5 Play an exprefs affertion, that Erechtheus was now dead: confequently we may fairly begin our calculation from the acceffion of his Succeffor to the throne of Athens, 1373 years preceding the Chriftian æra; for Creufa may be fuppofed in Euripides to have undertaken this Journey to Delphi about that time: If therefore we add to the above number of years 1373 (A. C.) the time elapsed since the birth of CHRIST 1780 years, we shall then arrive at the fair point of Chronology of the Play, which will amount to 3153 years eftimated to the prefent period. But I fhall prove in the Alceftis, where Hercules is one of the principal Characters of that Play, that its æra of Chronology is only removed 2965 years from the current year of this century, confequently it follows the Ion by the difference of 188 years: Yet here is Hercules fuppofed by the Poet to have accomplifhed his labours, therefore probably dead, though in the Alceftis alive: And indeed it is generally allowed, that this renowned Hero of Græce only flourished one generation prior to the memorable expedition of the Greeks against Troy, which in the Arundelian Marbles is 1218 years before CHRIST: This will correfpond with Homer, who mentions in his catalogue of fhips Tlepolemus the Son of Hercules among the Græcian Leaders: But Mneftheus, who commanded the forces of Attica against Troy, was the eleventh King of Athens; fo that four entire reigns had elapsed, and a fifth was running between him and Erechtheus: While ac And yet this very extended term has been exceeded by the reigns of the four laft Kings of France, Henry IV. Louis XIII. XIV. and XV. for from the acceffion of Henry IV, in 1589, to the death of Louis XV, in 1774, there was a term of 185 years. • See my Note on V. 6. 7 Il. 2. v. 658. cording cording to Eufebius, the birth of Hercules to Amphitruo at Thebes was only 80 years, prior to his calculation of the capture of Troy; and you must allow this hero a certain time for the execution of his illuftrious exploits. There is a clear anachronism therefore in Euripides of more than a whole century. The comparative chronology between the Ion and the Bacche may be feen in my note on (V. 2.) of the latter, where I fhall prove, that the æra of that play is removed 3259 years from the prefent period; confequently it precedes this of the Ion by the difference of 106 years; but the Ion precedes the Alceftis by 188 years. N° XI. Verfe 195. Πτανὸν πυρίφλεκτον. 192. That fnatches from the fire the blazing brand. HERE Barnes obferves, that the Hydra is no where else reprefented with wings: It must be allowed, that there is truth in this observation; for I know of no inftance, except one, which I fhall presently mention from Milton, where wings are affigned to this fabulous monfter: Its most common reprefentation is that of a prodigious fnake: Thus Palæphatus exprefsly calls it Asgvatos opis: And Virgil and Ovid both defcribe it as a ferpent. Our Poet in his Her 3 2 69. 6 4 cules Furens bestows the epithet of Aov upon it, as inhabiting the marshes. An engraving of Hercules, killing a fnake with many heads, corresponding to this idea, may be feen in Drakenborch's edition of Silius Italicus'; another in Montfaucon ; two others in Spanheim' upon coins; and another in the Polymetis of Spence: This Author observes, "that the old Artifts differ, in their manner of representing the Hydra fometimes it is a ferpent branched out into feveral other ferpents; and fometimes a human head, descending lefs and lefs in ferpentine folds, and with ferpents upon it inftead of hair: The Poets feem to speak of both, though they have perhaps been generally understood only of the former"." He might also have added that at other times the Ancients represented it, as a terrible beaft: Thus Virgil paints it, Horrendùm ftridens. Bellua Lernæ En. 1. 6. v. 287. And Paufanias 1° informs us, that he imagines it to have been a beaft: Euripides in his Hercules Furens twice 11 calls it a dog. But, whatever was its poetical form, it is generally defcribed to have been deftroyed by fire, either by Hercules himself, or by the affiftance of his auxiliary 12 Companion and Charioteer 13 Iolaus: Hence the propriety of the epithet zugipanov here applied, which correfponds with the defcription of our Author in another of his plays, where he 12 Antiq. Expl. tom. I. pl. 133. s Pl. 18. fig. 2. 4 V. 9 Dial. 9. p. 118. 11 V. 420 & 1274. V. 90 & 126. 10 Corint. 1. 2. c. 37. p. 199. 13 Hibor (Hef. Scut. Her. v. 77. ufes 14 nfes the term ἐξεπύρωσε to imply that Hercules quelled the monster by flames. In the fame manner Seneca, Quid fæva Lernæ monftra, numerofum malum, Inftead therefore of lavov winged, Barnes proposes to read Tupo a torch; and then Iolaus in this Delphick Temple will be here represented in the picturefque attitude of lifting this burning torch: The alteration is certainly ingenious; nor is the objection to it of the Italian Tranflator Carmeli well founded, that the epithet ugipsov from its paffive fignification cannot be applied to uporov for why cannot the torch be faid to be burnt with fire without fuppofing it entirely con fumed? There is no abfolute neceffity however for any amendment, fince, as the Hydra was fo much the creature of poetical imagination, Gorgons and Hydras and Chimæras dire, Milton, Par. Lost, b. 2. v. 628. Euripides may be indulged with defcribing its wings; and it is remarkable, that Milton feems in the following lines to have affigned wings to the Hydra, perhaps on the authority of this very paffage in Euripides, Though new Rebellions raife The Hydra heads, and the falfe North difplays (Sonnet. 15. v. 8. ed. Newton ", vol. III. p. 525-) 14 Her. Fur. v. 421. 15 In the printed copies (fays the Editor in his note) it is, To imp her ferpent wings, but ferpent wings refer to the fame as Hydra heads. Yet Yet notwithstanding this authority I am inclined to admit the propriety of an alteration in this paffage, according to the idea of Barnes, for this reafon; because Hercules in the preceding lines has already destroyed the Hydra; therefore a new poetical image will be here introduced by this uplifted torch of Iolaus. Since this amendment of our English Editor, a learned Foreigner, Pierfon, in his Liber 16 Verifimilium, has pursued this idea; and has not only suggested other objec jections to the prefent reading; but has also offered a very fortunate conjecture of his own: Instead of lavov he proposes to read by the omiffion of a fingle letter, wavov 7, which he proves on the authority of a fragment of Euripides, preferved in Julius Pollux 18, and alfo from Euftathius 19: He likewife produces a paffage from Quintus Calaber, where Hercules and Iolaus are both reprefented: the former, as cutting off the head of the Hydra, the latter, as burning it, Ὁ δε καιε σιδήρῳ He also cites another authority from Nonnus, where Iolaus is defcribed as raifing the torch, sanov áglácovα. (Dion. 1. 25. p. 632. ed. Wech.) 16 This book, printed at Leyden in 1752, was written by the Author at an early period of life, for he died before he had completed 30 years: The performance has great merit; but one is aftonished to find at the opening of it fo unjust a character of Joshua Barnes, Ipfe Barnefius, homo mediocriter Græcè doctus, Euripidi non minus, quam Homero edendo, fi quis alius, impar fuit: Quod latius demonftrarem, nifi cnm viris eruditiffimis hâc in parte mihi conveniret; inter quos dudum conftat Barnefius in Tragediis pauca, in fragmentis nihil præftitiffe, imo illa lacerâffe, fecâffe, uffiffe: Certè indigna eft hæc editio laude, quam re minimè exploratâ arbitri parum idonei largâ manu in eam contulerunt, (p. 2.) 17 Ver. Lib. p. 3 & 4. Dr. Mulgrave has admitted this emendation into his printed text. 18 L. 10. Seg. 117. 19 Il. 4. p. 1189. Hence |