Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/122

 112 Journal of Ph iloloyy. Philologus*. From that time the subject has attracted the attention of many well-known continental scholars. Articles from the pen of L. Kayser, (Heidelb. Jahrbb., 1853. Nr. 41) ; A. Scb'afer, (N. Jahrbb. fur Philol. Bd. 68, 1. s. 27 sqq.); L. Spengel, (Mttnchn. Gel. Anzg. 1853. Juli. Nr. 4, 5.) and Prof. Schneidewin, (Philologus, s. 340 sqq.), are now lying before us. The recension of the text of the Oration for Euxenippus, by Prof. C. G. Cobet, (Mnemosyne. Leiden. 1853. p. 310 sqq.), is known to us only through the medium of the last-mentioned article in Philologus. As it is proposed in the following pages to dwell chiefly on points where we differ from the editors of Hyperides, it is due to Mr Babington to express a more explicit opinion of his labours than his connection with this journal would otherwise have suf- fered us to do. We therefore cordially subscribe to the com- mendatory notice of Prof. Schneidewin: "Qui se his relliquiis editorem obtulit vir reverendus C. Babington, munus suum summa cum fide executus est. Sollerter ductus litterarum enucleavit, lacera reconcinnavit, corrupta restituit." And again : " Multum praestitit B. et quae ab editore principe postulari vel ab iniquis censoribus possint. Messem fecit ille, spicas legerc reliquit aliis." The facsimile, which is admirably executed, will give an addi- tional value to this edition, as exhibiting one of the most important specimens extant of Greek palaeography. We are indebted to Prof. Schneidewin in several instances for the correct reading of the MS. where it has escaped the eye of the former Editor. Thus the substitution of o fyc* for os jytp (col. 4, 1. 23), t6t for tovtuv (col. 19, 1. 11), ottos for Sn ilt (col. 21, 1. 8), Zdvos for 6(6s (col. 43, 1. 2), -npoaivBai for aKovo~tadat (col. 43, 1. 27), arrtyvycs for antyevyc (col. 30, 1. 23), and the rejection of oibtls (col. 14, 1. 21), will recommend themselves at once. Nor are other passages wanting in which he has suggested an improved reading. But in his edition of Hyperides, as elsewhere, Schneidewin appears to us often to depart needlessly from the written text, and we look in vain for that strict deference to MS. authority, which Cobet discovers and denounces in him as a fault. It is little less than recklessness, where the papyrus is mutilated, to alter the letters still found in the text, as a preli- Poet Ch. Babingtonem emendavit et tingw, 1853.
 * Hyperidi8 Orationes Duse, etc. scholia adjecit F. G. Schneidewin. Got-