ΑΛΙΕΙΣ.

The Hypothesis has perished.

THE Construction of this Idyl differs essentially from that of the other mimic pieces. It alone opens with a prefatory reflection, vv. 1-6, which again is succeeded by a narrative description of the scene and personages of the poem, vv. 6-22.

Although there is a difficulty in appreciating the merits of a composition, whose text has become in some parts corrupt, and the effect of which, even where it may be sound, is distorted by the mists of critical emendation, yet one cannot fail to observe a propriety in the whole colouring of this Idyl, which, indeed, is as peculiar as the piece itself is unique among the remains of antiquity.

The accurate delineation of the implements of piscatorial craft, and of the humble comforts, ò πλouтos, of the ancient pair who employed them, vv. 9-17, imparts an air of reality to the scene, and, by a charm analogous to that of the paintings of the Dutch masters, arrests and detains our amused attention.

Moreover, there appears to be a natural harmony between the theme which these ancient sons of the angle discuss, itself mysterious and dark, and the hour and place which the poet has chosen for the purpose. It is night, and the car of the moon has not yet won its midmost course, when the fishermen awake from their pallets of dried seaweed, in their cot formed of interwoven branches, and there in their loneliness, by the quiet plashing of the sea, which flows up to and around their narrow dwelling, the dream is told, and its moral expounded.

Polwhele observes: "The introductory lines do not seem well adapted to the dialogue that follows. We find that, though indeed care might intrude on the fishermen during the period of rest, it was care of no very melancholy complexion. They were, on the whole, happy; being represented as content with their situation. They deemed their cot a palace and lived in glee." To the editor, on the contrary, the sombre tone of the exordium appears to be in keeping with the general character of the piece, in which it is not easy to discover any ground for inferring that our "Piscators" had beguiled themselves into the idea that their abode was "a palace," or for concluding that their life was one of " glee." A sort of grave sobriety seems rather to be the characteristic of both the speakers, diversified by a superstitious simplicity in the one, and by a somewhat saturnine, yet not unamiable humour, in the other.

"Duo fuerunt inter Sophroneos Mimi adfinis argumenti, quorum indices erant 'Αλιεύς, et θυννοθήρας. utrumque plus semel memorat Athenaeus: τὸν Θυννοθήραν etiam alii: huius piscatoris filium, τὸν τοῦ θυννοθήρα υἱὸν, de nomine piscis Kwowvíav dictum suspicatur Athen. vII. p. 309, C. Piscatorem

dico." Valcken. Adon. pp. 325, 326. One of these Theocritus is supposed to have taken as his model in this Idyl. Eichstadt, in Adumbrat. de Carm. Theocrit. indole, p. 23, observes in justification of its being classed among the mimic pieces. "Scilicet primum ea est et loci in quo res aguntur, descriptio, et piscatorum confabulatio, quæ nobis in memoriam revocet laboris molestias, attriti corporis defatigationem, vitæ sordes ac miserias, alia quæ a jucunditate Theocriteorum idyllorum vehementer abhorreant. Non sum nescius quibus ea modis defendantur (cf. Schlegelii Batteux, II. p. 294): sed idem sic statuo, hoc potissimum carmen fuisse in causa, quare, qui universam bucolica poeseos provinciam ad Theocriti potius auctoritatem, aut suæ opinionis arbitrium, quam ad veritatis leges definire instituissent, terminos illius justo proferrent latius. Deinde per singulos versus conspicuum est morum exprimendorum consilium: collocutio piscatorum, spreta membrorum æquabili concinnitate, quæ in bucolicis circuitum et quasi orbem conficit suum, liberiore cursu procedit, animosque legentium moratæ narrationis suavitate captos, inopinata rerum conversione, tamquam aliqua peripeteia, fallit.”

It has been imagined that this poem was written by Theocritus in Egypt, where fishermen were numerous, but there is no ground for supposing that Syracuse was a less likely locality for its composition in this respect.

Warton is of opinion that Theocritus was not the author of the piece. “Cujus ingenium," he writes, naturalibus objectis apte seligendis eximie depingendis unice comparatum, non poterat quin crebras imagines poeticas, in ora maris, ipsoque mari, repertas, in istiusmodi carmen ultro transtulisset," a reflection upon the poem, the injustice of which will appear from a review of the highly graphic description from v. 5 to v. 20, especially vv. 18 and 19, and so again in the story of the dream, at v. 41, etc., especially if it be remembered that there could be no room for the business of the piece, as it is but sixty-seven lines in length, if the Author had gone out of his way, for the sake of introducing some alluring prettinesses to attract the applause of those whose tastes were so completely formed to the Bucolick model as to be unable to appreciate graces of a more manly character.

Sannazarius probably derived the idea of his Piscatory eclogues from this Idyl.

ΑΛΙΕΙΣ.

ΕΙΔΥΛΛΙΟΝ κα'.

ΑΣΦΑΛΙΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΤΑΙΡΟΣ.

Α πενία, Διόφαντε, μόνα τὰς τέχνας ἐγείρει αὐτὰ τῶ μόχθοιο διδάσκαλος οὐδὲ γὰρ εὕδειν

1. Α πενία. Aristoph. Plut. 552. sqq. illustrates the signification of πενία. πτωχοῦ μὲν γὰρ βίος, ὃν σὺ λέγεις,

ἐστὶ ζῆν μηδὲν ἔχοντα·

τοῦ δὲ πένητος, ζῆν φειδόμενον, καὶ τοῖς
ἔργοις προσέχοντα,
περιγίγνεσθαι δ ̓ αὐτῷ μηδέν, μὴ μένα
τοι μηδ' ἐπιλείπειν.

Ib. Διόφαντε, similarly Id. vi. is addressed to Aratus, and Id. XI. and XIII. to Nicias, the physician. Of Diophantus nothing is known. He is supposed to have been a resident of Alexandria, and to have formed a friendship with our author there.

Ι. μόνα τὰς τέχνας ἐγείρει. Compare Chrysost. Orat. IV. ad Antioch. 'H πενία εἰς σπουδὴν ἐπανάγει, καὶ πεπλανημένην ἔξω καὶ περὶ πολλὰ τὴν διάνοιαν κεχηνυῖαν πρὸς ἑαυτὴν ἐπιστρέφει. Virg. Georg. I. 145.

« Tum variæ venere artes: labor om-
nia vincit

Improbus, et duris urgens in rebus
egestas."
and Ib. 133.

Ut varias usus meditando extundederet artes

Paulatim,

Hor. II. Epist. II. 51 :

"paupertas impulit audax

Ut versus facerem."

For as final shortened, cf. Annot. Id. II. 160.

2. αὐτὰ τῶ μόχθοιο διδάσκαλος. Cf.

Pers. Prol. v. 10.

66

Magister artis, ingenîque largitor Venter."

Plaut. Stich. I. 3, 23. "Nam illa omnes artes perdocet, ubi quem attigit.

Juv. Sat. III. 78.

6 Græculus esuriens in coelum, jusseris,
ibit."

Avrá is rendered by some "ipsa," by
others 66
'sola." Perhaps there is an
allusion to the use of the pronoun in
such expressions as that of the Pytha-
gorean school, Αὐτὸς ἔφα: (cf., too,
Aristoph. Nub. 219), so that when
combined with διδάσκαλος, it may ra
ther imply “ the chief.”

ἀνδράσιν ἐργατίναισι κακαὶ παρέχοντι μέριμναι. κἂν ὀλίγον νυκτός τις ἐπιψαύσῃσι τὸν ὕπνον, αἰφνίδιον θορυβεῦσιν ἐφιστάμεναι μελεδώναι.

4. “Ego distinctionem sic mutavi ut comma retraherem ad ἐπιψαύσῃσι, quod verbum genitivum videtur potius quam accusativum amare. Επιψαύειν τῆς νυκτὸς ὀλίγον, id est, κατ' ὀλίγον, est noctem, seu • quietem nocturnam, delibare, extremis quasi digitis attingere. Tum θορυβεῦσιν τὸν ὕπνον αἰφνίδιον, id est, ἐξαίφνης, ' repente interpellant somnum. Reiske.

This punctuation and construction have been generally adopted. But such a figurative application of the word vú is altogether alien to the usage of Theo critus, and indeed in vv. 27, 28, infra, νύξ and ὕπνος are distinctly opposed to each other, ἀλλὰ τὸν ὕπνον

ἡ φροντὶς κόπτοισα, μακρὰν τὴν νύκτα ποιεῖ τίν.

Moreover, the forcing of τὸν ὕπνον into a connexion with the next verse, mars the graphic effect of the latter, which, with the old punctuation, is worthy of any poet.

ἰχθύος ἀγρευτῆρες ὁμῶς δύο κεῖντο γέροντες, στρωσάμενοι βρύον αὖον ὑπὸ πλεκταῖς καλύβαισι, κεκλιμένοι τοίχῳ τῷ φυλλίνῳ ἐγγύθι δ ̓ αὐτοῖν κεῖτο τὰ ταῖν χειροῖν ἀθλήματα, τοὶ καλαθίσκοι, τοὶ κάλαμοι, τἄγκιστρα, τὰ φυκιόεντά τε λῆδα, ὁρμειαί, κύρτοι τέ, καὶ ἐκ σχοίνων λαβύρινθοι, μήρινθοι, κωάς τε, γέρων τ ̓ ἐπ ̓ ἐρείσμασι λέμβος

10

8. Herm. conjectured τοίχῳ πρὸς φυλλίνῳ, needlessly, Cf. ἀσπίσι κεκλιμένοι. I. III. 135, κεκλιμένον μορίκησιν. Π. ΧΧΙ. 18. κεκλιμένοι καλῇσιν ἐπάΆξισιν. I. xxΙΙ. 3. κλισμῷ κεκλιμένη. Odyss. XVII. 97, &c.

10. Briggs having objected to Ahlwardt's interpretation, cf. Gloss., adds, "Lego igitur levissima transpositione, et Ahlwardti sententia servata, rà que κιόεντα δελῆτα, escæ alga circumvolutæ. Δελῆτα pro δελέατα. Hesychius: Δελῆτι, δελέατι. Sic φρητὶ pro φρέατι apud Callimachum, H. in Cer. 16. Apud Oppianum occurrunt δελέεσσιν et δέλετρον. Emendationem nostram probat Kiesslingius. Ald. τελῆγα una voce.

Meineke assents to this emendation; so too Wuest. and others. Wordsw. remarking that oars are not mentioned in this description, as had been before observed by those who would substitute kwaί for кwas in v. 12, conjectures here τὰ πηδά.

12, κλάς τε. An objection has been felt to this word as being out of place

6. ἰχθύος. With the use of the sing. where the plur. might be expected, compare

καὶ πόνος ἐντὶ θάλασσα, καὶ ἰχθὺς
ἁ πλάνος ἄγρα. Mosch. v. 10.
and perhaps ἰχθύα infr. v. 45, also
τροχὸν ἅρματος, in πολλοὶ κινήσουσιν
ἔτι τροχὸν ἅρματος ἵπποι, Id. xvi. 72,
and δρυός, in πὰρ μέν οἱ ὥρια κεῖται
ὅσα δρυὸς ἄκρα φέροντι, Id. xv. 112.
Cf. too Id. χιν. 17, and Annot. there.

8. κεκλιμένοι τοίχῳ τῷ φυλλίνῳ. Briggs compares Strato, Epigr. 55, τῷ τοίχῳ κέκλικας τὴν ὀσφύα.

9. The apparatus of the piscatorial craft is also detailed by Oppian, Halieut. III. 75, and by Artemidorus in Oneirocrit, Ir. 14. With the employment of ἄθλημα to denote an implement of labour, compare the use of

Ante pedes cistæque leves, hamique jacebant,

Et calami, nassæque et viminei labyrinthi.” Sannazar, Ecl. III. 9.

10. τὰ φυκιόεντά τε λῆδα. Cf. Gloss. and V. R.

12. γέρων λέμβος. Thus γέρων πέπο λος, Id. v. 17. σάκος γέρον. Odyss. XXII. 184. γέρων πίνος, (Ed. Col. 1259, "charta anus." Catull. LXVIII. 46. "terra anus," Plin. Hist. Nat. XVII. 5, 5, also Martial, vi. 27, &c.