ἀπὸ κλιμάκων ποδὸς ἴχνος ἐπαντέλλων, which is interpreted in the Index, " ἐπανατελλώ, ascendere facio, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπανάγω, νεὶ ἀναβιβάζω, vel ἀναφέρω :” thus also Homer, if I remember rightly, uses it in an active sense. But (to return to the passage of the Prometheus) the fact is, that the preposition in ἐπιτεῖλαι belongs to, in this sense-at what point is there to be a termination of these evils ? Just as the same preposition in the same verb in the 298th verse of Dionysius's Perieg. refers to Ρήνῳ, after the Rhine, Ρήνῳ δ' ἐξείης ἐπιτέλλεται ἱερὸς Ιστρος, our Saviour as the Sun of Righteousness, from the words, which immediately follow, ἐν οἷς ἐπεσκέψατο ἡμᾶς ̓ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗ ἐξ ὕψους· ΕΠΙΦΑΝΑΙ ΤΟΙΣ ΕΝ ΣΚΟΤΕΙ ΚΑΙ ΣΚΙΑ ΘΑΝΑΤΟΥ ΚΑΘΗΜΕΝΟΙΣ, ΤΟΥ ΚΑΤΕΥΘΥΝΑΙ ΤΟΥΣ ΠΟΔΑΣ 'ΗΜΩΝ ΕΙΣ ΟΔΟΝ ΕΙΡΗΝΗΣ c. I. v. 79. 79. ; for the metaphor of the Sun is continued, as we see, throughout the next verse, but, if we translate it by the other word Branch, we introduce a confusion of metaphors, and destroy the propriety of the expressions in the subsequent verse: it appears to me to be a direct allusion to the passage of Malachi, in which our Saviour is called the Sun of Righteousness ; end, perhaps, St. Paul Hebr. VII. 14. had the same passage of Malachi in his view, when he said, ἐξ ̓Ιούδα ΑΝΑΤΕΤΑΛΚΕΝ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν. where Eustathius says, ὅτι τῷ Ρήνω ἐξῆς ὁ Ἴστρος ἐπιτέλλεται, ἤγουν ἀνατέλλει κάτωθέν ποθεν : thus in the Seven at Thebes, v. 161. ποῖ δ ̓ ἔτι τέλος ἐπάγει Θεός ; ποῖ, which is the same as the interrogative τίς with a substantive, is governed of ἐπὶ in επάγει. We have a very similar passage in v. 189. of the Prometheus, δέδια δ ̓ ἀμφὶ σαῖς τύχαις, πᾶ ποτε τῶνδε πόνων χρῆ σε τέρμα κέλ σαντ' ἐσιδεῖν. The Schol. Α. φοβοῦμαι περὶ ταῖς σαῖς τύχαις, καὶ λογίζομαι ποῖ ποτε παύσονται καὶ ἐλλεμινισθήσονται, ἀπὸ μεταφορᾶς τῶν προσορμιζομένων νηῶν· ἤγουν τί δεῖ σε τέρμα καὶ τέλος ἰδῶν [ἰδεῖν] τῶνδε τῶν πόνων; τὸ δὲ κέλσαντα ἀντὶ τοῦ παυσάμενον. . The Schol. Β. χρῆ· ἀπόκειται—κέλσαντ'· καταντήσαντα. Stanley turns the words thus-Quo tandem appulsum oportet te horum laborum cernere eventum. Thus it should seem that Stanley joins πᾶ ποτε with κέλσαντα, and τέρμα τῶνδε πόνων with ἐσιδεῖν, while the Schol. A. joins both πᾶ ποτε, and τέρμα τῶνδε πόνων with ἐσιδεῖν, and takes κέλσαντα by itself without any adjunct: the construction of Stanley πᾶ ποτε κέλ L σαντα τέρμα τῶνδε πόνων appears to me quite indefensible: if τέρμα is governed of κέλσαντα, it must be by the ellipse of pòs, as in Hipp. v. 140. (cited by Mr. Blomf. in his Gloss. p. 118.) XÉλσαι TOтÌ TÉρμα Suoravoy, and in Esch. Agam. v. 675. оxeîñaι πρὸς καταιλέων χθόνα. One other interpretation may be proposed, which is to join πᾶ ποτε with ἐσιδεῖν, and τέρμα τῶνδε πόνων with κέλσαντα: I must confess that I am decidedly for the interpretation of the Scholiast, which recommends itself by its simplicity; but I read ἐπιδεῖν for ἐσιδεῖν, with one of the MS. collated by Dr. Askew, and in this case refer in to ã, as in the 109th verse cited above. I, however, expect that this new doctrine will be controverted, but I trust that I shall, on another occasion, establish the point beyond the possibility of dispute, if I have not done it already. ν. 163. νῦν δ' αιθέριον κίνυγμ' ὁ τάλας ἐχθροῖς ἐπίχαρτα πέπονθα. Mr. Blomfield in the note here says that the reading of iлíxapμa may be defended, if we place a comma after τάλας, and after ἐπίχαρμα, and cites three passages, where the word occurs in a similar sense; but would Eschylus have used, as he will thus be made to do, πέπονθα without any adverb, as κάκως, μάλα, οι any case after it, as κάκα ? There can be no doubt whatever that the phrase εχθροῖς ἐπίχαρμα is good Greek, but the real question is about this use of πέπονθα by itself, if we read επίχαρμα. ν. 296. ταῖς σαῖς δὲ τύχαις, ἴσθι, συναλγώ τό τε γάρ με, δοκώ, ξυγγενὲς οὕτως ἐσαναγκάζει, χωρίς τε γένους οὐκ ἔστιν ὅτῳ μείζονα μοιραν "Non est cui potiores partes impartirem, cui plus deferam, quam tibi,” Stanley. "Nemo est cui majorem benevolentiæ partem adsignare vellem quam tibi, μερίδα δώσαιμι, Schol. Β. λείπει φιλίας, Schol. Α. Soph. Trach. 1240. ἀνὴρ ὅδ', ὡς ἔοικεν, οὐ νέμει γ ἐμοὶ φθίνοντι μοῖραν, ubi Brunck. post tres MSS. edidit νέμειν: si quis exempla quærat formulæ μέρος, vel μοῖραν νέμειν, adeat Eur. Hec. 856. Suppl. 241. Markland. ad Suppl. 380. Eur. ap. Stob. Floril. II. p. 17. et ap. Plut. Moral. pp. 912. 1119. cf. Homer. Il. 1. 314. non valde diversum est illud Ovid. Ep. xxI. 8. Illa tamen justa plus tibi parte favet." In my notes on the Prometheus in the 7th No. of the CLASSICAL JOURNAL, p. 211. I have said that Qalas, which the Scholiast A. says is understood after popav, is implied from the 296th line, to which the outws refers; but I now see, what seems also to have escaped the observation of Mr. Blomfield, that νέμειν μείζονα μοῖραν is a proverbial expression, which has no reference whatever to aías either expressed, or implied, but which is admirably explained by Valckenaer in his Diatribe, p. 77. "Eleganter autem in qua re cupide quis elaborat, cuique adeo maximam tribuit diei partem, Euripidi dicitur véμwv Tò πλεῖστον ἡμέρας τούτῳ μέρος: errantem in his G. Buddæum Comment. L. G. p. 731. recte corrigit . H. Steph. Thes. L. G. T. 2. p. 1017. G. sed utrumque latuit Eurip. locus, quo spectabat philosophus hinc commode explicari possunt locutiones, oÙ, πλέον, πλεῖστον, τινὶ νέμειν, multum, plus, plurimum, alicui tribuere, et ἔλασσον, vel οὐδὲν τινὶ νέμειν : sic bis terve (semel plene p. 169, 36) loquutus, Thucyd. scripserat vi. c. 88. p. 433, 17. ἵνα μηδὲ τοῖς Αθηναίοις ἔλασσον δοκῶσι νεῖμαι, pro δοκῶσιν εἶναι, de quo dubitare non debuit Duker.: similiter loquutum Eurip. ostendit J. Markl. in Eurip. Suppl. v. 380." The |