transferetur, hoc modo: (32) μεγαλοσχήμονά τ' ἀρχαιοπρεπῆ στένουσι τὰν σὰν ξυνομαιμόνων τε τιμάν. Credibile est nomen populi cujuspiam interiisse: quamquam ne orévovσa quidem damnandum est, si quidem non gentis nomen, sed verbum ad xúpa pertinens excidit. Paullo post similis locus est de Atlante, ὃς αἰὲν ὑπέροχον σθένος κραταιὸν οὐράνιόν τε πόλον νώτοις ὑποστενάξει. In quibus verbis non modo hæc, κραταιὸν οὐράνιόν τε πόλον, merito displicebunt, sed reliqua etiam omnia quo pacto vel construenda sint, vel intelligi queant, haud facile quisquam explicaverit. Neque enim dubitari potest, quin hæc ita corrupta sint, ut sine librorum novis auxiliis vix queant sanari. Equidem ne in loco sæpius frustra tentato nimium tribuere conjecturis videar, non tam emendare eum, quam emendandi viam ostendere conabor. Atque illud primum facile persuasero iis, qui tragicorum lectione exercitati sunt, verba ὑπέροχον σθένος, quum sequantur hæc ουράνιόν τε Tóλov, de Atlantis robore, non de pondere cæli esse intelligenda. Quo magis nomine aliquo, vel etiam verbo, opus est, quod et regat verba ista, et aliquo modo ad ipsum Atlantem spectare indicet. Ejus verbi sedem nt in nomine кparatov quærendam arbitremur, duobus adducimur, iisque non levibus argumentis. Nam et metrum (carmen enim antistrophicum est) vocem illam corruptam esse arguit, et, si aliud vocabulum reponi possit, copulæ usus, qui nunc ineptus est, reprehensione caruerit. Atque hæc ipsa copula suspicionem oblitterati alicujus participii, quam universa hujus loci ratio excitat, magnopere videtur confirmare, siquidem Æschylus, ut ad Vigerum p. 753. docui, copulam inferre post participium consuevit. Certi quidem nihil in tanta loci corruptione afferri potest, sed litterarum vestigia sequentibus videndum erit, ne hic lateat participium verbi kapraíveir, quod ex Hesychio in lexica receptum, sed nondum in quoquam alio scriptore repertum est. (33) Illud certe crediderim, si omnino istud verbum vitio caret, explicationem кpareiv, quam Hesychius et Favorinus adscripserunt, ut a forma verbi alienam, corruptam esse, et in κparúvel mutari debere. Utcumque est, (dabitur enim hæc venia, ut certe in exemplum emendationis isto participio utamur,) hanc propemodum loci istius formam fuisse probabile est. "Ατλανθ', ὃς αἰὲν ὑπέροχον σθένος καρταίνων, οὐράνιόν τε πόλον νώτοις υποστεγάζει. I In hujus loci emendatione verum est úñ¬¡yά. Cætera hodie aliter constituenda puto. Alia exempla in Choephoris exstant, quorum unum, quod erat in v. 389. in editione Glasguensi novissima sublatum est. Sed restant tres alii loci. V. 587. πτηνά τε καὶ πεδοβά αἰγίδων φράσαι κότον. Ubi quis adeo erit invenustus, qui vel verbo monitus copulas istas ferri posse sibi persuadeat? Sed hic quidem locus emendationis nullam habet difficultatem. Scribendum ita: πτᾶνα δὲ καὶ πεδοβάμον ̓ ἀπ' ἀνεμοέντων Hic καὶ non copula est, sed ad verbum pertinet, ἀπ' ἀνεμοέντων autem hoc facilior est correctio, quia in codice Guelferbytano ita scriptum est: πεδοβάμον ̓ ἀκ ̓ ἀνεμοέντων. Sequitur hic locus ν. 722. νῦν γὰρ ἀκμάζει Πειθὼ δολία Nihil profecto frigidius potuit neque languidius dici, quam χθόνιον Ἑρμῆν καὶ τὸν νύχιον. At adeo manifesta hic sunt interpretationum indicia, ut ne dubitari quidem posse putem, quin ita scripserit Æschylus: (34) νῦν γὰρ ακμάζει Πειθὺ δολίαν ξυγκαταβῆναι, νύχιόν θ' Ἑρμῆν ξιφοδηλήτοισιν ἀγῶσιν. Νύχιος enim idem est, quod magis usitatum χθόνιος, ut ἐννυχίων pro χθονίων, et ἔννυχον ᾅδαν pro χθόνιον dixit Sophocles Ed. Col. 1556. Trach. 501. Porro mesodus est in Choephoris hæc v. 802. τόδε καλῶς κτάμενον, ὦ μέγα ναίων στόμιον εὖ καλύπτρας. In his non solum insolens verbum dvideiv, præsertim sequente statim ἰδεῖν, omninoque nexus verborum, sed etiam illa, ἐλευθερίως λαμπρῶς τε, quae satis manifestam prosæ orationis speciem habent, lectori creant molestiam. Tè quidem in duabus veterrimis editionibus et codice Guelferbytano abest. Sed amplius progredi debet emendatio. Nam utrumque adverbium, et έλευθερίως et λαμπρῶς, 1 Non minus putidum est, quod apud Euripidem legitur Iph. Τ. 399. τὸν εὔνδρον καὶ δονακόχλια λιπόντες Ευρώταν. Recte vero duo codd. omittunt καί : corruptam autem vocem emendavit Elmsleius. interpretatio est alius adverbii, árédny, quod scripturæ depravatione mutatum fuit in ȧvideiv. Argumenta huic conjecturæ satis luculenta tum Suidas et Favorinus, tum Eustathius ad Homerum p. 168, 36. suppeditant. Quanto jam omnia non modo facilius, sed etiam elegantius procedunt: τόδε καλῶς κτάμενον, ὦ μέγα ναίων ὄμμασιν ἐκ δνοφερᾶς καλύπτρας. FRAGMENTS OF A SENATUS CONSULTUM IN HONOR OF GERMANICUS. TACITUS, Ann. II. 83., speaks in the following words of the honors which were decreed by the senate to Germanicus: "Honores ut quis amore aut ingenio validus, reperti decretique: ut nomen ejus Saliari carmine caneretur: sedes curules sacerdotum Augustalium locis, superque eas querceæ coronæ statuerentur: ludos Circenses eburna effigies præiret: neve quis flamen aut augur in locum Germanici, nisi gentis Juliæ, crearetur. Arcus additi Roma, et apud ripam Rheni, et in monte Syrio Amano, cum inscriptione rerum gestarum, ac mortem ob Rempublicam obiisse. Sepulcrum Antiochiæ ubi crematus," &c. Few people know that the brazen tablets containing the Senatus Consultum, alluded to in the above passage, have been discovered at Rome. Fea, the celebrated archæologist at Rome, has seen the originals; they were in a mutilated state, and he has taken a copy of them on plaster-stone: and it is fortunate he did so; for these brazen tablets are no longer to be seen at Rome some Englishman, it is said, bought them, and took them away; and probably they lie now, concealed from the world and inaccessible to the antiquarian, in some proud mansion, where not even the owner himself can read them. We should be happy to learn where they are; hitherto our inquiries have been unsuccessful. In the mean time we shall communicate to our readers the contents of these fragments, as published by Fea in the Fram-menti di Fasti Consolari e Trionfali, ad p. xvi. Fea himself has made a sad blunder on the subject of these fragments: he supposed that they alluded to an arch of Augustus, assuming, on the authority of Ligorius an impostor, that the "Fasti Conso lari e Trionfali" had been found on the marble walls of an arch of the Forum; but he is by no means a safe guide on the subject of Roman topography, and especially not with respect to the Curia Julia. If we knew where the original tablets are, we should probably also be able to correct some errors, or to supply some deficiencies of the copy which Fea has taken. One mistake is evident in line 9 of these fragments, where Fea reads OINFS instead of GINES. As the tablets were found in three pieces, he also made three fragments; whereas two fragments belong to the same subject, and must be read together. ceter A. QVAE EX SC HONORANDI QVI INTER ALIA EODEM VOLumine MARI PROVINCIARVM ASIAticarum TIAS ET ADGNOSere OSARENT VRI TERE· (b) exer ger re EX HOCS C· FACTVS ubi corpus Germanici RASSET TRI The word CREMAT in the fragments is also found in the passage of Tacitus, which we have quoted; and it is remarkable, that IANVS and arcus of Tacitus appear as synonyms, as they undoubtedly were. Three Jani are mentioned in the fragments; and the passage of Tacitus speaks of three arches. Future editors of Tacitus will, we hope, not neglect these fragments: especially as they have reference to one of the most distinguished men in the history of Rome. S. ANTIQUE REPRESENTATIONS OF In the course of some researches concerning Troy, I was led many years ago, by a very natural digression, to examine several anecdotes in the eventful history of Helen. It certainly was not my principal object to ascertain whether she originally issued from an egg; whether Paris was deceived by a phantom or living image (elowλov μπvouv, Euripid. Prol. Helena), which Juno substituted for the real person of Helen; whether this princess was seduced by the artifice of Venus, who endowed Paris with the features and form of Menelaus; whether her beauty retained its fascinating power at the siege of Troy, as some relate, when she must have been ninety or a hundred years old, according to strict chronology: all these circumstances, and many others equally important which the ancient writers have noticed, I took but little trouble to investigate; being desirous rather to ascertain some points more immediately connected with the Trojan war-thus, whether Helen ever was at Troy? a circumstance which Herodotus doubts, while Homer assures us that she was there; and Virgil declares that she contributed to the destruction of that city by making a signal to the Greeks. Finding, however, that it was not in my power to reconcile |