But the very parallel shews that the reading in II. 6. 20, should be dura lupa, the "inhumanæ lupa" of v. 4. 52. The papilla may be dura, but what sense is to be given to duro, as applied to lacte, one does not see. How will Mr. Paley translate it? (An irreverent friend has suggested cream-cheese, which perhaps, under the circumstances, is what the Germans would call zu gewagt!). Müller suggests "crudo." The subject is fertile enough, but is beyond my present purpose.] The verse is a faulty Propertian verse, not for the reason Mr. Paley alleges, but because it is a Propertian Solecism, being [if we omit Sociis in I. 6. 20, on which vide infra] in all the 2000 pentameters of Propertius absolutely the ONLY single case in which a trisyllabic ending has not a liquid. II. The other apparent exception to the rule here established is in I. 6. 20, where there seems to be a universal agreement of editors in giving "sociis" as the final of a pentameter. The foregoing canon here established is, however, adhered to so strictly by Propertius, that I should be inclined to oppose the admission of the irregular trisyllable on even slighter grounds than I seem to myself to have. The passage is as follows: I. 6.20 Tu patrui meritas conare anteire secures Et vetera oblitis jura refer sociis. To that ending, as an ending, I demur, in limine. Apart from the principle, however, I do not think the two lines of the elegiac harmonize. Here are two imperatives, 'do thou endeavour to surpass thy uncle, AND do thou bring back old laws to the allies who have forgotten them,' conare et refer-which the et joins very lamely. Besides, those laws are evidently assumed to be laws beneficial to the allies. Was it likely then that the allies could have forgotten them? It is hardly probable. On the other hand, the place where they were administered might have forgotten them from disuse, and that is what I think the poet said. Now it will not be denied that the connection between forum and jus is a very common and a very natural one. Here then is a passage from Propertius himself, which I beg to submit as being a strong argument in favour of the correctness of the reading I adopt. The parallelism at all events is striking. Compare IV. 9. 24, Quum tibi Romano dominas in honore SECURES with I. 6. 20, Tu patrui meritas conare anteire secures Et vetera oblitis jura referre foris. And now the et assumes its proper co-ordinate connective force, the two infinitives being dependent on the imperative conare: "let it be thy aim to wield (even yet more admirably than thy uncle) the axe of the executive, and to restore to the courts their legislative functions." Here then I stand by the reading quoted by Barth in loco, and adopted by Weise apparently alone of all the modern editors. As to the probable worth of the source from whence this reading is taken there is not much certainty, but Lachmann's note on this reading (which he condemns) is as follows: "Jura referre foris sic vetus codex Perreji. Vaticanus secundus, Heinsius et Burmanni alter, nescio an e Vallæ libro; de conjectura enim non videtur positum." This last clause seems intended as a corrective of what Lachmann had said in reference to this vetus codex, &c. in the preface (p. xi, sqq.), viz. :— : "Præter septem hosce nihil mali a correctorum Italorum temeritate passos unus commemoratur B. Valla liber antiquissimus, cujus scripturas, quas a F. Puccio anno 1502 annotatas haberet, si L. Santenius apponere voluisset, haud paullo rectius, ni fallor, de multarum lectionum fonte et origine judicare possemus; quamquam cautione vel in his F. Puccii excerptis adhibendis opus erit, quem multa DE CONJECTURA ĆUM SUA TUM ALIENA REPOSUISSE non suspicor sed certe scio. Nunc cum Puccii opera nobis carendum esset, hic, quæ ex A. Perreji excerptis notantur, usi sumus, caute tamen cum præter Puccii librum alios quoque eosque non leviter passim interpolatos adhibuerit, in quibus et Vaticanorum primum ac secundum fuisse existimo." According to Kuinoel (1. p. 47) referre foris was edited by Broukhusius, from an emendation of Heinsius, instead of the sonis of some codices. This sonis Heinsius in his notes to Ovid Fast. I. 287, II. 532, altered into foris; Kuinoel adds, idque inveni confirmatum a cod. Ant. Perreii, Vat. sec. et duobus meis. Adoptata autem Heinsii conjectura iura referre foris intelligendum erit de conventibus quos agere solebant magistratus provinciales, idque forum vel conventum agere, aut indicere vocabant....Hemsterhusius tamen veteram scripturam iura refer sociis propugnat, et Vulpius Heinsii correctionem se ideo repudiare notat, quia efficax inagis et concinnum iura refer, quam conare referre, tanquam si res esset dubii eventus. Potius Heinsio apponendum erat, oblitos socios rectius dici quam oblita fora; quæ si displiceant, forte obtritis foris substitui posset, in quibus leges et iura iacuerant proculcata, obsoleta et velut situ obducta.... Revocanda est vetus lectio: refer sociis. Præcedenti versu cur diceret: conare anteire, gravis erat caussa; eleganter enim ad laudem Tulli patrui pertinet, cuius imperium tam fuit iustum, at vix sperari possit, alium successorem ad eandem laudem facile peruenturum. Verum hic si Tullo dicat, conare vetera iura referre, diffidere se amici virtuti ostendet, quod certe absurdum, et ab elegantia Propertii alienum.' The very fact of Hemsterhuis suggesting obtritis foris shews a desire on his part to preserve the foris, even at the cost of an altogether unfounded alteration obtritis, the Latinity of which in this sense is extremely questionable. He supports 'obterere' by two quotations, viz. :— Ovid Met. x., 6. obtrita consuetudo,' for desueta; Cic.. Verr. v., I. 'obterere laudem imperatorum,' for carpere, imminuere, neither of which, I submit, justifies Hemsterhuis' version of the proposed substitution obtritis foris.' As to the last sentence of his argument, viz., that Propertius would not say conare vetera iura referre, lest he should seem to be distrusting his friend's virtus, it is easy to reply that the task of bringing into actual workable order the law courts of a disorganized country has ever been a task of sufficient magnitude to obviate the possible charge of want of virtus in case of failure. So one might retort this æsthetic side of Hemsterhuis' argument by simply emphasizing the vetera iura referre,' "and the Herculean task of re-organizing judicial procedures do thou attempt." But it is not necessary to retort even ingenuities. If there were an authoritative MS., its statement, of course, would be accepted quand même; failing that, the balance of probability is undeniably in favour of a dissyllable against such a trisyllable as sociis, unless overwhelming linguistic evidence to the contrary should be forthcoming. ROBERT ATKINSON. EURIPIDEA. Frag. 357 (Nauck). ERECTHEUS. πολλάκις ναῦς ἡ μεγίστη κρεῖσσον ἢ μικρὸν σκάφος. The sentiment of this verse is plainly not satisfactory. Herwerden suggests ναὸς μεγίστης κρεῖσσον ἦν μικρὸν σκάφος. But would it not be much simpler to read πολλάκις ναῦς ἢ μεγίστη κρείσσον ἦν μικρὸν σκάφος This gives the sense one naturally expects, 'Oftentimes has a little barque proved better than a great ship.' 388. THESEUS. κάρα τε γάρ σου συγχέω κόμαις ὁμοῦ, Read for the last line αἱμοσταγή πρηστῆρε ῥεύσονται κάτω. The vigour of the passage is thus much improved, while the metre is set right. The "twin streams of blood" call up a picture quite in harmony with the rest of the fragment. The substitution of the plural for the dual is a very common mistake; compare, for instance, frag. 848. ὅστις δὲ τοὺς φύσαντας μὴ τιμᾶν θέλῃ, where the obvious correction is τὼ φύσαντε. 406. INO. νόμοι γυναικῶν οὐ καλῶς κεῖνται πέρι, χρῆν γὰρ τὸν εὐτυχοῦνθ ̓ ὅπως πλείστας ἔχειν |