καὶ λέγ ̓ ἐπιφθύζοισα· τὰ Δέλφιδος ὀστέα πάσσω.

ἴϋγξ, ἕλκε τὺ τῆμον ἐμὸν ποτὶ δῶμα τὸν ἄνδρα.

tali in re codicum auctoritas est levior. Locutiones ἐκ θυμου, ἀπὸ καρδίας, ἐκ tuxne, quæ suis quæque locis recte leguntur, huic loco non satis conveniunt, qui requirit sententiam, qualis est illa apud Plaut. Asin. 1. 3, 4, ‘fixus hic apud nos est animus tuus clavo Cupidinis.' Verborum collocatio non dissimilis est illi vs. 54. et 80." H. Voss also prefers the Dat., comparing Odyss. x. 96, TÉTρns ἐκ πείσματα δήσας; and so also Wuest.

On the other hand, Valcken., following the edd. Call. and H. Steph., and followed by Harl., Gaisf., Jac., Dahl, Schæf., Meineke, and Boisson., reads έk Ovμw, with the following note: "mihi έk Ovμ jungenda videntur, et significare, 'tota mente: ex quo limine etiam nunc tota mente affixa pendeo.' Supplendum K relinquitur in as étɩ kaì võv — dédɛμat. Addita præpositio in Aristoph. Equit. v. 1360, omittitur in ejusdem Pluto v. 312. Ἐκ θυμοῦ· ἀπὸ καρδίας· ἐκ ψυχῆς sic adhibentur," &c. Seven MSS., sec. Gaisf., exhibit iv Ovu, a lection deserving of notice (cf. Ev Ovμ Tε Xéyetc. Id. XXIX. 36), but not of preference. If ἐκ θυμῷ be the correct reading, why did not the poet write ἐκδέδεμαι θυμῷ, in the natural order?

62. πip0voia. So Meineke and Wuest., upon the authority of all the MSS. and early edd., instead of ¿π140vodoiσa, which, as Warton announces it, bears its own condemnation, "Nostra lectio, quæ prodiit ex ingenio Stephano, magis Dorica." The word occurs again, with the same unanimity of MSS. and early edd., in Id. vi. 126. cf. V. R. Id. xv. 3. Eustathius also so quotes it on Homer. Od. I. p. 1392, 42 = 22, 9. τὸ παρὰ Θεοκρίτῳ Επιφθύζειν, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπιπτύειν γοητευτικῶς. and also on Od. iv. p. 1482, 43 = 169, 16.

Ib. πάσσω. “ Vulgo legitur ὀστέα πάσσω, sicuti v. 21, (so all the MSS. and early edd.). sed hic non bene congruit ráoow, quum in antecedd. non sit έπíTаσσε, seď vπóμažov (v. 59) oppositum. Jam b. Reizium (vid. cel. Eichstaedtii Qu. philol. Spec. p. 60) et ill. Schneiderum (in Bibl. philol. 1, p. 126), offendebat vulgaris lectio. Equidem non dubitavi, Ahlwardti emendationem pάoow, analogia et verborum oppositionis lege firmatam atque ipsi Vossio, recentiorum coniecturis alias parum faventi, insigniter probatam (v. eius Commentar. in Virg. Ecl. p. 428, ad vIII. 77, 78), in textum recipere." Dahl. "Mox omnes codd. záσow. Veram Ahlwartii correctionem receperunt. Kiessl. et Meineke. In eandem coniecturam inciderat etiam Græfe." Wuest. "Ultimo versu citra omnem dubitationem corrigendum cum Ahlwardo pácow, quod versus 59 requirit, pro inepto άoow, quod jam Reizio et Schneidero suspectum versus 21 peperit." H. Voss. This emendation is ingenious and plausible. Yet an innovation opposed to all the MSS. and early edd. must be regarded with suspicion; and ráσow, moreover, may be the more appropriate expression. The Schol. on v. 18 explains πάσσω, τὸ τετριμμένα τινὰ ἐπιτίθημι, a sense which έπɩάσσw bears repeatedly in Homer. Comp. II. Iv. 219; v. 401, 900;

λόγον οὐδένα ποιεῖ, contrasted with the description of Simatha's own devotion to Delphis, to whose threshold still, even after all that is passed, she is bound with her entire soul. Compare τὶν δ ̓ οὐ μέλει, οὔ, μά Δί', οὐδέν. Id. xΙ. 29, ἐπιφθύζοισα. Cf. Gloss.

62. τὰ Δέλφιδος ὀστέα πάσσω. Η. Voss, and Wuest. who both read Ahlwardt's emendation, μáσow, consider

boria to be that to which the application is made, and not the thing applied. Thus the latter observes: "Ossa Del. phidis venenis vult illini, ut vis flammæ in ipsam medullam penetret." But that this view is erroneous appears at once from a comparison of the construction of vπоμárтw in v. 59, and from a reference to v. 21.

νῦν δὴ μούνα ἐοῖσα πόθεν τὸν ἔρωτα δακρυσῶ; ἐκ τίνος ἀρξεῦμαι ; τίς μοι κακὸν ἄγαγε τοῦτο ; ἦνθ ̓ ἁ τῶ υβούλοιο καναφόρος ἄμμιν ̓Αναξώ

65

XI. 515; xv. 394; in which passages the verb denotes the applying of herbs or drugs to wounds. Hence παστόν, ἐπιπάστον, and πάσμα, are medical terms for such applications. The consideration of this sense of Táoow removes any presumption in favour of μáoow resulting from an impression that the action expressed by ὑπομάσσω is of a nature too different from that denoted by πάσσω, for both to be employed about the same thing, or rather about two things closely analogous to each other. The force of vπó in the compound πоμáσow appears to be that of "gently, slightly," and vжоμáσow may be translated "to rub lightly," and so to apply in a partially crushed state;" and thus the word náσow may have been judged by the poet to be better calculated to express such an application of rà Opóva in this superstitious usage, than the simple μáσow, the general sense of which is to " squeeze or work with the hands, to knead."

The argument that ὑπόμαξον, in v. 59, requires πάσσω here, as ἐπίπασσε, in v. 18, is followed by náσow in v. 21, presupposes that the prepositions vπó and Tí impart a modification, the same in kind, to the respective verbs with which they are compounded. That this is not the case is obvious, for the πi merely expresses a local relation, which the KalvπéρTEρov in the following verse renders it improbable should be the purport of the vπó in vπóμažov. That there should not be a sameness in this verse with v. 21, is admitted to be desirable. Yet it may be considered that this objection lies equally against rà Aλpidos oorea as against máσow. It is to be remembered, moreover, that the objections urged against μáoow, the suggestion of which reflects credit on Ahlwardt's sagacity, are only supplemental to that of its having no authority whatsoever in the MSS.

64. νῦν δὴ μούνα ἐοῖσα. During the intercalary verse Thestylis has departed, and so we pass with an admirable ease into the second part of the piece, which is a narrative of the origin and progress of Simatha's amour with Delphis, and his subsequent faithlessness to her. The total want of any such connexion in Virgil's imitation, who, it is curious to observe, makes his transition also begin with v. 64, is not creditable to that poet's early judgment.

Ib. δακρύω occurs thus transitively in Esch. Agamn. 1492; Aristoph. Acharn. 1026, &c.

65. Wuest. compares the repetition in vv. 90, 91.

66. "Αρχεται διηγεῖσθαι, ὅπως ἐνέπεσεν εἰς τὸν ἔρωτα. Φησὶ δὲ οὕτως· ἦλθεν ἡ τοῦ Εὐβούλου θυγάτηρ ̓Αναξὼ

κανηφοροῦσα τῇ ̓Αρτέμιδι, καὶ πομπὴν ἀγομένῃ τῷ θεῷ. . . . εἰώθασι γὰρ [καὶ] τῇ ̓Αρτέμιδι κανηφορεῖν αἱ μέλο λουσαι γαμεῖσθαι, ἐπὶ ἀφοσιώσει τῆς παρθενίας, ἵνα μὴ νεμεσηθῶσιν ὑπ' avrns. Schol. Exhibitions of this description supplied opportunities for the meetings of the youth of both sexes, which was otherwise unusual. Thus in Plaut. Cistell.

"Quo is homo insinuavit pacto se ad te? S. per Dionysia.

Mater pompam me spectatum duxit:

dum redeo domum, Conspicillo consecutus est clanculum

me usque ad fores:

Inde in amicitiam insinuavit."

It was at a festival of Venus and Adonis that Hero and Leander first encountered.

ἄλσος ἐς Αρτέμιδος· τὰ δὴ τόκα πολλὰ μὲν ἄλλα θηρία πομπεύεσκε περισταδόν, ἐν δὲ λέαινα.

φράζεό μευ τὸν ἔρωθ ̓ ὅθεν ἵκετο, πότνα Σελάνα.

67. Twenty-one MSS. sec. Gaisf. read is instead of ἐπ' in this line, “ Deinde τόκα pro πόκα emendavit Causabonus probantibus Valkenario et Brunckio. Gaisf. Of this emendation Warton writes, "quod confirmari possit e copiis Vaticanis." Schæf., Meineke, Kiessl., and Wuest. adopt the emendation.

καί μ ̓ ἡ Θευχαρίλα, Θρᾷσσα τροφός, ὁ μακαρῖτις,
ἀγχίθυρος ναίοισα, κατεύξατο καὶ λιτάνευσε
τὰν πομπὰν θάσασθαι· ἐγὼ δέ οἱ ἁ μεγάλοιτος
ὡμάρτευν, βύσσοιο καλὸν σύροισα χιτῶνα,
κἀμφιστειλαμένα τάν ξυστίδα τὰν Κλεαρίστας.

φράζεό μευ τόν ἔρωθ ̓ ὅθεν ἵκετο, πότνα Σελάνα. 75

70. Θευχαρίλα. The readings Θευμαρίδα and Θευμερίδα, which also possess MSS. authority, have been preferred by some, because the termination of the word in the text, "viro minus convenire judicaretur," and of a man, the Schol. had understood it, ἡ τροφὸς τοῦ Θεοχαρίλου, ἡ ἀπὸ τῆς Θράκης. Heins. and Valcken., however, prefer ευχαρίλα, explaining it as the name of the nurse of Anaxo. « Probabilius est scripsisse poëtam τῶν ὐμαρίδα. Εὐμαρίδης Græcum est nomen. Popularis cujusdam apeλɛíaç est, mulierem hanc non suo, sed alumni nomine indigetari. Sic quotidie vernaculo sermone loquentes audio.' Brunck. For the form θευχ. = Θεοχ. cf. Gloss. on Id. xiv. 13.

74. τὰν Κλεαρίστας. The example of Meineke is followed in preferring this reading to τᾶς Κλ. The genitive, which has considerable authority (“ τᾶς Κλεαρίστας pro τὰν Κλεαρίστας habent B. C. D. L. S. W. X. c. m. Ott. 8 a. m. sec. Junt. Ald. Med. Cail.” Gaisf.) has been generally adopted.

ἤδη δ' εὖσα μέσαν κατ ̓ ἀμαξιτόν, ἃ τὰ Λύκωνος, εἶδον Δέλφιν ὁμοῦ τε καὶ Εὐδάμιππον ἰόντας. τοῖς δ ̓ ἦς ξανθοτέρα μὲν ἑλιχρύσοιο γενειάς, στήθεα δὲ στίλβοντα πολὺ πλέον ἢ τὸ Σελάνας,

76. μέσαν. “ (Laurent. cod. habet μέσην,) dedit Brunck. pro μέσον, probante Valckenario, quoniam duažirós est generis feminini. (Verum latet in depravata lectione cod. Vat. μέγαν." Kiessl. In consequence of the unanimity of the MSS. (with one solitary exception) in reading μέσον, perhaps it might be retained by reading αμαξιτοῦ, an emendation with which the paraphrase of the Schol. κατὰ τὸ μέσον τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς πλατείας, may appear to coincide. The alteration in the accentuation would be of little moment.

66

77. “ Non puto hæc Græce dicta esse. Ferrem si inverso ordine scriptum esset ὁμοῦ τε Δέλφιν καὶ Εὐδάμιππον. nunc scribendum videtur, εἶδον ὁμοῦ Δέλφιν τε καὶ Εὐδάμιππον.” Meineke. But Simætha's first thought was Delphis, and she must mention him first. There would be too much deliberation in her placing the oμou before his name. His having had a companion was but an unimportant accident The Εἶδον Δέλφιν ! is the burden of her thought and the business of the verse. The harshness of the order is more than atoned for by the peculiar force of the collocation.

78. ής. “ Recentiores omnes præter unum Meineke ἧς dederunt ex conject. Toupii, ob. v. 92 et 124, in quibus ἧς scriptum exstat. Recto vero egisse putan. dus Meineke; v ipse poeta videtur posuisse ob sequens." Wuest. But Meineke, in the edition before the editor, Berolini, 1836, reads nc, and H. Voss and Schæfer exhibit v, so that Wuest.'s note is not strictly accurate. This tense of είμι occurs in three other passages in this Idyl, v. 92, 124, and 141. In the first two all the MSS. exhibit is, in the last all but one. It is found in three in this verse. Upon these grounds Toup's emendation has been adopted.

79. ἢ τὸ Σελάνας. This text rests upon the authority of all the MSS. (for Valcken.'s "optimi sic codices recte præferunt" is unsupported by a shadow of evidence), that of the Schol. the Med. and Ald. Reiske alone of the modern critics has recalled it. The reading of Calliergus, ἤ τὺ, Σελάνα, is certainly more striking, and worthy even of Lyric poetry, but the weight of evidence preponderates much against its being genuine. Toup and Valcken. compare Bion, Id. Ι. 93, ὀξὺ λέγοντι πολὺ πλέον, ἢ τὸ Διώνα. But Dahl, and Kiessl., while they adopt the lection of Calliergus, object to this analogy in its favour. The Schol. who knew the reading in the text alone, explains it thus: τούτοις δὲ ἦν γενειὰς

76. εὖσα. "Ηγουν οὖσα. τὸ γὰρ εὖσα ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐοῦσα γίνεται. κατὰ τὸ μέσον τῆς ὁδοῦ τῆς πλατείας, ἐκεῖ ὅπου εἰσὶ τὰ οἰκήματα τοῦ Λύκωνος, εἶδον τὸν Δέλφιν, καὶ τὸν Εὐδάμιππον ὁμοῦ που ρευομένους. Schol.

79. πολὺ πλέον ἢ τὸ Σελάνας. κατὰ πολὺ πλέον ἢ τὸ στῆθος τῆς σελήνης δηλονότι ἢ τὸ φῶς. Schol. Compare Hom. Hymn in Vener. 89.

ὡς δὲ σελήνη,

στήθεσιν ἀμφ' ἁπαλοῖσιν ἐλάμπετο, θαῦμα ἰδέσθαι.

Nonnus, Dionys. lib. xvi. v. 22. πῆ δὲ παρελκομένων πλοκάμων στίλο βοντα δοκεύων

αύχενα γυμνωθέντα, σέλας πέμποντα σελήνης.

Tibull. III. 4, 29.

Η Candor erat, qualem præfert Latonia Luna,

Et color in niveo corpore purpureus."