M., tUotvos fiairjs n il'-trQoyro; <roas!a, regarded it as a nominative, and correctly indeed, both on account of the addition of the pronoun rts, which is more aptly joined with luotvoc than with Parts, and because it is the constant practice of the Greek poets thus to traverss epithets. See Abresch. Dilucc. Thukyd. p. 244 ; Valckn. txd Lennep. Etym. II. p. 700; Matthia's Gr. Gr. p. 799; Bernhardy's Synt. p. 53. Upon the peculiar force of T<f when joined with adjectives, see Liddell and Scott's Gr. Lex. s. n;, IV.; Kiihner's Gr. Gr. 659. 4, ed. Jelf; and upon the great celebrity which the dogs of Laconia possessed among the hunters of antiquity, Aristot. Hist. Animal. 8. 28 (where they are described as a cross between a fox and a dog), Id. de Generatione Animal. 5. 2 ; the learned notes of Musgrave and Erfurdt to our own line, Voss to Virg. Georg. III. 405, and Eittershus. to Oppian. Cyneg. 1.371. Compare, too, Shakspeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, Act IV. Sc. 1, and Othello, Act V. Sc. 5. The word xim is here used in the feminine gender, in accordance with the customary preference shown by Greek writers, when not compelled to define accurately the precise gender of animals, for the employment of the feminine. Lastly, that the comparison which is here instituted between a hero, like Odysseus, and a hound, is in no respect derogatory to the dignity of the former, or inconsistent either with the practice of the Tragedians, or with Greek notions of good taste, has been pointed out by Wunder, who compares ,<Esch. Again. 1093, where we find it said of Kassandra, imx.ii

lUfilg fl £sv») XUVCS^tXflV j y.rj'/.t, fAKTlUU V UV tCVtV^CTtl $0)10)1. See JlI.SO

vv. 1184 seq. of that play; Plat, de Legg. p. 654. D, Txut 'ioa. u.i~:/. rou0' fiftTv ay xa.Su.'rio xvo-)v t%vtvouirxis ^noluynriot.

9. rvy^uni. Supply uv. "The use of rvy%eivii for rvyx^m w is defended by Erfurdt against Fischer (ad Well. Gr. Gr. IV. p. 8) and Porson (ad Eur. Hec. 712), who join Tuyxiyu with irra^ui. See a note on this subject in Mus. Crit. p. 65. We confess that we are more inclined to take part with Erfurdt than with Poison. The two passages in the Electra (vv. 46, 315) seem to us to be quite decisive. The following consideration has some weight with us. As ruyx^'" and *»» appear to be exactly synonymous in all their various significations, we are very unwilling to admit that a construction, which is lawful when the poet employs x-v^u, is unlawful when he employs Tfy^avw. We find Kvou without a participle twice in the present tragedy: v. 301, Kiw'fir' f» rif ■xeiyit.itTos xvgoT orori, and v. 928, xov f&oi yv); xvoii rrii T^etSos. Several other examples are collected by Erfurdt in his note on Antig. 487." Eumsley. See also Erfurdt's Epist. ad Schiif. p. 570; Schiif. ad Bo>. Ellips. rat, us iticioos »vtu ohms • itrrt pitTOi i«r) ry,; exnvtjs it 'Atnva • 01T ya\» Touts ^st^il^iafixt T* 6ntrA' icooStooLTiiiit 01 Tor Ptoy o 'Oivffflvs xat Out* >.'iyu To. Aiolitos. Brunck assents, observing, '* J\Iinerva e machine hquentis et spectatoribus conspicute vocem audiebat Ulysses, at ipse earn cense batur non videre, juxta veterum opinbnem, deos quidein swpe cum hominibus colloqui sed raro se lis in conspectum dare." The same view is supported by 'Wunder in a long note to this line in his Cens. p. 7, where he justiGes the meaning which the Scholiast assigns to iirorros, in opposition to the explanation of Suidas, •reppuhv Wk^, defended by Lobeck. The eminent scholar last named inquires :— " Upon what principle and in conformity with what examples are we to receive the explanation of Brunck? Are we to believe that Philoktetes, Thoas, Theoklymenos, Ion, Peleus, Hippolytos, and Orestes did not behold upon the stage the divinities with whom they are represented to have conversed? Assuming, however, that this could bo proved, how could the spectators in our own play have been persuaded to believe that the goddess, whom they distinctly perceived, and whom Aias recognized at the first glance, really avoided the gaze of Odysseus alone? The interpreters have been led into this mistake by considering Uxotto* as equivalent in meaning to ktiaToi, as stated by Suidas and the Grammarian associated with Ammonius, p. xlvi. But to express this sense the more ancient writers were accustomed to employ the words Ocottov or Wvoxtov, whilst to a.-xo'XTor they gave this signification: quod e longinquo conspicitur vd dare, si in excelso est, vel obscure si longo intervallo distal." An immense number of passages .are then cited in order to justify this rendering, from which we select but two: Aristot. Rep. II. 12. 253. D, onus ax Oxt os itTeti rt YLo^ivQ'ta tx Tov %upetTos, ut prospici possit. Plutarch. V. Lucull. 9, xarocipavris xat Oltottos • Add Galen, vol. 3. p. 222, xmi vis t£ O\xoxtov facto-a. pirns TaZ'fov liQiit yvuoi^ii To etpptv eiviu Tou xetToooxi^eiff^ott Tet ytvvrtrtxet ftifix. The same explanation is also given by Hermann, and is supported by the passages from the Elehtra (v. 1489) and (Edipus Rex (v. 762) to which Wunder refers in opposition, where there is no objection to our taking aKevrrov in the sense of remotum. In the common copies the comma precedes opus, instead of following it. Elmsley first corrected this error, comparing such passages as Eur. Mh. 938, tpl\oi, yvmtxls iml/ut ih-Tu^iffTi^oi | lobpov vop'iZ,u, xuiirig ov doxovvP opus, -lEsch. Choeph. 113, nipino-' 'OeittToo, xi'i <W.r-„- UP opus, and is followed by Hermann and all the more recent editors. See his note to Eur. Bacch. 787. Blomfield therefore is in error when he directs us (ad JEsch. Pers. 300) to restore