Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

ingly he prints τὸ παρώνυμον ὢν γένῷ ἡμετερον. Though the language and sense is thus consulted, yet we cannot persuade ourselves that it was thus written by Eschylus; and we are of the opinion of Schutz, that rò algavuμov was the interlinear insertion of some scholiast, who with the xaxonia common to his rate, wanted to explain a term which required no explanation. Nor is it any objection to this supposition, that Aagelovens is improperly called a patronymic: no blunder can be more likely to have been made by the scholiast, who understood the language which he was expounding imperfectly. Mr. Blomfield's other conjecture, τό τε Περσόνομον γένω ἡμέτερον is certainly ingenious, and would not be improbable, if we could but account for the loss of the word Περσόνομον.

ν. 300. λέξον καταςάς, κει ςέγεις κακοῖς, ὅμως,

τις οὐ τέθνηκε, &c.

Mr. B. renders öuws, nihilominus, tamen, to which we do not object, but we cannot altogether approve of his placing a comma before uws; it was agreeable to the Greek idiom, however inconsistent it may be with our own, to put oμws at the end of the sentence.

In his note on v. 822, Mr. Blomfield expresses his astonishment at the praises which the deceased monarch Darius receives for his constant military successes, and his having spared the lives of his subjects: he says, "Interim nequeo non admirari Darium ab Eschylo hujusmodi laudibus ornatum esse, cum poeta ipse Marathone pugnaverit, infelicemque Darii contra Scythus expeditionem, ut credibile est, fando audierit." He elsewhere mentions his surprise at this deviation from historical truth; but he seems to forget that these panegyrics are put into the mouths of Persians, whose vanity and disposition to boasting would be a natural subject of ridicule at Athens. To use an instance exactly in point; no Frenchman, while he is talking of the career of Louis le Grand, ever alludes to the battles of Blenheim and Ramillies, and suggests that his nation, under that monarch was preserved from foreign conquest only by an exertion of almost incredible forbearance in her enemies. Why were the Persians expected to have better memories or more modesty?

These trifling, very trifling points in which, to relieve the dull uniformity of continued panegyric, we might be tempted to differ from Mr. Blomfield, are little more than very dust in the balance, when compared with the ingenuity, the accuracy, and the research which are so unaffectedly displayed in every page of this extraordinary work. This edition of Eschylus has one peculiar merit above any other edition of a Greek Classic that

we

we have ever yet seen, inasmuch as it is adapted to every class and description of readers. The accomplished scholar will find every notice of variations in the text, every collation of manuscript, every reference to authority in interpretation which the keenest critic could desire. He who has long since forgotten the little Greek he once knew, will now find schylus, what he never found him before, a readable book; and, by the assistance of the glossary, he may hobble through the rugged_sublimities of his author, without labour and without fatigue. To the student, even his first introduction to the Greek tragedians, this edition will be invaluable, as it will not only assist him in every difficulty, and aid him with every resource necessary for this particular branch of his study, but it will teach him in what manner every other author ought to be read, and in what path, in every other instance, he must direct his steps, if he would attain the name and the pre-eminence of a scholar.

We cannot give a better proof of our assertions than by extracting the contents of the glossary upon the first twenty lines of the tragedy as the best specimen of the remainder.

"V. 1. TAAE-äλтαι, pro йues ouer. Eurip. Androm. 168. Οὐ γάρ ἐσθ ̓ Εκλωρ τάδε. ubi vid. Gaisford. Troad. 99. Οὐκέτι Τροία τάδε καὶ βασιλεῖς. Cycl. 63. Οὐ τάδε Βρόμια. ibid. 203. Τι βακχιά. ζετ ̓; οὐ Διώνυσο. τάδε. Sed hac paullo diversa sunt. τάδε πιςά pro old wirol, enallage satis nota. Infra 687. 'n wir wis 1016. μεγάλα τὰ Περσᾶν. Eumen. 486. ἀτῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τῷ βέλτατα Eurip. Orest. 1244. Μυκηνίδες ὦ φίλαι, Τὰ πρῶτα κατὰ Πελασγὸν ἔδα Αργείων, Aristoph. Ran. 419. Νυνὶ δὲ δημαγωγεῖ Ἐν τοῖς ἄνω νεκροῖσιν, Κασιν τὰ πρῶτα τῆς ἐκεῖ μοχθηρίας. Cf. Herodot. VI. 100. IX. 78. Sic Thucydides, ra pica Twy wonitwy. Plato Theætet. 5. p. 107. ed. Fischer. ̓Αριτά γ ̓ ἀνθρώπων, ὦ παῖδες. Theocrit. Adoniaz. 142. "Agye änga Пsλacyol. Demost. Phil. I. 4. raÛTH πάντα κατέπτηχε, pro οὗτοι πάντες. Vid. omnino Hemsterhus. in Misc. Obs. V. p. 30. et ad Lucian. T. I. p. 147. Sic inter Latinos Lucretius I. 87. prima virorum. Ovid. Am. I. i. 9. Summa ducum Atrides.

"Ibid. Пsá. Satrapæ et amici regis Persarum solenni appellatione sol audiebant; quod recte observatum est in Bibl. Crit. IV. 98. ad locum Xenophontis Anab. I. v. 15. oùv roîę wapošør tāv osv, ubi vid. Zeunium.

"3. 'AQVEÓS. Opulentus. Notior forma est quós. Eustath. ad Iliad. Ζ. p. 623, 59. ὅτι δὲ ὁ ἀφνειὸς δύναται καὶ ἀφνεόν λέγεσθαι, δῆλον καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Χερσὶν ἀφνεωτέραις, παρά Σοφοκλεί. (Electr. 457.) Noster. ap. Polluc. VI. 3. &quεotor déposo. Anyte Anthol. HI. χχίν. 12. κατ' ἀφνεὸν ̓Ακίδα οἶκον. Ab από et ἔ© annus deducunt Ammon. de diff. Voc. p. 113. Proclus ad Hesiod. p. 16. Thomas Μ. ν. Πλούσια.

"4. "Edgaro. Sedes. Sippov, nabídpav. Hesych. Minus fre

quenter

quentur occurrit. Sophocl. Ajac. 194. ̓Αλλ ̓ ἄνα ἐξ ἑδράνων. Εurip. Troad. 539. ἵδρανα λάϊνα.

σε Ibid. Κατὰ πρεσβείαν. Secundum senectutem, vel, ut Schol. Hesychius, et Stanleius, propter dignitatem. Lex. Rhetor. MS. apud Ruhnken. Auctar. in Hesych. II. p. 1017. Πρεσβεῖς. για φοντες, βασιλεῖς, ἄρχοντες, προτετιμημένοι καὶ ̓Αθήνησιν οἱ δημογέροντες. οὖν δὲ καὶ οἱ πρεσβυταί. Vid. Glossar. in Theb. 386.

• 10. Ορσυλοποῦμαι. Veror. Agitor. Hesych. Ὀρσολοπεῖται. διαπολεμεῖται, ταράσσεται. Αἰσχύλο, Homer. Η. in Merc. 308. Ἦ με βοῶν ἵνεχ ̓ ὧδε χολούμενος ὀρσολοπεύεις; Poeta Alexandrinus περὶ καταρχῶν, 107. a Ruhnkenio laudatus, αἰεὶ κε πανήμερον δροσια κοπεύοι Μυθῷ ὀνειδείῳ, ἢ καὶ πληγήσιν ἰάπτοι. Mars vocatur opad. λοπο Anacreonti ap. Hephaest. p. 90. Photius, Ορσολοπεῖν. λοιδορείν, πολεμεῖνο

σε 18. Βαύζω. Baubor. Hesych. Βαύζειν. ὑλακτεῖν, ἀσαφῶς λέγειν. Schol. Theocrit. Id. VI. 10. τὸ βαύζειν ἐπὶ τῶν σκυλακίων λέγεται κυρίως, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τελείῶν κυνῶν τὸ ὑλακτεῖν λέγεσι. Zenodotus ap. Valckenaer. Anim. ad Ammon. p. 231. Κυὼν ὑλακτεῖ, βαΰζει. Agam. 451. τάδε σιγά τις βωΐζει. Cf. infra 580. Ceterum vir quidam doctus in literis ad me datis, βαύζει ad ἰσχὺς refert; ut sensus sit, exercitus juvenem Xerxem adlatrat.

[ocr errors]

« 17. Κίσσιον ἔρης. Cissium munimentum, quod infra dicitur Κίσσιον πόλισμα. Cissa urbs erat in Agro Susiano. Strabo XV. p. 728. λέγονται δὲ Κίσσιοι οἱ Σούσιοι.

σε 19. Βάδην. Pedetentim. ηρέμα, σχολῆς κατὰ βήμα Hesych. Suppl. 884. ἄραχνα ως βάδην. Sosipater Athenæi IX. p. 378. F. Πότε δεῖ πυκνότερον ἐπαγαγεῖν, καὶ πότε βάδην. Aristænetus II. 10. εἰσιοῦσα θᾶττον ή βάδην. Homer Iliad. N. 516. Τοῦ δὲ βάδην απιόντα ακόντισε δουρί φαεινῷ. Xenoph. Αnab. IV. viii. 28. ἄνω δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἰσχυρῶς ἔρθιον μόλις βάδην ἐπορεύοντο οἱ ἵπποι. ibid. IV. vi. 25. Χειρίσοφον δὲ βάδην τάχὺ ἐφείπετο. at quick march. Cf. Herodot, IX. 57. Aristoph. Lysistr. 254.

σε 20. Στέφα. Stipata turma. τάξις πολεμική, ἡ ὄχλο, σύστεμμα. Hesych. Infra 372. Herodot. IX. 57. αναλαβόντα τὸν λόχον ὅπλα ἦγε βάδην πρὸς τὸ ἄλλο είρω” Ρ. 99.

When a book can speak so forcibly in its own behalf, recommendation becomes needless and panegyric superfluous.

270 PP:

ART. V. An original View of the Night of Treason, &c. By the Rev. Frederic Thruston, M.d. &c. Svo. 276 3s. Longman and Co. 1814. THERE are certain works which seem to be written in defiance of the sentence of criticism, by their genius setting its censures at nought, and by their irregularities palsying the powers of its

panegyric.

panegyric. Now if the critic stood in the situation of the lawyers, and could receive their fee at each hearing till judgment was finally passed, the authors whom we should most admire would be those who would most effectually perplex our decision, and upon whose case we might from month to month declare in all the elegance of legal latinity, curia advisare vult. But this alas! is far from being our case; our decisions, whether right or wrong, must be peremptory; and all our efforts are abortive to convert a literary tribunal into a court of chancery. Upon most of the works which pass before us, it is no very difficult matter to pass a fair and candid judgment; even upon those where good and bad, both in principle and style, are mixed up in almost equal proportions; but where originality of conception, auimation of style, and soundness of principle entitle a volume on the one side to our warmest commendation, and a strange wildness and irregularity pervading the whole on the other side, calls for our correction, it is impossible to give such a sentence as shall be satisfactory to ourselves, to the author, or to the public. Such is the volume before us, which in many points claiming our just admiration, in others demand our serious protest against the fanciful interpretations of Scripture which it manifests, which though in themselves of little importance as far as relates to the present instance, may nevertheless, if suffered to pass without censure, lead into the most dangerous errors and fatal miscon ceptions.

The volume opens with an address, which is neatly and unaffectedly written, and with the exception of a tone here and there rather too dogmatical, we should have but a poor opinion of the taste of that person, who after reading it should not feel desirous of perusing the rest of the book.

We shall not follow our author step by step through all the details and all the events of that night, which he so justly denominates the Night of Treason, but confining ourselves to the three leading points which have been stated in the title page, we shall say a few words on them ail.

These points are

I. That Pilate was a traitor to Cæsar.

II. That Judas was guilty of the most complicate treachery. III.That Peter after the three denials, according to a distinct prediction, three times apostatised.

Mr. Thruston opens his narrative with a very elegant and simple statement of his ideas.

"The eye of Jesus suddenly catching, through the partial gloom of the hall, the anxious eye of the conscious apostate, surrounded by that group of furious Jews to whom he was decisively

proving

[ocr errors]

proving by his cursing and swearing that he could not be a disciple of Jesus, and arresting his oath in the midst of its course, this perhaps (though but by one Evangelist related, and only in one simple sentence, The Lord turned and looked upon Peter,') is the critical instant, to be seized for the canvas, in which all the circumstances are wound up to the highest pitch of interest: and this remains greatly independent of the number and nature of the preceding warnings and denials. Yet diminish our Lord's prediction and his Apostle's fall to a single denial, and it will not be denied that the interest will be proportionably diminished. Increase the cir cumstances to the fulfilment of a double prediction of a three fold denial, regarding different times as well as different circumstances, and it is obvious that the interest must be in due tion augmented." P. 2.

And again,

propor

"With respect, indeed, to the motives by which Judas and Pilate were actuated, demonstration is necessarily unattainable, since none of the Evangelists give us any authoritative information upon the subject; and the clearness, therefore, of these specula. tions cannot rival the decisive information, which may be gained on the nature of the facts which compose the novelties respecting St. Peter. Yet, while we call Cromwell a traitor in two volumes, it is not apparent why Judas should be so termed in two words, Is this consistent; while the conduct and motives of every other traitor in history are accurately developed and pursued, is it consistent that we should rest in the simple fact of the treason, which is to be found in the naked relation of the sacred historian? How are we to account for the omission to sift the motives of the actors in events, which, in effect unlike the partial interest excited by any merely national history, should interest every human creature on the face of the earth? Is it that one person is so eminently conspicuous on the sacred page as to throw all others into the comparative nothingness of a shaded back-ground? Yet at the same time let it be remembered, that the words and actions of our Lord himself cannot be either fully or fairly understood with out reference to the characters and designs of those inferior actors in the piece to whom they have allusion and reference. If the history of men be principally valuable as leading to a knowledge of human nature; and if, therefore, when the mere naked tale might be told in a few pages, observations upon characters and inquiries into motives swell the tale into the dignity of History, and the pages into volumes, much more should the history of our Lord bẹ uniformly expanded, as at once, above all other, most interesting in its nature, and, from the casual introduction of divine directions, most certain in its grounds of speculation." P. 3.

Now to the assertions.

8

1

That

« PreviousContinue »