Obfervations on this laft tenfe may be found in H. Stephens's treatife, De Diale&t. Attic. p. 146. Pierfon in Mar. p. 123. the commentators on Thomas Magifter, Valckenaer in Herodot 442*. Brunck in Eurip. Bacch. 1303. and Efchyli Prometh. 846. and 865. It may not be improper to enumerate the examples of this tense which occur in the Tragedies; for with respect to those, which may be used by Ariftophanes or profe writers, we are not, at prefent, fo materially concerned : BECAσoua. Eur. Oreft. 271. 411. Espooμa. Efch. Prom. 1030. Agam. 309. 1381. 1629. Eur. Phan. 956. Hec. 825. Med. 630. Bacch. 776. Ion. 773. Heracl. 931. Arignoquar. Soph. Trach. 1184. Epoqua. Soph. Trach. 1186. Εκλελησομαι. Eur. Alc. 196. Kenan qua. Elch. Prom. 733. Sept. Theb. 704. E. Hec. 1271. Or. 1679. Phan. 956. Alc. 337. Iph. Aul. 959. Hel. 1038. 1694. Troaf. 13. lon. 592. 606. Herc. Fur. 1333. - Elect. 1284. Eol. xii. 2. Пequal. Eur. Hipp. 907. Teda qua. Eur. Iph. Taur. 1476. Soph. Aj 577. 1141. Textouas. Eur. Iph. Taur. 1053. To which must be added Adno qual, according to Pierfon, who would read Δεδησεται for γενησεται, in the Hercules Fu Tens, 731. in his Notes on Maris, p. 124-or Aɛanques as Valckenaer, in his Notes on Herodotus, p. 442, propofes (not without refitation) Anela, in the fame paffage, where Mufgrave would read sonola, which, we think, is not authorised by the Tragedies. Asan qua, whatever may be faid of Euripides, fhould not have been propofed by Valckenaer in Ariftophanes as in the one cafe it would have a paffive, and in the other an active sense. Brunck, in the latter paffage, has published 7 Anela, Arift. Nubib. This lift Brunck would probably increase by adding Adetouai, which he wishes to restore to the Prometheus of Efchylus, 866. (859. Ed. Stanl.) We do not judge his correction right. The lift of Paulo poft futures in Ariftophanes, which Valckenaer has given, in this note, is defective. + Knoua is also in ufe: Efchylus, Eum. 289. Eur. Hec. 879. Heracl. 167. 709. Or. 305. 490. 1214. Phan. 964. 1715. None None of the themes of these verbs, it must be observed, begin either with an immutable vowel, or an immutable diphthong, as they are termed by the Grammarians; fo that the Future Middle must be different from the Paulo poft Future, which is not the cafe with εipnoquar, from supioxw, which muft ferve for both fenfes, if both were ever in existence. In Deponent verbs, which begin with an immutable vowel, or an immutable diphthong, the Future, whether it be called Paulo poft, or Middle, follows the fignification of the present.— In this clafs muft be reckoned, Hynoqual, from yaola. Eur. Or 1348. Basch. 194. 841. 939. Soph. Electr. 1038. "Isqual, from invetota. Eur. Troaf. 437. Heracl. 934. Iph. Aul. 911. Ion 1056. Soph. Electr. 953. Oed. Tyr. 769. 1491. Phil. 634. Iacopai, from iacta. Eur. Troaf. 1240. H. Fur. 1110. To these may be added fome of their compounds. Eupnoqua, therefore, cannot be confidered as the Paulo poft Future, nor can it eafily be admitted to clafs with the Futures middle, which have a paffive fignification; for no inftance occurs in which thefe latter Futures are derived from verbs which begin with immutable vowels or immutable diphthongs. It feems ftrange, however, that fome verbs fhould have à Paulo poft Future, and a Future paffive, or a Future middle with a paffive fignification. The inftances are, AlabaλλeodasΛανθάνεσθαι Επιτάσσεσθαι, and καλεισθαι.-The paflages in which they occur are very few, and if wrong, may easily be altered. Διαβληθησομαι. Eur. Hec. 863. Βραδυν δ', Αχαιοις ει διαβληθησομαι. Should we, therefore, read in the Oreftes 271. for Ce6λnoelas : and in the Bacche 1314. for ExcεCanσoμas: Νυν δ' εκ δόμων αλιμος εκβληθησομαι. On which latter place, indeed, Brunck (v. 1303.) fays: "ExCeßanoquas. Paulo poft futurum. Simplex occurrit Or. 273.-Scribere potui Jet Poeta εκβληθησομαι et βληθησείαι. Sed Paulo poft future libentius ufi funt Attici Poeta." Λησομαι, pafio fenfu. Εκλελησομαι has already been mentioned, as occurring in the Alceftis of Euripides, 196. εκφύγων δ' εχει Τοσέτον αλγος, οὔποι εκλελητείαι. So Aldus and Mufgrave give the paffage.-The Florentine MS. times governs an accufative cafe. He then produces two inftances, one from Polybius, and the other from Arrian. In the firft place, can à ou, by a crafis, become ?-In the next place, can Aavbaveola govern an accufative cafe in Euripides? -And laftly, what are the inftances from Polybius and Arrian to the purpose, in a queftion relative to the Syntax of the Tragedies? Azavola always governs a genitive cafe in Euripides. Medea 1257. Λαθε παιδων. Ηipp. 290. των λογων λαθωμεθα. δο Suppl. 87. Hel. 1253. Herc. Fur. 1046. and in Ion. 373. where the reading feems to be: Και μη μ' επ' οικλον εξαγ ̓, ὅ λελησμεθα. From comparing the Varia Lectiones of the paffage in Alceftis, the following feems to be the reading: Τοτείον άλγος" "Ουποι εκλελησεται. "It will never be forgotten!" The omiffion of the copulative fuits the perturbed ftate of the speaker. Such unconnected fentences fometimes occur; and commonly afford the tranfcribers an opportunity for blundering. In Hecuba, 1194. is the following verfe: Κακώς απώλονίο, κάτις εξήλυξε πω. Brunck, in a tone of criticifm as decifive as ufual, fays: "Qui mecum fentiunt, reponant : Κακως ολονίο, καλις. "Such a correc tion defies comment; but, furely Canons, which have not been QUITE given up, fhould not be rafhly violated, in conjectural emendations!-The following is furely the true reading: Κακως απωλον. Ούις εξήλυξε πως If in the Alceftis, then, exλaquas be the genuine passive future, Sophocles, Electr. 1247, fhould we not read: Οι πόλε καταλυσιμον Ου ποτε λελησομενον, inftead of ouderole Anσquεvov.-Miftakes are frequent in this verb. In Iph. Aul. 517. Aldus, a MS. Markland, and Mufgrave give Angour, where the common reading is Anoqual, which, Markland obferves, fignifies Oblivifcar. The fame correction is neceffary in the XXVIIIth of the Fragm. incert. of Euripides, ap. Stob. XXII. p. 187. Ed. Grot. p. 111. Ποι; πως δε ΛΗΣΕΙΣ ; τις δε καν πιστός φίλος ; The ufual word is Anon, which Atticè is not, fo that the error might be anciently produced by the omiffion of the final E. Eziraoua. Paffivo fenfu. Euripides, Suppl. 522. αν γαρ αν ρεοσ Τα πραγμαθ' ὅλως, ει πίλαξόμεσθα δη. Telatoua in Iph. Taur. 1053. has been already mentioned.Might we not read Τάσσομαι is ufed by the Tragic writers in the fenfe of επίτασ σομαι, σομαι, οι προστασσομαι, Fubeor. Το which it may be added, that initial vowels do not fuffer elifion after E.. Κληθησομαι. Ffchylus, 839. Σαφως επισίασ', Ιονιος κληθησεται, 66 We agree with Abrefch and Schutz, who read κεκλησίαι from fome MSS. Examples of this Paulo poft Future have been given already. Abrefch well adds, after citing two inftances of Kɛκλησομαι from Efchylus and one from Sophocles, Rariffimè, fi bene memini, alterum apud paulo vetuftiores inveneris; nempe in verbis quibufdam ufus futuri tertia ita invaluit, ut priora propemodum prorfus in defuetudinem abierint.”—lt feems frange, chat Abrefch fhould have forgotten the only paffage, except that juft cited from Efchylus, in which this future is ufed in the Tragedies : Troades 13. Όθεν προς ανδρων ύστερων κληθησεται Δέρειος ίππος. in which the Excerpta Cottoniana and the Florentine MS give κεκλησεται, which fould be admitted into the text, as Brunck alfo has obferved in Efch. Prom. 846. after Valckenaer in E. Ph. 27. We fhall only add, that the following futures paffive, befides thole mentioned, are ured in the Tragedies: απαλλαχθησομαι. αιμαχθησομαι. αιρεθήσομαι. αφαιρεθησομαι. ἀρμοσθησομαι, απαρνη θησομαι. απορριφθησομαι. βαρυνθήσομαι. δοθησομαι. δηχθησομαι. εργασθήσομαι. εκλαθησομαι. εξοισθήσομαι εικασθήσομαι, επαιδεσθήσομαι. επισημανθήσομαι. ήσσηθησομαι. ησθήσομαι. κριθήσομαι. κορευθήσομαι. κεφισθησομαι. ληφθήσομαι. μνησθήσομαι. οφθήσομαι, σωθήσομαι συγ καθελκυσθήσομαι. σιγηθησομαι. σωθήσομαι. τεθησομαι. ὑμνηθησομαι. ὡσθησομαι.—By this lift, which is not complete, and from the foregoing remarks, it will appear, that the Attic Poets feldom, and only in particular verbs, prefer the Paulo post to the Future paffive; nor do we agree with Brunck, when he observes, that to Paulo poft futuro libentius ufi funt Attici Poeta.” Br. in Bacch. 1303. γ. 25. Αι, σφηκες ως αδμήλες, εις τεμον καρα So Euripides, Hippol. 593. μελισσα δ' δια τις πεποῖαλαι.—Read ες for εις, and πολώντας * for πουνται. -- The tragic writers ule ποτατθαι, but never πολεισθαι, qua vox nihili Ποῶνται is in Rhefus, 532. πολαλας, Ηipp. 1286. Efchylus, Choeph. 388. Agam. 986. Sept. Th. 84. in Choro. Eur. Orel. 7. in an Iambic. Ποτωμένος, Maris, p. 328. Eur. Or. 675. πεποίημαι, and in the Chorus πεπόταμαι, or its compounds: Eur. Eledr. 177. Hippol. 569. Efch. Eum. 381. Perf. 671.-In the Tragedies allo occur πέλεσα θαιίπλασθαι. * Πολωνίας, Π. 6. 462. V. 29.—TOIS YOVEUO EMOS Tegas, Parentibus meis portentum. We muft read, without hefitation:-TOIS JOVEUσIV Eμois Tegas, for the final iota of the dative plural never fuffers elifion, in the tragic writers. This is an error, into which Mr. Glaffe has frequently fallen, and of which examples may be found in the writings of many modern critics; but there is no one found inftance in the Tragedies. The length of the prefent article prevents our difcuffing this fubject more fully, which it is propofed to do, on verse 255 32. ETREP9n-nutritus fum.] Erpepony fignifies converti me, Euripides, Electra 1053. Εκειν, ΕΤΡΕΦΗΝ, ήνπερ ην πορευσιμόν Προς της εκείνῳ πολεμίες. Nutritus fum fhould be Eespony, as in Euripides, Hecub. 351. Επειτ' ΕΘΡΕΦΘΗΝ ελπίδων καλῶν ὑπο, Βασιλεύσι νυμφη. So in the fame play, V. 600. Έχει γε μεντοι και το ΘΡΕΦΘΗΝΑΙ καλώς Διδάξιν εσθλα. To which paffage Hefychius, perhaps, alludes: Opspoпval. Teama. It is fcarcely neceffary to remark that reepw makes Opew in the Future, and in the Perfect Paffive, Telgauuai, from which pep is formed, occurs very frequently in the Tragedies: Eur. Phon. 512. Heracl. 579. Iph. Aul. 953. H. Fur. 299. El. 65. Hipp. 1254. Rhef. 176. Elch. Eum. 668. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 97. In Stobaus, Tit. LXXXVII. p. 500. Grot. LXXXIX. p. 361, is the following fragment of Menander: Τις εν γεγονίλας και τεθραμμένες καλώς, Famam curare in rebus adverfis decet. GROTIUS. In the first line, Joannes Ciericus, Fragm. Menandi incert. 149. p. 240. published Tilgames, on which Bentley remarked, in his Phileleutherus Lipfienfis, with more afperity than candour: "Stobaus et Grotius recte habent Teffamueves, qui a prafenti respw fciebat id effe formatum, continuo hoc oçanua, ut putabat, cerrigere voluit; et, fervata Thematis T litera, TETçauperes clanculum juppofuit." -voop: TWV at hav Bolwv-feorfim a cæteris mortalibus.] Notg occurs only once in the Tragedies. Efchylus, Suppl. 247. the King fays to the fuppliants: Απροξενοι τε, νόσφι θ ̓ ἡγελων (vulgo νοσφιν ἡγήλων) μολείν We do not approve of the frequent ufage of drassyoueva, for fuch we believe voop to be in Attic poetry. REV. July, 1789. C 36. ακλεή 1 |