ΚΥΝΙΣΚΑΣ ΕΡΩΣ Η ΘΥΩΝΙΧΟΣ.

ΑΙΣΧΙΝΗΣ.

ὠργεῖος, κηγών, καὶ ὁ Θεσσαλὸς ἱπποδιώκτας Απις, καὶ Κλεύνικος ἐπίνομες ὁ στρατιώτας

postulante ut apà rapòv scribatur." But the same result may be produced
by our text if it be read ironically, "wishing for every thing at the proper time!"
Ibid. sinov. "The 2. sing. imperat, sinov has been accented always in
the grammars, and generally in the text of different writers thus, imóv; but it
is proved in Buttmann's Excurs. I. on Plat. Meno, p. 70, that this latter accen-
tuation wes unknown to the pure Greek writers."
Stephens introduced sinóv here, sinov being the accentuation of the older edd.
Buttm. Irreg. V. p. 88. H.
which Meineke and Wuest. follow Buttm. in adopting. According to Jo. Las-
caris, as cited by Lobeck on Phryn. p. 348, the Syracusans used iπóv, as a
form of the 2. aor. imperat. retaining the ỏžuróvnois of such imperatives. "Eo-
que accentu," adds Lobeck, "facile imperativum communem 1. aoristi lov
a doriensi secundo sinóv dignoscemus."

13. "Aig, non 'Ais, cum ed. Schellersh. Valck. Schæfer. ut Ayıç, kλīμağ. Vide Spalding. ad Quintil. t. iii. p. 485." Kiessl. Distinguish this from 'Amic, the Peloponnese, in Id. xxv. 183.

corresponds to "cupidus," in Hor. A. P. 165, "Sublimis cupidusque et amata relinquere pernix," and to opócρa μèv ἐπιθυμοῦσι, and ἐξεῖαι γὰρ αἱ βουλήosg, in Aristot. Rhetor. n. 12, 4. Karà καιρόν, with which οὐ κατὰ καιρόν in Id. xxv. 66, may be contrasted, as also πρὸς καιρόν, ἐν καιρῷ, and ἐς καιρόν means "at the right," or "proper time,” "in season." Lat. "opportune." Hence the phrase in the text may be literally rendered, "wishing for everything at the exact time," "wanting everything at the nick of time;" which may be readily understood as amounting to a charge of impatience. Briggs explains the passage with a sufficiently indefinite freedom, as equivalent to " Quocunque animo es, eo omnes esse requiris." Wuest.'s interpretation, " omnia continuo fieri volens," differs but little from that given above. Warton's translation, "prout res eveniant," adopting which Harles. explains "inconstans es in voluntate, idem modo adpetis modo refugis, "is fairly open to Kiess

objection, scil. "qui pro re nata omnia
vult, is non continuo vituperari potest,
nam tempora mutantur.”

Ib. Ti Tò Kaivóv. Wuest. objects to
the version" quid novi?" which is em-
ployed by Kiessl. and Briggs, and
renders more accurately "Quid est
illud novum, quod te sic accendit?"
1218. Διηγεῖται τὴν τῆς μανίας
ὑπόθεσιν. Schol.
and the Thessalonian groom Apis, and
“ The Argive and I,
Cleonicus the soldier, were drinking at
my house in the country. I had killed
two chickens and a sucking pig, and
broached for them some Biblian wine,
of a fine perfume, nearly four years
old, just as it came from the vat.
Truffles, cockles, were produced. It
was quite a pleasant carouse."

13. Wuest. justly remarks the ob-
servance of nature here, in Eschines
denoting one of his friends by his coun
try, "the Argive

εἴδατά θ ̓, ὅσσα γυναῖκες ἐπὶ πλαθάνῳ πονέονται, ἄνθεα μίσγοισαι λευκῷ παντοῖ ̓ ἅμ ̓ ἀλεύρῳ

115

115. πονέονται. « Quamvis πονεῖσθαι interdum idem ac πονεῖν significare videatur, quia Doricum -οντι frequenter in talibus in notius -ονται fuit transmutatum, scriptum hic olim πονέοντι pæne suspicarer cum G. Koenio ad Gregor. de Dial. p. 97, et Jo. Τoupio, in Epist. ad Warton, p. 340. Πονέονται tamen Codices collati tenaciter retinent : nisi quod in uno legitur Rom. ποιεῦνται,” &c. Valck. in loc. Boissonade introduces the conjecture, following the rash example of Brunck, and without furnishing any additional reason in his note to that of Valcken., which does not convince; for that -οντι sometimes passed into -ονται, only proves it possible that it might have done so here, and the usage of the language generally is in favour of the Dep. form. In early Greek it alone is found, and as well otherwise as in trans. s. c. acc. e. g., Τύμβον δ' οὐ μάλα πολλὸν ἐγὼ πονέεσθαι ἄνωγα. I. XXIII. 245, Odyss. ix. 250, &c., while πονέω is rarely trans., especially c. acc. rei., although we have an instance of this construction in v. 80 of this Idyl (Cf. Gloss.), a comparison of which appears to enforce the full reflex sense of the middle voice in this line. The reading ποιεῦνται, which occurs in one MS. and on which Valcken. observes minime absurdum videtur: πονεῖν nusquam a me lectum fuit de panibus vel placentis adhibitum; πλάσαι et πέψαι frequentantur: ποιεῦνται commendare poterint voces notissimæ, ἀρτοποιὸς, σιτοποιός,” &c., appears to me to corroborate the termination in -ται; and the occurrence of πονέω or πονέομαι in this sense being rare, is rather an argument in favour of its genuineness. That it may be so used is shewn by a passage of Plutarch in Lucullo, quoted by Toup: Νεόπλουτα δ' ἦν τοῦ Λουκούλλου τὰ δεῖπνα τὰ καθ ̓ ἡμέραν, οὐ μόνον στρωμναῖς ἁλουργίσι καὶ διαλίθοις ἐκπώμασι καὶ χοροῖς καὶ ἀκροάμασιν ἐπεισοδίοις, ἀλλ ̓ ὄψων τε παν τοδαπῶν καὶ πεμμάτων περιττῶς διαπεπονευμένων (query διαπεπονημένων?) παρασκευαῖς ζηλωτὸν ἀνελευθέρως ποιοῦντος ἑαυτόν.

that different species were employed by some for different parts of the person, ὅτι δὲ διὰ σπουδῆς ἦν τοῖς παλαιοτέροις ἡ τῶν μύρων χρῆσις, δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ καὶ ἐπίστασθαι, ποῖόν τι ἑκάστῳ τῶν μελῶν ἡμῶν ἐστιν ἐπιτήδειον. ̓Αντιφάνης γοῦν ἐν Θορικίοις ἤ Διορύττοντί φησι·

“ Λοῦται δ' ἀληθῶς· ἀλλὰ τί; ἐκ χρυσοκολλήτου δὲ καλπιδος μύρῳ Αἰγυπτίῳ μὲν τοὺς πόδας καὶ τὰ σκέλη, φοινικίνῳ δὲ τὰς γνάθους καὶ τιτθία, σισυμβρίνῳ δὲ τὸν ἕτερον βραχίονα, ἀμαρακίνῳ δὲ τὰς ὀφρῦς καὶ τὴν κόμην, ἑρπυλλίνῳ δὲ τὸ γόνυ καὶ τὸν αὐχένα.” Athen. ibid.

115-118. An accurate version of this passage appears to be the best commentary. « And cakes, as many

as women work upon the kneadingboard mingling sweet seeds of every sort with white flour of wheat, and all they make of sweet honey, and those they dress in liquid oil.” The πονέονται is, with more or less precision, understood to govern the ὅσσα τ', and the τά τ, in v. 117, and is thus thrown into connexion with the three prepositions ἐπί, ἀπό, and iv, which gives a variety to the lines. Valcken. vindicates the construction of the latter clause from Reiske's misapprehension, and consequent emendation of ἐνύγρω ἐλαίω, by more than one apposite quotation from Athen. lib. xiv. p. 645. 'Εγκρίδες are there defined to be Πεμμάτιον ἑψόμενον ἐν ἐλαίῳ καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο μελιτούμενον. And again, p. 646,

βολβός τις, κοχλίας ἐξῃρέθη· ἦς πότος ἁδύς.

ἤδη δὲ προϊόντος, ἔδοξ' ἐπιχεῖσθαι ἄκρατον

17. βολβός τις, κοχλίας. The editor has introduced a comma to mark the asyndeton. D. Heins. proposed κοχλίας τ'. Heraldus βολβὸς καὶ κοχλίας, which Valcken. approves, and Wordsworth erroneously censures, upon the ground that the passage must be asyndetical, in order to the singul. being used for the plur., “ tum vero hac ratione unum bulbum, unam cochleam sex (?) convivis appositam non sine magna admiratione videremus." But the passage from Heraclides in Athen. lib. II. § 65, given in Annot. shews the stricture to be groundless. Briggs, βολβός του κοχλίας τ', or βολβὸς τᾶς κόγχας ἐξηρέθη, σε cepa ex olla promebatur.” Graefe, βολβός τ ̓ ἧς, κοχλίας τ', ἐξαίρετοι. Brunck., βολβοί τε κοχλίαι τ' ἐξήρεθεν. How did he scan this? Wordsworth, βολβός, κτείς, κοχλίας, &c. Some MSS. read κολχίας. In some rig is omitted. One has κολχείας.

seem objectionable from this consideration, as well as upon other grounds, as for instance they both suppose the existence of some particle in the text equivalent to "tamen." This Briggs, and perhaps Wuest., avoid; but the meaning of σχεδὸν ὡς ἀπὸ λανῶ seems to be rather "undiluted, in its full strength," ad lit. "just as it came from the wine-press.” This interpretation is corroborated by the liquor being called ἄκρατον, Lat. “merum,” “neat wine,” in v. 18. Thus the verse describes the perfume, the age, and the strength of the wine. Compare Hor. I. Od. ix. 7,

"Deprome quadrimum Sabina, Ο Thaliarche, merum diota.” 17. The text can only be translated by supposing the passage to be asyndetical, as is often the case in similar descriptions. Thus Philemon ap. Athen. lib. II. § 67.

Τὸν βολβὸν, εἰ βούλει, σκόπει ὅσα δαπανήσας εὐδοκιμεῖ, τυρὸν, μέλι, σήσαμον, ἔλαιον, κρόμυον, ὄξος, σίλφιον.

So too Heraclides, ibid., οἷον φῶν βολβῶν, ἀκροκωλίων, κοχλιῶν καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων.

So Alexis, ibid. § 64.

Πίννας, κάραβον,

βολβούς, κοχλίας, κήρυκας, κ. τ. λ.

.

Nor is there room for objection in βολβός and κοχλίας being in the singul.; cf. the quotation given above from Philemon, and this from Heraclides, ibid. § 65. βολβὸς, καὶ κοχλίας, καὶ ψὸν, καὶ τὰ ὅμοια δοκεῖ, κ. τ. λ. Whether, however, βολβός τις can be justified from the consideration of the singul. being thus employed for the plur., as βολβοί τινες would be an ordinary phrase, is a question the editor only submits. The rig would have passed from the text long since but for the authority of the cdd. “ Miror equidem,” writes Wart., “tam multos apud me codices illud ris agnoscere.”

Compare Martial, IV. 46, 11, “ cum bulbis cochleisque caseoque," and Hor. II. Sat. IV. 58.

"Tostis marcentem squillis recreabis et Afra

Potorem cochlea."

18. προϊόντος scil. πότου, from πότος in preceding verse. Warton compares προχωροῦντος τοῦ πότου. Lucian., Dial. Meretr. p. 991. C. edit. Boudelot. As the revel advanced the party agreed to drink toasts, each mentioning the name of the person whom he desired to compliment. For this usage cf. Gloss. on ἐπιχεῖσθαι. Compare also Hor. I. Od. xxvII. 9, et sqq.

χλωραὶ δὲ σκιάδες, μαλακῷ βρίθοισαι ἀνήθῳ δέδμανθ ̓· οἱ δέ τε κώροι ὑπερποτόωνται Ἔρωτες