Reports [stub]

1880 American Journal of Philology  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. REPORTS. MNEMOSYNE, Vol. VIII, Part 1. The first twenty pages of this part are occupied by Cobet with critical remarks upon Eunapius, in Vitis Sophistarum et fragmentis Iistoriarum. These notes do not contain much of general interest. One or two extracts may be made, however, which will show Cobet's opinion of Eunapius as regards style and trustworthiness. "P. 67. Laudat Hilarium Kara ypabtiKcv tiLoaoocavra a7re oviK 7reOvjKieit ev irai EKeivov XEpahi, Eivpdvop. Est operae pretium in his animadvertere obscuruin et atrum dicendi genus, ex qua caligine vix sententia pellucet haec: 'inpictuar ita versatus est ut per eius manus Euphlranor adhuc superesse videretur,' ut optime Gatakerus interpretatur apud Boisson. Quod Dionysius Halic. Tom. VI, p. 759, de Platone dicit: OrTav Eig r pv 7reptrro0oyiav Kat rb KaXut7ieretv-ajerTpov opitjv ad/3p--/esaivei rT aaoiEg Kaai 6b,) roiei rcapaTr2latov, aliquanto verius et iustius de Eunapio diceretur, in quem quadrat quod ipse de Iamblicho scripsit, p. 12. Ob Karexet rTv taKpoaTr/v-a2LX' 6dTroO(rpIeiv Kai arroKvaietv r3'v iKoi/v OIKEV'. "P. 98. De Libanio scribit: rad rti atrcVT rT a 7repa Oavudiaetv ETro oVTro troiAvuop6ov rt Xpfua IKatl 6Ao7rp6oaa2Xov ijv. Scrib. Trdg rtg aurON ra a?irepa Oavliad,eiv Ecro, ut paullo ante: o6 uiv trov7rcovqg uipoq 3i24YXero, r0iv 6e avyylyvotziv(v &eaaroc aiLov Eavrbv v opa redtaL/pavev. Vide autem mihi mirifice compositam orationem: 6 7roVbTrovC est a Theognide, 7roXV'iop06v rt Xpiua Herodoteum est et aLXoroirpaa2Aoq Ilomeri. Atque his admiscuit sordidum et plebeium ra oeb-repa de uno pro ra eavrov. Caeterum de Libanii ingenio et moribus nihil opus est Eunapio credere. Palam est enim in nonnullis mentiri Eunapium." S. A. Naber has thirty-five pages devoted to the criticism of the comic fragments. A specimen or two of his suggestions may be given. In the third line of Cratinus, 'ApXiZoXot fr. 3, ov iuevroti rap) Ks.o)JOV 6 rvTi/bo EOiKE 2Ca. aat he proposes eotK' nro7rapd6ev, saying: ' caecus est qui se solum esse arbitratur; venter crepat, nec suspicatur se cuiquam facere contumeliam, qualem Amasis rex apud Herodotum sciens facit; adest autem mutus qui non sentit sibi contumeliam fieri, itaque miro casu fit iniuria quam nemo infert et nemo patitur.' [6arorapeiv is an heroic remedy. Why not aK7ilat ? B. L. G.] Frag. 13 of llvTiv7 (Cratinus) 2AXpeig ?GXv ' ypda' avrbv 'Ev iTretaoodi, N. objects to the interpretation of irreito6sov as rTO k'riwep6yevov T4p (pal/art y?ATorog xaptv eo r7j if 'roOeaewg, and, comparing frag. I4 iv ro~ig 2vXvoiaL ypdipov, proposes to read iv CKUipdcoi5t. " Clisthenes, qui ridiculus est dum aetatis flore tesseris ludit, collocandus est, ubi ra KV/3evTt1K& bpyava veneunt." Frag. I of 2pat (Cratinus) he finds no explanation of the epithet 6 6 Q0 o v o C a2&)KTrp satisfactory; and since he thinks the mention of the cock's crest almost necessary, he suggests that Cratinus may have written Xo060otvoq. On Plato Com. fr. incert. 58 he believes that Phrynichus has confounded REP ORTS. ?,vxoppayeZv 'quod de moribundis in usu est' with lPvxpoppobeiv, and that the allusion is to the Athenian habit 'vinum aqua niveafrany,erie.' He shows that snow for this purpose was an article of merchandise, and suggests as an emenda-'tion of Lucian, de Merc. condl. 26, where the slighted guest is told obre obv ExetC ,Iovoo and the refusal of an egg is incredible, that we should read Xtov': 'Nivis usus ad luxuriam pertinet.' On Antiphanes, LAtrLXdctot fr. 2, which contains the,remarks of a slave that it is those who wish to live that have to die, robC yGtX0o1ivovgV dE ;1v Karaonaa 7ro AOKOovC l 1Kovra 6o Xadpv, and ends with (in Mein.) 6 d(5 Ltu6 iartv 67 avaaiaa dap/aKov, Naber points out that what Antiphanes really meant to say was that the famished desired to die and were glad when death came to them. He therefore conjectures ei6avaaiaf, but in this he has been anticipated bly Bothe (Didot), who, lhowever, wrongly olbjects to &aavaoiag on the score of quantity. This article of Naber's contains many acute remarks; but his habit of indicating the fragments by referring to the pages of the authllor by whom they are cited, and only occasionally to the pages of Meineke or to the play of which they formed part, reinders it hard to read with proper attention. The next article is by Cobet on the fragments recently publishled from a papyrus of the 2d century B. C. by H. WVeil. This subject being discussed in another paper in this Journal, p. 187, it is unnecessary here to say anything about it. Cobet has next an article of 40 pages on Thucydides, lib. I, II, as published (I877-8) l)y Herwerden. On I o10, 2, he maintains against H. that r7v 7vreVE raC duo UtOipag means simply two-fifths of the soil of Peloponnesus, and not Laconia and Messenia, as the Schol. assert. ' Scholia in Thucyd(lidem neque antiqia sunt et perexegui pretii. Constanltinopoli scripta sunt a Graeculis nequte doctis neque ingeniosis et perraro in iis aliquid reperias quod sit simul novLum et l?onum. Contra scatent erroril)bus et commentis, qutalis est haec mirifica Peloponnesi in quinque partes descriptio." On I 3I, 3, o' 6& KopivOtot ,Trv96UEVt v ra-ra 'XOov aa 7 atroi ig 7aq 'AOivag rrpea3evuae,evot, he expels the last word not only as being an unnecessary repetition of what is implied in ot Kopiv9tot /MOik), buLt also on the ground that ir-pflre[-.etv--/St/um esse and 7p?e3ei:ecOat=/-gl/alos millerse. He thinks that those whlo say that the middle is hlere used in the sense of the active are misled by misundlerstanding VI Io04 6 rb2t77rof-pr-s3evoGau6evof: for "non solet is qui coim imperio est ipse legatus ire sed alios mittere, et 7rPeol3Evav,euevog significat idem quod( semiper 7ryvba? 7rpwerfevr//v vel 7rpEo/3et. Tenemuis igitur i7r' avro- WI),6P interpolatores, qui de sLo 7ps)EaEv6SutEvot et rf)ps3ev6,uEvot (V 39) alliderunt." On I 32, I, he insists on expelling the " additamentum prorsus imoutile ac sutpervacaneiumn co7'ep ca 7/?tdi vvi', and recommend(s a similar excision in I 82, I, IV 92, 5, III 67, 7; 53, I; and cites the Scholia on several other passages to shlow that they contain just sutch expressions, which, he believes, in the places above quote(l hlave crept into the text. On I 44 he rep)eats and confirmls by additional arguments his proposal to change iv (5& r , trepaia into VCrEpa, thoughl Herw. has refutsed to follow him. Of the three passages (III 91, 5, V 46, i, VII Ir, 2) cited by H. he disallows the interpretation of the two former and emends the last, maintaining that the 477 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. analogy of rptraioq, etc., determines the use of vaTepatoc, which can only be used with ji/epa expressed or understood. The prep. ev in this case shows that the noun to be supplied is eKK?l;ia and not tyi pa, and therefore the reading must be varipa, and not varepaia. In c. 54 he finds no less than six aliena additamenta. And to show how such marginal comments crept into the text he quotes Galen's account of the process: cie rtg Trpooeypaipev iveKEv eavrov, KcaOanrep eiO0auev Vn'6/ivr,atv ev roilf /erTrOioit (in marginibus) ra rotavra rpocrypadeew, eirda rit TrV iera7aypa0O6vv rTO pl3tfAiov 6f aiOV rov TV vyypaobe'C Ov elc TrO V0og (in textum) airb LeTerfo0eV. In c. 73, I, he changes poveViaroa0e after 5T7O ig) into pov;evaeaOe, re-asserting the Canon Dawesianus that birow, oiirO rp6T(, oiV tO must be used with the future indicative or the subjunctive second aorist. In c. II5, 5, instead of ro'7 61ofpovg K?tuZ?avTeg IK A' /vov he writes iltcaKbavrec, for ' K2i'TTrtv de rebus poni solet,furtim autfurto surripere, xKKrTTrretv de personis, clam subducere'; and so in Ar. Ach. 525 he wishes to read veavtat 'KKicEArrovCt. In c. 137, 4, Thucyd. inserts in his report of the letter of Themistocles to Xerxes and his claim to reward for services rendered, his own comment, A supposed misprint in his Uebungsbuch XXIV IIo, attributed to him by Kolbing II 283. Under 'Bemerkungen und Nachtraege'-I. W. Sattler on Lohmann's English Relative Pronouns (Anglia III I, II5) supplies additional examples of the omission of the relative in modern writers, and takes exception to Lohmann's remark on the rare omission of the nominative in writers of the present day, but it is noteworthy that nearly all of Sattler's examples occur in sentences with 'it is,' 'there is,' and their variations, which permit conciseness in speech, and outside of these Lohmann's remark is quite true. 2. J. Zupitza, on Middle-English k for t?, thinks it merely a misprint (or miswriting) in all of Stratmann's examples (EnglischeStudien III I4). Why not? since modern printers frequently putp for p (thorn) and even for p (wen). 3. H. Varnhagen suggests for the etymology of catch, F. cacher, hence cachen, confused with chacen, 0. F. chacier, rather than as Skeat and others, q. v. 4. M. Trautmann, on the Northumbrian r, corrects a statement made in Anglia III I, 215, that this sound is spreading. Dr. J. A. H. III.-H. Varnhagen continues his contributions to Middle-English Poems with-VIII, Lay le Freine, from the Auchinleck MS., heretofore published by Ellis and by Weber. Varnhagen says the original dialect is not determined, but from the evidence of forms we should not go far wrong, I think, in placing it near the southern border of the East-Midland district. He also prints from a MS. lately rediscovered by Professor Zupitza in the Worcester Library-IX, A Fragment of the twelfth century, consisting of twenty-two lines, first printed by Sir T. Phillips in his Fragments of Aelfric's Grammar. The contents of the original are uncertain; some of the scholars of England, as Beda, Aelfric and certain bishops, are mentioned in the fragment.
fatcat:3r5fc4gnzngn5ghoclfj7zsjpq