nefti pronounces to be the true lection. The Author of the life of Homer, however, whom Gale, Clark and others, fuppofe to have been Dionyfius Halicarnaffenfis, cites the former of thefe paffages, p. 340. Ed. Galei, Amft. 1688, and reads saons for taas, which, as Clark has remarked, must be pronounced ons. This feems to be the genuine reading; and might readily be admitted into the text, if it is fupported by manufcripts. Euftathius alfo, as Ernefti obferves, habuiffe says videtur.

It should be

γαρ

KE.

τ' αλλοι -ΠΕΡΙ

EI, instead of EI KE, with a SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD. Iliad A. 81. Ε1 περ γαρ τε χολον-ΚΑΤΑΠΕΨΗΙ. So in Iliad A. 261. El жεp yaş -INNEIN, and in Iliad M. 245. ΕΙ περ γαρ τ' αλλοι ΚΤΕΙΝΩΜΕΘΑ—the reading fhould be El πες γας Κ' αλλοι. A Subjunctive properly follows E p yap xɛ, in Iliad A. 580. M. 302. Odyff. B. 246. . 355.

Here is a manifeft blunder. AE is unneceffary, but the frequent Occurrence of ale, in the Iliad and Odyssey, might easily occafion its admiffion. Homer also, (ni fallor) would have written: de mor' avle, and not u 707ɛ d'auls. After the Canons, which have been laid down, the mode of correction is obvious: EI TOTE K As Ex and E xv, however, are frequently in juxtapofition, the reading might have been: E x TOT CUTE. ——Kav aute or 'aure may be found in Iliad Z. 73. . 26. I. 135. 277. P、 319, and n. 619.

Iliad E. 258. ΕΙ γεν έτερος γε ΦΥΓΗΣΙΝ.

Read EI K' Quynew. In Villoifon's Edition of the Venice Homer and Scholiafts, the lection is y'un repos ye. It might be EIKE Quynow, which would obviate the double yɛ.

Iliad Λ. 116. ΕΙ περ τε ΤΥΧΗΙΣΙ

Read EI KE.
περ

Iliad O. 16.- - ΕΙ αυτε κακογραφίης αλεγεινής
Πρώτη ΕΠΑΥΡΗΑΙ.

Read K' ATTE, which indeed affifts the metre.

Odyf. Π. 138. ΕΙ και Λαέρτη αυτην όδον αγγελος ΕΛΘΩ

Put a fuller ftop at the end of the preceding verfe, and read H apa for Exa, which is given as a various lection in Clark's note, in whofe Edition, it is remarkable, that the true readings are not uncommonly the rejected readings.

b Vol. III. p. 1675. 9. Edit. Rom.

< No validity can be allowed to Odyff. I. 311. and 344

Συν δ' όγε δ' αυτε δυω μαρψας ώπλισσατο δείπνον,

Which the Commentators allow to be wrong. Ernefti's fuppofition, that the repetition of de, biatus vitandi caufa fieri potuit, merits no attention.

Iliad Φ. 576. Ε1 περ γαρ φθαμενος μιν η ΟΥΤΑΣΗΙ, Με ΒΑΛΗΙΣΙΝ.

Iliad X. 86. ΕΙ περ γαρ σε ΚΑΤΑΚΤΑΝΗΙ.

The Harl. MS. rightly gives, xaraXTEVES. OU GET EYwys Kλavodpas-follows; where Our σsywys feems preferable.--There appear to be many paffages of Homer, in which TE " locum non fuum occu pat," as the learned Annotator on Toup in Suid. Vol. 1v. p. 489. obferves, on a fragment of Callimachus.

Iliad X. 191. ΕΙ περ τε ΛΑΘΗΙΣΙ

Here, and in Odyff. A. 188. EI TEρ TE yeport EIPHAI, for read KE,

In this lift muft not be included Odyff. E. 221. EI ♪'autis PAIHIZI-for Pano is not only Subjunctive, but also Indicative, according to the Mos flectendi Indicativi poetis ufitatus ; qui dicitur a Grammaticis Rheginorum fuiffe dialecti, to use the words of Valckenaer, whofe note on μo for μένει well merits perusal, Adnot. in Adoniazuf. Theocrit. p. 254.-Nor must Iliad г. 288.

ΕΙ δ' αν εμοι τιμην Πρίαμος, Πριαμοιο τε παιδες,

Τίνειν εκ ΕΘΕΛΩΣΙΝ,

- for Homer ufes E. av or Ei Tep av,
in the fame way, as Eɩxı,
fubjunctive Mood. So in Iliad E. 273.

ΕΙ δ' ΑΝ εμοις επέεσσι ΠΙΘΩΜΕΘΑ,

with a

where the Harleian MS. reads wouda, though I av, with an Optative, does not occur in Homer.-E. Tep as with a Subjunctive is to be found in Iliad r. 25. E. 224. 232.

Many examples of the Praf. Ind. Rheginorum may be found in Homer.- -Thus, Odyf. A. 204. Ε1 περ δεσματ' ΕΧΕΙΣΙ—mut not be folicited.- -In Iliad K. 225.—μενος δ', είπερ τε νοῇσι· inftead of non-feems preferable to απερ κε νόηση, as έχησε for εχεις and νοησι for voes, are produced as examples of the χημα Ιβυκείον, Οι Ρηγίνων, in the Etym. M. V. Παμφαίνησι. Νοησι is allo mentioned by Euftathius, in Ody. H. p. 1176. 61. Ed. Rom. which paffage is cited, from the Commentary on Iliad H. by Valckenaer, Adon. loc. cit. This is a typographical error, as the reference is rightly given, in his notes on Lefbonax, p. 179.-Orpurow occurs, in the Indicative, after & yn, Od. Z. 373.

To evince the propriety of correcting these few paffages, it need only be observed, that E. 2 is ufed by Homer, with a Subjunctive Mood, in above forty different places. Ex however, is fometimes joined to a future Indicative, apparently for want of a future Subjunctive. Iliad B. 258. Ei x2eri xixnoopai. K. 449. Eɩ κε απολύσομεν. - Odyf. r. 216. Ει κε αποτίσεται.-Ε. 417. Ει κ

d As thefe inftances of E with a fubjunctive are so rare in Homer, Milton pro bably fuppofed, that the corrupt paffages in the Tragedies, in which fuch a conftruction may be found, would defend his Et oleo.

This ufage of the Indicative is termed xnua Kopivov by Lefbonax, p. 178→ and by the Etym. M. V. E, p. 301. In the Sch. on Iliad B. 72. Should not the reading be Κορινθίων συνολη for Ιαγων

471

ετι παρανήξομαι -Π. 238. Ει κεν-δυνησομεθ' 254. εί κεν αλησομεν. Χ. 76. Ει κι απώσομεν.

Tor evropa.] O Evvouos, qui eft intra legem, of course does not occur in Homer.-The word Enouos, however, may be found in the Tragic Writers; but they do not apply it to perfons. Efchylus, Suppl. 389.

Δικας & τυγχάνεσιν εντομα,

whence Euripides, Phan. 1645. Ed. Valck. appears to have derived his Evropy day.In the fame play also, 408,

Αδικα μεν κακοίς, όσια δια εννομοις.

And again 574, where the Scholiaft explains Error by Oientopes, -Βροτοι δ', οἱ γας τοτ' ησαν εννομοι.

In the Chaph. 481. likewife:

Ούτω γαρ αν σοι δαιτες εννομοι βροτών.

In Sophocles, Oedip. Tyrann. 330.

Ουκ εννομ' ειπες.

The application of Eros to Perfons appears to be peculiar to the later Writers.-St. Paul to the Corinth. 1. ix. 21. fays, evvo Mos Xp - Lucian, Jupit. Trag. Vol. II. p. 671, Evropose depen yogos, and Libanius, in a very laconic Epifle, o κριτής εννομος. Epift. DC. p. 288. Ed. Wolf.

Evopos, however, is applied to objects without life, by the ancient Greeks, and, indeed, by the Recentiores :-Efchines, xala To μαρχ. vol. v. p. 31, Ed. Reifk. Την ίσην και την εννομον πολιτείαν, and κατα Κτησιφ. Vol, vi. p. 415. κηρύξαι το πατριον και εννομον κηρυγμα τέτο, Xenophon, K. I. p. 651. Ed. Hutchinf, wahara και ειθισμένα, και εννομα λέγοντος εμε. Diodorus Sic. Vol. 1. p. 117. δέναι την παρθενον εις γάμον εννόμον.—Several other inftances may be found in Dio. Caffius; to which may be added Lucian, de Salta Vol. II. p. 267. ubi variant interpretes.-Thucydides, 1v. p. 272. VI. p. 403.-Pollux v111. 92.-But to accumulate authorities is unnecellary. Encues is not an Epic word, in the fignification of a juft and irreproachable man.

Οι δε τιν ανδρών δεινον όλως δράσαντα.] Όλω;, which appears of lit tle fervice in this paffage, is not in Homer, and very rarely, if ever, in the Tragedies. In RHESUS, 737. for x of prys wouw y ds, Mulgrave nas rightly from a manufcript edited ropes, which occurs in two other paffages of this play, and once in a Chorus of the IoN, 695. and fometimes in Efchylus.

τόρως,

Agay is not ufed in the Iliad. In the Odyff. O. 323. wapadęww1, or παρα δρώωσι, and 332. ὑποδρωωσιν may be found. The formula, Spar Tire Sevov, may be termed Homeric, as Homer fays in II. r. 354. Ξεινοδόκον κακα ῥεξαι but Apar, with a double accufative,

f To thefe paffages must not be added a defective correction of Canter, Suppl. 945.

Pindar's ZUVEREJEL Evopov must not be omitted; where swquo is used adverbiakter, in the fenfe of Legitime,

is perfectly in the ftyle of the dramatic Writers. Euripides alone will afford a fufficiency of examples. HECUB 253. Agas d'oude μas ev. OREST. 581. τι μ' αν εδρασ ̓ ὁ καλθάνων. HIPPOL. 178. τι σ' εγω δρασω. IPH.AUL. 371. δραν τι κείνον βαρβαρους. Ιon. 1267. Δρασαι τι κακον τους πελας. From thefe two laft paf fages, it appears, that Milton fhould have written: ry andown TI δεινον δράσαντα, which is more manifeft from MED. 56ο: Ου τι δρα CE; devorfor after dear, the Adjective in the fingular number is accompanied by , but in the plural it is ufed alone, as in Oreft. 570. δρασας δ' εγω δεινα. Iph. Taur. 1177. — δεινα SEδρακετον. Bacch. 667. Ως δεινα δρωσι. Eledr. 992. Και δεινα δράσω. 2. σοφωτατον κάρηνον-] It fould be σοφωτατε κάρηνον. Homer has καρηνα Τρώων, in Iliad A. 158. for Τρωες. —καρηνα ανδρων, in the fame Book, v. 500. for avopes, and ανεκύων αμενηνα κάρηνα, for vexvas apsvnres, in Odyff. K. 521. to which passage Ariftophanes alludes, in a fragment of his Aaraksis, preferved by Galen, in the preface to his των Ιπποκρατες γλωσσων εξηγησις. Neither κάρηνον,

Thus

καρη, nor κρατος are ufed fimply in the fenfe of Ανθρωπος by Homer.

Ισθι ρηιδίως αφελοιο. ] With refpe&t to the expreflions, Ρηϊδίως αφεAsodai, or Phidias age, they are ftrictly Homeric. Iliad П. 689. —aPeiλeto vixny `Pnïdows, which is repeated in II. P. 177. In Odyss. 1. 313. is Ρηϊδίως αφελων θυρεον μεγαν.

Io apo is, however, utterly indefenfible, for it is neither Homeric nor Attic Greek: it is the language neither of verse, nor of profe. Milton should have written aqueros, which would have but an awkward appearance in an Hexameter verse, or rather, perhaps, apainoousvos, in the future.

Should it be afferted, that is propofed to be parenthetical, which does not feem natural, nor to have been the Author's intention, still after ones the reader would rather expect a SubjuncΌλεσης tive mood.

This ufage of the Participle in the Nominative Cafe after verba visina has been ably illustrated by Valckenaer in his notes on Herodotus, III. p. 194, and on the HIPPOLYTUS of Euripides, 304. p. 196.h

To the examples, which he produces in thefe notes, from the Tragedies, may be added Euripides in Hippol. 524. Tarr av QoEndo idi.-Helen. 460. Oxangas to wv.-So alfo is 150 ufed. Euripides in Alceft. 148. Ιστω νυν, ευκλέης γε κατθανεμενη, γυνη τ' αριστ in Melanipp. apud Stob. LXXIV. p. 451.-Grot. LXXVI. p. 331. Έστω δ' άφρων -which words are alfo found in a fragment of the Alcmena, ap. Stob. XLIII. p. 302. Grot. XLV. p. 175. In the fame way also Is. Euripides, Androm. 727. T'a' OUTES 15e junSEVOS BERTIOVES.-Sed de his fatis fuperque.

h The reader may also confult Henry Stephens's Index to his Thefaurus, P. 1094.

In

In Homer Io9. is twice ufed in the Odyffey, B. 356. A. 2231 Is occurs much more frequently, and Ise, in Iliad B. 485. ¥. 276. Odyff. H. 211. . 110; but in all these paffages, the construction of the fentence is fuch, as not to require a Participle in the Nominative Cafe, after the Verb.

Milton appears to have had the common idiom of the Tragedies, with regard to thefe yapısına verba, floating on his mind, though he has failed in expreffing his ideas. That he was not unacquainted with the proper ufage of 9 with a Participle, may furely not unfairly be concluded from a paffage in his Paradife Loft, IX. 791.

Greedily fhe ingorg'd, without reftraint,

And KNEW not EATING death.

Richardfon, in his notes, has obferved, that this is a Greek phrafe, and used often by the Latins. He then quotes Oppian, Halieuf. II. 106. It is, however, very remarkable, that Milton fhould adopt. this Grecifm in his English poetry, and neglect it in a Greek compofition.

Apoio, if, in other refpets, it were right, might be used fine v, nec in optandi fenfu, according to the practice of Homer, if the prefent copies are correct.-It is fcarcely neceffary to obferve, that, in the Tragedies, an Optative without an always expreffes a wifh, but when av is added, potentialem habet fignificationem.

-vsɛpor audi] If Avl be an Adverb of time, as well as of place, after so it feems unneceffary. In Homer, Iliad r. 127. indeed, Juno fays of Achilles, that in the prefent day's conflict, he shall be preferved from danger, but that

- ύσερον αύτε τα πείσεται, άσσα οἱ αισα

Γεινομενη επένησε λινῳ

In this paffage, however, aur feems improperly added to separ; for in all the other places, in which vsepov and aute or autis,--for spor av is not to be found-occur united in Homer, the repetition of an action, which has already happened, or the sequel or continuation of one commenced, but not yet finished, is implied.* Thus in Il. A. 26. Agamemnon fays to Chryfes :

Μη σε, γερον, κοιλῇσιν εγω παρα νηυσι κιχείω,

Η νυν δηθύνοντ ̓, η ὙΣΤΕΡΟΝ ΑΥΤΙΣ γοντας

The adoption of this construction by the Latins, in verfe and profe, has been pointed out by Davies, in his notes on Cicero's Tufculan questions, IV. 15. p. 294. Ed. 4to. 1738. and by others.

k It may, perhaps, he urged in defence of this paffage, that, though Achilles bad not yet fuffered, what he was to fuffer, yet as his destiny was fixed, Homer might confider his death as the certain fequel of an action commenced, but not yet finished; at least fufficiently to vindicate the ufage of aute, in the sense of contiuation, though not of repetition.

Euftathius reads Audi,-Ernefti, Villoifon and others, Autis, which also appears in the rare Edition of Luc. Ant. Junta, 12 no. 1537. celebrated by DorvilleCrit. Vann. 390. depreciated by Ernefti, Præf. Hom. X. and defended by Villoifon, Prolegom. in Hom. ex God, Venet.XLIV. Nu, 1,—autış is furely right; and the Edi

tora