ὡς φοινίσσω, δεδίσσω, (θοῦροι γὰρ, καὶ ὁρμητίαι * οἱ τῇ μέθη κάτοχοι, καὶ ποιητικῶς εἰπεῖν, Θοῦριν ἐπιειμένοι ἀλκὴν) ἢ ἀπὸ τοῦ θορὸς τὸ ζωικὸν σπέρμα φίλοιφον γὰρ τὸ μεθύον. "Hoc ideo videtur notare Eustath.," inquit Politus, " quod qui τοὺς δακτύλους εἰς τὸ τραῦμα καθίησι. Idem observavi in lampade sepulcrali, lateritia, in cujus fundo interno elegans cernitur dváyλvoor. Haruspex vituli exta manu fissiculat; nam nullum tenet vel cultrum, vel aliud ferramentum, nisi rerum edax tempus illud oblitteraverit, neque adparet cos cultro usos esse, ex illis, quæ hac de re narrant Nicander Ther. 560. et Schol. Rufus Ephes. 1. 39. et Polyænus IV. 19. p. 409. Unde pondus accedit observationi L. Bos Obss. crit. c. 6. p. 24." Hac voce carent H. Steph. et Schneideri Lexica. a 2 “ Diλolgns, av, ò, ein Hurer, geiler Mensch. S. oigaw. Hesych. hat die form pixoupos." Schneideri Lex. "Xopos, Amans coitus, libidinosus a v. oipo: ap. Theocr. (Iv. 62.) legitur vocativus poipā.” H. Steph. Thes. Ind. Proba est, forma piλopos, ut nos docet hic Eustathii locus, et compositum Kópoipos, de quo Theocr. Schol. IV. 62. : Παρὰ ̓Αλεξανδρεῦσιν κόροιφος λέγεται ὁ κόρην οιφώμενος. Hesych. : Φίλοιφος πασχητής. (Proba est vox πασχητής, qua carent H. Steph. et Schneideri Lexica, et de qua Jensius: "Quid sibi velit Hesych., nescio." Verb. Táoɣew in obscœna signif. occurrit ap. Demosth. Seneca Declam. x., Ille Passieno, prima ejus syllaba in Græcum mutata, obscœnum nomen imposuit: Paschienum scilicet appellans. Vide H. Steph. Thes. Ind. v. Taoynriav.) Zonaras p. 1809. et Cyr. Alexandr. Gloss. p. cx11.: Φίλοιφος· ὁ πόρνος. Pro kúpoipos, ut in Theocr. Schol. legitur, in Etym. M. p. 531, 23. scribitur kópropos. Sed hanc lectionem falsam et reponendam esse Kópodos, patet ex etymologia, quam dedit Etymologici ille auctor: Ἢ τὸν ὡς κόρην οιφώμενον, τουτέσε τιν οχευόμενον, ἢ παρὰ τὸ τὴν τρίχα ὑφειμένην καὶ ἡπλωμένην ἔχειν, οἷον κέρουφάς τις ὤν κέρας γὰρ ἡ θρίξ· οἱ δὲ κέρας λέγουσι τὸ αἰδοῖον, καὶ κέτ ρουφον, τὸν τὸ αἰδοῖον ἔχοντα ὑφειμένον καὶ μαλακόν. Vocem κέρουφος Lexicographi H. Steph. et Schneiderus non agnoscunt. Sed est proba vox, ut ex h. 1. patet. Ceterum forma oipáw, quam Schneiderus e Theocr. Schol. IV. 62. recepit, occurrit quoque in Etymologi loco, τὸν κόρην οἰφώμενον. Sed ante Sylburgium, qui e conjectura οιφώμενον reposuit, legebatur ipóμeror. "V. 26. perperam in iisdem vpóuevov," ὑφόμενον,” inquit Sylb.: "nostrum oipúμevov, petitum ex v. 23., [ubi oipeïv] verbum autem hoc et in prima et in secunda conjugatione usurpari, patet e Lexicis." Vera lectio est, ni fallor, oigópevov, (Plut. in Pyrrho 28., Οἶφε τὰν Χελιδόνιδα : οἴφειν et οἴφεσθαι Eustath. ad Od. 310. exponit περαίνειν et περαίνεσθαι:) vel οἰφούμενον a v. οἰφεῖν. In Theocr. Schol. pro oipuevos reponi vellem oipoýuevos. Præter Etym, M. et Theocr. Schol. nusquam alibi legitur oipaw, Pro oipeir dicitur," inquit H. St. Thes. Ind., oipār, ut ap. Athen. xiii." (p. 568. d.) Sed ibi, teste Schweigh., "vetustæ membr. A. oipeis habent, non oipas." Oipeir legitur non modo in Suida v."Apiora, (ubi pro corrupto ipei Kusterus reponit oipei), Diogeniano Prov. Cent. II. nr. 2., 66 dam scribi velint θόριξις, cum haec vox significat ebrietatem, et pos tationem vini ; θώρηξης vero, cum significat καθόπλησιν, (καθόπλισιν). Suidas : ̓́Ενιοι δὲ τὸ μὲν θερίσσεσθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ πίνειν, διὰ τοῦ ὁ μικροῦ γράφουσι, καὶ τοῦ '· τὸ δὲ θωρήσσεσθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὁπλίζεσθαι, διὰ τοῦ ὡ μεγάλου, καὶ τοῦ ή. Sic scribo, ex auctorum illorum sententia ; non, ut, sine ulla scriptura diversitate editum a L. Kustero, τὰ μὲν θωρήσσεσθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ πίνειν, etsi idem Kusterus in translatione sua, post Æmilium Portum, utrumque scribendi modum bene distinxerit, pro varia ejus vocis significatione... Hesych. : Θόριξις οινοποσία, καὶ θώρηξις, καθόπλισις. Antea sic scripserat Eustath. ad Il. B. p. 166. : ó ο Ισπεόν δὲ, ὡς Ομηρος μὲν θωρήσσειν ἀεὶ ἐπὶ ὁπλισμοῦ φησιν· οἱ δὲ μετ' αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐπὶ μέθης τὴν λέξιν τιθέασιν· ὅθεν καὶ θώρηξις, κατὰ τοὺς παλαιοὺς, οινοποσία, καὶ ἀκρατοποσία· ἴσως δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ, διὰ τὸ μάχιμον τῶν μεθυόντων-Ιστεόν δὲ, ὅτι τε τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν θώρηξιν, διὰ τοῦ ὁ μικ ροῦ, καὶ ἡ γράφουσί τινες, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ θόρω τὸ πηδῶ, διὰ τὸ θούρους εἶναι τοὺς μεθύοντας· καὶ ὅτι χρῆσις αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ, Λιμὸν θόριξις λύει. ... Bene dicit Eustathius τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν θώρηξιν,” inquit Politus, « i. e. quam dixerat οινοποσίαν. Nam, teste Suida, hæc a quibus dam statuitur differentia inter τὸ θωρήσσεσθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ πίνειν, et τὸ θωρήσσεσθαι, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὁπλίζεσθαι, ut primum scribant cum parvo 6 et , alterum vero, per ά magnum et, quemadmodum etiam docet Joannes Diaconus ad Hesiodum (Scuto p. 204. ed. Heinsii), cujus verba satis depravata ac mutila sic legebam: Θωρήσσειν δὲ, διὰ τοῦ μεγάλου ὡ, καὶ τοῦ ἡ, γίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρηξ ἢ θώραξ θώρακος· θορίσε σειν δὲ, ἤγουν μεθύσκειν, διὰ τοῦ μικροῦ ό, καὶ τοῦ ί, γίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ θόριξ ὁ ἄκρατος οἶνος. Hinc Hesych.: Θόριξις· οἰνοποσία, καὶ θώρηξις· καθόπλησις, (καθόπλισις). Recte omnino. Nec erat, cur Hesychii scripturam turbarent viri doctissimi, Heinsius, Salmasius, Palmerius.” Quod ad Joannis Diaconi locum attinet, fallitur vir doctus ; locus enim ille omnino sanus est, ut satis constat e Phavorini Lexieo, ubi sub v. κορύσσειν eadem verba leguntur: Θωρήσσειν δὲ, μέγα (1. e. μέγα ) καὶ ἡ, καὶ γίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ θώρηξ, (ή) θώραξ θώρακος, θο ρίσσειν δὲ, ἤγουν μεθύσκειν, μικρὸν (i. e. ό) καὶ ί, καὶ γίνεται ἀπὸ τοῦ θό ριξ, ὁ ἄκρατος οἶνος. Fallitur quoque Heinsius, qui ad Jo. Diaconi locum, pro θορίσσειν, legere vult θοξύσσειν et θόρυξ. Lex Reg. MS. auctore Libri de Proverbiis quibus Alexandrini utebantur, nr. xv. (T. xr. p. 1254. Plutarchi Opp. ed. Wyttenb.), Eustathio ad Il. Γ. p. 403. ed. Rom., et Hesychio, sed in ipso Theocriti Scholiasta et Εtymologo, quibus οἰψεῖν τὸ συνουσιάζειν. Hesych. : Μιξοιφίας μίξις, πλησιασμός. Salmasius : « * Μιξοιφία 2 μίξω (μίσγω, vel μίγνυμι) et οἶφος.” Sed olpos illud Lexicographi non agnoscunt. Quod ad etymologiam verbi οἰφεῖν attinet, ἀπὸ τοῦ ὀπιπεύειν inquit Schol. Theocr. 1. e. Recte, modo pro ἐπιτεύειν legas ὀπνίειν: ὅπω, ἄφω, ὀπύω, ὀπνίω, οἴφω, οἰφέω. Cf. Schneideri Lex. v. οἰφέω. ap. Albertium ad Hesych. v. post θωρηκτῇσι: Θοριχθῆναι μεθυσθῆναι, θωρηχθῆναι δὲ, ἀντὶ τοῦ ὁπλίζεσθαι, διὰ τοῦ ὦ μεγάλου καὶ τοῦ ἤ. Zonaras p. 1047.: igne à axpaтos olvos. Læge eum Kulenkampit Codice θόριξ. " Pro θώρηξ, Ion. pro θώραξ. De poculo sic dicto satis constat. Sed vinum merum sic dici non memini, θώρηξις tamen, quod alii scribunt θόριξις (α θόρω) exponitur ἀκρατοποía. Cf. H. Steph. Thes. 1. 1636. Oópi etiam Lex. Reg. MS, quod affert Albert. ad Hes., ubi emendatur opis: (✪ógi¿· ó äxpaTos olvos.)" Tittmann. Failitur Albertius: ópi recte se habet, ut patet ex Jo. Diacono et Phavorino. De v. 0óp s. bóp pro vino θόρηξ θόρις mero dubitare non debuerat Tittmannus; sic enim exponitur non modo a Zonara, sed etiam in Lex. Reg. MS., et a Jo. Diacono et Phavorino. Quod ad Hesychii locum attinet, sic vulgò editur, et sic edielit Albertius: Θόριξις· οἰνοποσία, καὶ θώρηξις καθόπλισις. Sed Iree est Musuri conjectura; Codex enim Marcianus, teste Schowie, habet: θώρηξις" οἰνοποσία, καθόπλησις (καθόπλισες.) « ln bac Glossa innovanda atque interpolanda Grammaticorum commentum, cujus Suidas meminit, secutus videtur (Musurus); at parum subtiliter, Hesychii enim et aliorum auctoritas plus valet, quam ejusmodi Grammaticorum nuga, quæ sola vitiosa scriptura e pronunciatione orta fundatæ sunt. Unanimi igitur VV. DD. consensu Codicis lectio reponenda est." N. Schow. “Ex omnibus patet," inquit Tittmannus ad Zonara Lex. p. 1068., “discrimen illud scripturæ esse commentum Grammaticorum. Quod sequutus Musurus Hesychii lectionem mutavit v. Gépigis, quum Cod. MS. habeat θώρηξις.” Certe loci ex Aristophane, Nicandro Alex. 32., et Theogn. 413. 470. 508. citati scripturam poow "mendi suspicione liberant, in quibus metri ratio alteram scripturam opioo non admittit," notante H. Steph. Thes. 1. 1636. c. Sed “discrimen illud scripturæ esse commentum Grammaticorum," cum Tittmanno post Schowium, non ausim dicere. Si recentiores scriptores, ut supra demonstravimus, scribunt λοτὸς pro λωτός, et κονίζω, κονία, ἀκόνιστος, κόνειον ε. κόνιον, pro κωνίζω, κωνία, ἀκώνιστος, κώνειον S. xvov, non est, cur de usu vocis ógnis apud recentiores, pro pris, dubitemus. Ιστέον δε, inquit Eustathius 1. c., ὅτι τε τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν θώρηξιν, διὰ τοῦ ὁ μικροῦ καὶ ὁ γράφουσί τινες, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ θόρω τὸ πηδῶ, διὰ τὸ θούρους εἶναι τοὺς μεθύοντας· καὶ ὅτι χρῆσις αὐτῆς ἐν τῷ, Λιμὸν θόριξις λύει, Hippocratis est aphorismus p. 391, 23. ed. 1538. Apòv Qúgnkis Xúel. Erotianus p. 178. ed. Franzii scribit wgns. Galenus p. 484., ut vulgo editur, Owensis airwσis Kroi i pén. At in Codice Dorvillia no, "bene exarato" (ut ait ipse Dorvillius, Misc. Obss. crit. nov. T. ix. Amst. 1749.) et in Codice Mosquensi legitur bóps, ut scribitur in Eustathii loco, qui effugit Franzii diligentiam. Scholiastes ad Nicandri Ther. 32.: θωρηχθέντες ἀντὶ τοῦ μεθυσθέντες, καὶ Ιπποκράτης τὴν οἰνοποσίαν θώρηξιν εἴρηκε. Thetfordia 1x. Julii MDCCCXVI. ON THE mplo A PHILOSOPHICAL SENTIMENTS OF EURIPIDES. Euripidi tu quantum credas nescio; ego certe singulos ejus versus singula testimonia puto. Cicero Lib. xvi. Ep. viii. ad Tironem. "PART II. [Continued from No. xxvii. p. 125.] We shall now proceed to show that he did it also on minor points. 1. Alian in his Var. Hist. Lib. VIII. c. 13. writes 'Αναξαγόραν φασὶ μὴ γελῶντά ποτε ὀφθῆναι, μήτε μειδιῶντα τὴν ἄρχην. His two princi pal disciples, Pericles and Euripides, are both said to have been knights of the woful countenance. Alexander Ætolus in the Noctes Atticæ of Aulus Gellius gives the following testimony regarding our Tragediap XV. chap. 20. Ὁ δ' Αναξαγόρου τρόφιμος χαιοῦ στρυφνὰ μὲν ἐμοίγε προσειπεῖν καὶ μισόγελως καὶ τωθάζειν οὐδὲ παρ ̓ οἶνον μεμαθηκώς. 1. Aristotle περὶ Ζώων γενεσέως tells us that 'Αναξαγόρας καὶ ἔγιοι τῶν φυσιολόγων φασὶ γίνεσθαι ἐκ τοῦ ἄῤῥενος τὸ σπέρμα, τὸ δὲ θῆλυ παρέχειν τὸν τόπον. This was the opinion which Euripides constantly expressed. Whilst he calls the father τὸν φύσαντα, τὸν φυτεύσαντα, τὸν ἀροτῆρα, τὸν τοῦ γενοῦς ἀρχηγέτην, he asserts that children owe every thing to him as the author of their existence, to the mother nothing. Thus in a fragment of his, preserved by Stobæus LXXVII. p. 453. a son thus addresses his mother: και στέργω δὲ τὸν φύσαντα τῶν πάντων βροτῶν also in Alcest. ν. 637. Οὐχ ἡ τεκεῖν φάσκουσα καὶ καλουμένη μήτηρ μὲ ἔτικτε. This doctrine was also taught by Æschylus in Eumen. 661. Οὐκ ἔστι μήτηρ ἡ κεκλημένου τέκνου τοκεὺς, τροφὺς δὲ κύματος νεοσπόρου τίκτει δ' ὁ θρώσκων, ἡ δ', ἅπερ ξένῳ ξένη, ἔσωσεν ἔρνος, οἷσι μὴ βλάψη θεός. τεκμήριον δὲ τοῦδέ σοι δείξω λόγου πατὴρ μὲν ἂν γένοιτ' ἄνευ μητρός πέλας ἀλλ ̓ οἷον ἔρνος οὔτις ἂν τέκοι θεός. and Euripides has more fully explained his sentiments on this subject in some lines of the Orestes v. 545. · πατὴρ μὲν ἐφύτευσέν με, σὴ δ' ἔτικτε παῖς, Ἐκ για το σπέρμ' ἄρουρα παραλαβοῦσ ̓ ἄλλου πάρανε τον γρ δια του 2001 NO. XXVIII. Cl. J. VOL. XIV. ἄνευ δὲ πατρὸς τέκνον οὐκ εἴη ποτ' ἄν. μᾶλλον μὲ ἀμῦναι τῆς ὑποστάσης τροφᾶς. Porson on these lines remarks "Non irridicule aliquis respondisse dicitur, ἄνευ δὲ μητρὸς πῶς, κάθαρμα Εὐριπίδη; y. 547. citat Clemens Alexandrinus Strom. II. p. 505. addita correctione, ἄνευ δὲ μητρὸς οὐδὲ συλλαβὴ τέκνου.” III. Diodorus Siculus Lib. 1. 'Αναξαγόρας ὁ φυσικὸς ἀπεφήνατο τῆς ἀναβάσεως [sc. τοῦ Νειλοῦ] αἰτίαν εἶναι τὴν τηκομένην χίονα κατὰ τὴν Αιθιοπίαν ᾧ καὶ ὁ ποιητὴς Εὐριπίδης, μαθητὴς ὢν, ἠκολούθηκε. He then proceeds and adduces the three first lines of the Helena. Νειλοῦ μὲν αἵδε καλλιπάρθενοι ῥοαὶ ᾶς, ἀντὶ δίας ψεκάδος, Αἰγύπτου πέδον, and also the parody which Aristophanes in Thesmoph. 855. 857. makes upon them. The Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius IV. 269. hias 'Αναξαγόρας φησὶ διὰ τὴν τῆξιν τῆς χίονος πληθύνειν τὸν Νεῖλον, ᾧ ἕπεται καὶ Εὐριπίδης. In a fragment of his Archelaus Euripides thus speaks of the periodic overflowings of the Nile. Νείλου λιπὼν κάλλιστον ἐν γύαις ὕδωρ, ὃς ἐκ μελαμβρότοιο πληροῦται ῥοαῖς τέθριππ ̓ ὀχοῦντος ἡλίου κατ ̓ αἰθέρα. Eschylus gives also the same cause for these periodic inundations. IV. Anaxagoras is said to have called the sun a mass of ignited stone, μύδρον διάπυρον, and to have thought it unworthy of divine honors. Xenophon in his Memorabilia calls it after him λίθον διάπυρον. An accusation of impiety in consequence of this assertion was preferred against Anaxagoras: the general voice went with the persecutors, and all that the power and influence of Pericles could do for his valued friend was to procure him means of escape from Attica. Eustathius tells us Od. A. p. 457. that the punishment inflicted by Jupiter on Tantalus was for asserting μύδρον εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον. Notwithstanding that Euripides had these two dire and dreadful examples before his eyes, he boldly commits the same fault, if fault it is to be called, in two passages of the Orestes v. 4. ὁ γὰρ μακάριος, κοὐκ ὀνειδίζω τύχας, Διὸς πεφυκώς, ὡς λέγουσι, Τάνταλος and at v. 970, 5. we have the following lines: μόλοιμι τὴν οὐρανοῦ καὶ μέσον χθονὸς τεταμένον ἁλύσεσι χρυσέαις φερομέναν δίναισι βῶλον ἐξ Ὀλύμπου. where Porson's note, ut solet, is worth attention. Quod supra γ. 6. vocaverat πέτρον, cum hic vocat οὐρανοῦ καὶ μέσον χθονός τεταμέναν |