7 born of a foreign Woman, and therefore fpurious; he also afferts, that the Law of Athens prevented the Father from bequeathing by will to his illegitimate child any part of his property, as appears from the Law of Solon, cited by him in these words; ""The fpurious child has no right of inheriἐσ tance, if there are legitimate children; and if there are "none of those, the goods of the deceased devolve on the nearest of kin." The Scholiaft upon this paffage however informs us," that the Father was enabled by the Law of Athens to leave to his Baftards a fum to the amount of five minæ, or five hundred drachmas; but this they delivered to them by hand, fince thefe illegitimate children had no right to inherit as heirs;" The other Scholiaft Bifetus extends the volia or Bastards portion to a thousand drachmas; which correfponds with the account in Harpocration and Suidas', who cite the testimony of Lyfias, Ifæus, Ariftophanes, Hyperides, and Demofthenes, for the truth of this affertion. I refer the reader, who wishes for farther information on this fubject, to Archbishop Potter's Archæologia. (B. 4. c. 15.) 8 N° XXX. Verfe 701. Πόσις δ' ατίξος φίλων. 738. E'en thus, unhonour'd by his friends. THIS is one of the most difficult paffages in the Ion; and Editors and Criticks, inftead of explaining the original words, have exercifed their ingenuity by fubftituting innovations of their own: But thefe, inftead of enlightening the fenfe of 7 V. 1655, • V. 1662. 8 Vox Nobela. 9 Vox Nota. Euripides, Euripides, have only obfcured it in greater darkness. The original reading under the fanction of manufcript authority was dries or 2-los, as appears from the notes of the Cambridge and Oxford Editors: The former, entirely rejecting this word, has inferted into the text his unfortunate conjecture of animos, which has fcarce the fhadow of a meaning: And Dr. Mufgrave, reftoring the original text, has not at tempted to explain it, but recommends to read aτnos: Since I defign to vindicate the original words, it becomes unneceffary to perplex the Reader with the various objections to these innovations, which would ferve only to fatigue his attention. The first rule of Criticifm ought to be, that no ancient Author fhould be touched by a modern Critick, unlefs the colour is entirely faded from the venerable picture: I flatter myself, that this defperate remedy is not neceffary to be applied in the prefent inftance to Euripides: I shall proceed therefore to offer my explication by recalling the attention to the fubject. The Chorus is here contrasting the refpective fituations of Creufa and Xuthus. The former they affert to be involved in calamity, as advancing towards old age without children; but the latter they pronounce as fortunate: This circumftance alludes to the discovery of Ion by Xuthus, as his fuppofed illegitimate Son, and as Brodæus' remarks, " Quod filium nactus fit:" Yet notwithstanding this discovery, continues the Chorus, this Husband, Xuthus, is dishonoured, or despised, by his friends and the a In Ion, Annot. p. 109. 2 The definition of los in Hefychius is σε λιμώρητος κατὰ τήρησιν τῆς ἄτης, Man unrevenged from an inability to inflict punishment:" Hence an object of contempt, for just above he has explained all by almor, "Tov μh xoila alisai, one dishonoured, as not being able to revenge himself." According the fame Commentator justly renders it "ab amicis fpretus:' This idea refers to the ignominy of the want of iffue with his wife Creufa: And then the Chorus, impreffed with this fentiment, exclaims, "Wretched is that Foreigner, who adopted into any refpectable family, has not preferved the elevated prosperity of it:" Thus the whole fentence becomes naturally connected; for the mind of thefe Athenian Women, after having acknowledged the prefent happiness of Xuthus in this discovery of his fon Ion, when contrafted with the melancholy barrenness of their favourite Queen Creufa, darts with a malignant joy to blast the apparent felicity of this royal Stranger, by ftigmatizing him with the infamy of this new acquifition, and his real difgrace for want of legitimate iffue. That the Reader may be satisfied of the neceffity of unravelling the context, I will fubjoin for his curiofity the different verfions of this fingle line by the Commentators on Euripides, Maritus verò expers amicorum eft. Canter. Maritus verò eft fecurus amicorum fuorum ob potentiam. Barnes. According to this definition, I find the word oufed by Homer and Æfchylus, though they differ in the quantity: Οὐ μὰν αῦτ ̓ ἄτλος και "Αγιος. (11. 13. Τ. 414.) Here the word los is explained both by the Scholiaft and Euftathius in the fenfe of ἄτιμος, as well as in that of ἀτιμωρητὸς. Ἡμεῖς δ ̓ ἀλία σαρκὶ παλαίᾳ. (Agamem, v. 72.) There are alfo two authorities for alios, as fynonymous with allos, or difhonoured, in the Eumenides of Æfchylus, *Αλιμ ̓ ἀγίεια διόμεναι Λάχη θεῶν. (ν. 389.) ̓Ατίελον, φῖν, μύσος, (ν. 842.) As riw fignifies honoro & punio, fo its derivatives Tilos and aridos will equally imply inhonoratus, vel inultus, dishonoured or unrevenged. I Maritus Maritus verò ab amicis non emollitur. Mufgrave. Maritus verò hoc facto exiftimatione fuâ apud amicos Whereas according to my interpretation it ought to be, Maritus verò ab amicis inhonoratus eft, vel ab amicis fpretus. Though this verfion correfponds with the idea of Brodeus, yet the context, not being unravelled by him, has occafioned the whole fentence to have been thus perverted. N° XXXI. Verfe 707. Καλλίφλογα πέλανον. 748. No fav'ring flame to him afcend. I HERE Brodæus obferves, that the Votary was fenfible of the acceptation of his prayer by the manner in which the flame darted its ejaculation: The Chorus therefore here deprecates any favourable omen to Ion from his facrifices. The Græcians probably derived this religious notion from the Oriental Nations, where it appears to have been of the most remote and venerable antiquity; fince Cain by this symptom discovered, "that the LORD had respect unto Abel "and to his offering; but unto Cain and his offering he had no respect:" And when Aaron and Mofes offered their 66 3 * Annot. in Ion, p. 109. 2 Genefis, c. 4. v. 4 & 5. 3 Levit, c. 9. v. 24. burnt 6 burnt offering, "there came a fire from before the LORD, "and confumed it, which when all the People faw they "fhouted." Thus at the facrifice of Gideon "there rose 66 up fire out of the rock, and confumed the flesh, and the "unleavened cakes." The Tλavos of the Greeks, here mentioned, was alfo a cake, which, thrown into the fire, was confecrated, as appears from this paffage in Euripides, and another in the Plutus' of Aristophanes. Dr. Mufgrave here refers us to the Phoeniffe of our Author; who there mentions the puges anuas, or the point of the flame, as afcertaining the fortune of the facrifice: There is a chapter in the Archæologia' of Archbishop Potter on the divination by facrifices; where he treats of the Tugqualía, or divination by fire, and the good and evil figns attending it. If the flame was bright, this was an aufpicious omen, as it was then naλípλoya; but it was esteemed the contrary, if it corref ponded with the defcription of the facrifice in the Antigone of Sophocles, When, from the victim, lo! the fullen flame Lay'd the moist flesh, and roll'd in smoke, repelled (Franklin, vol. 2. p. 57.) I Judg. c. 6. v. 24. See alfo 1 Chron. c. 21. v. 26. V. 1289. 1 B. 2. c. 14. p. 318. S V.661. N° XXXII. |