mk.

and monk, and author of the life of S.

Gregory, and the extremely valuable collecThe present .olume, forming Band iii. tions of early Patristic extracts which pass Heft 1, 2 of Gebhardt and Harnack's under the name of Parallels, and are usually Texte und Untersuchungen, is the first attributed to John of Damascus. The latter volume of a series of investigations into part of this volume will find its place among the writings which are grouped in the the Leontian writings owing to the fact that Greek and Latin Patrologies under the some copies of Parallels bear the ascription name of Leoptius. It is devoted to the of joint-authorship of Leontius and John-a personal history of Leontius of Byzantium, fact which at once suggests, what a cursory and to a critical study of his theological examination of those copies of the Parallels writings; the second volume, which may be which are extant confirms, that there is an earlier nucleus around which the Parallel- munion between the Eastern and Western literature has gathered. And when it is Churches. These Scythian monks addressed noticed that in the course of the volume a letter when in Rome to Fulgentius of before us Dr. Loofs shows that John of Ruspe, and Loofs analyses this letter and the Damascus in his other theological writings writings of John Maxentius, in order to betrays an acquaintance with Leontius of shew the similarity of their dogmatic standByzantium, and that both of these writers point with that of Leontius; only a few of were at some period of their lives in the these monks are known by name (though cloister of S. Saba, we may look forward they must have occupied an important place with some expectancy to the solution of amongst the defenders of the Chalcedonian a very perplexing problem in the early orthodoxy); amongst them however is one Patristic literature, nor shall we be surprised Leontius. It is further shown that the if Dr. Loofs succeeds in extracting an ori- Scythian monks as well as Leontius of ginal Parallel-book of Leontius out of the Byzantium betray an acquaintance with the later collection. Only we will venture to seldom-read books of dispute between Paul prophesy, judging from experience of time of Samosata and the presbyter Malchion, spent on this very problem, that the second which looks as if Leontius were the brain of volume of Loofs' Leontius will not be pub- the party. Politically he was also in a lished very early in 1888.

leading situation, for there is evidence to Meanwhile we have the first volume, which show that he was a relative of Vitalian. is in every way an admirable piece of re- These details are extremely important: they search in a very imperfectly known region of show, on the one hand, that if peace between the Patristic literature. The personality of East and West had been restored Leontius Leontius is historically obscure : the MSS. would have been its author, and on the other of his works describe him in terms wbich hand his works read side by side with the geographically vary, and officially seem to history of Monophysitism show him actually contradict one another. Sometimes he is to have attained such a position in the final Leontius of Byzantium, sometimes of Jeru- victory of the Chalcedonian orthodoxy in the salem ; occasionally he is described as priest, East. but sometimes as eremite or monk. The same From the yerr 520 to 531 we find no confusion which is found in MS. descriptions trace of Leontius, but in this year, according prevails through the scanty historical notices to Loofs, occurred the celebrated “collatio which we find brought together by earlier cum Severianis,” over which Hypatius of writers as well as by Loofs. Leontius is a Ephesus presided : here a Leontius was common name enough. Over a score of present, who is described as “apocrisiarius references to persons of that name are to be patrum in sancta civitate constitutorum." found in the period which the investigation Loofs hold this to be Leontius of Byzantium covers, viz. the half-century preceding the who now appears as apocrisiarius of a body second Council of Constantinople (553). of Jerusalem monks, and he supports his Hence the greatest care is necessary in opinion by showing that the discussion moves avoiding hasty identifications. It is the on Leontian lines. But he does not throw merit of Loofs' work that it shows first, from any light on the use of the title apocrisiarius a study of the theological writings ascribed for Leontius. The title is usually given to to Leontius, that they are almost all due to the representative of one of the great Patria single powerful mind, and that their writer archs or Bishops : (thus Pelagius I. was must have been the prince of theology of his before his elevation to the Papacy apocrisiatime; second, that the bistorical notices rius to Vigilius, and the deacon Primasius which can be collected allow us to identify held the same position with regard to Bishop such a theologian under various descriptions, Reparatus of Carthage ;) but there are cases and to ascribe to him political influence in which it seems to denote a transient office, only comparable with that of Athanasius and to be nearly equivalent to our “reprethe Great.

sentative.” A reference to Sophocles' lexicon Of these identifications the first is as fol- will I think show that the word is somelows: on pp. 228–261 Loofs shows that times used of the representative of a monasLeontius belonged to the party of Scythian tery: and it is perfectly natural that if monks under the patronage of John Maxen- Leontius had joined a community of monks tius and Vitalian, of whom four went on an at Jerusalem or S. Saba, he should have embassy from Constantinople to Rome in been chosen to represent them in a dispute 519, in the interests of the Theopascite with the Severians. The same Leontius controversy and the maintenance of com. turns up again at the Synod of Mennas in

[ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »