Simili con

VI. 117. δΈκιμνο ἰόντα παρὰ Ξέρξη. VIII. 73. δόκιμοι πόλιες. Eurip. Suppl. 228. Joxiuútare Ená. Cf. Iph. T. 176. Constructio est, outis deximos sifre. Nemo adeo fortis est ut arceat: sic in Prometh. 59. Δεινὸς γὰρ εὑρεῖν κἀξ ἀμηχάνων πόρους. structione Horatius superare pugnis Nobilem, Fortis tractare. Multa alia vide apud Bentleium ad Horat p. 3. Lambin. et F. Ursin. ad Virgil. Ecl. V. 1. P. 109.

We

may remark, that the lines just quoted, as well as a considerable part of this chorus, are Ionic a Minore, of the purest form; a species of lyric verse, the composition of which was very laborious, if we may judge by the small number of odes written in that measure, which have reached us. The merit of detecting this measure here, and at the conclusion of the supplices, is due to Dr. Burney, whose arrangement is followed by Mr. Blomfield. It is well known, that Horace, the imitator of the Greek lyric measures, once only has adopted this verse; B. III. Od. 12. Miserarum est neque amori dare ludum, neque dulci, &c. which is entirely composed of these feet, without a deviation or licence of any description.

V. 119. ταῦτά μοι μελαγχίτων

φρὴν ἀμυστείαι φόβῳ.

We cannot refuse ourselves the pleasure of giving Mr. Blomfield's accurate observations on the word phyxilar, which is completely schylean.

Fortiori metaphora "ExToga d' airòväx μένεθ δὲ μέγα φρένες

“119. Miλayxitw. Pulla veste amictus. exprimere voluit Homericum, Iliad. P. 83. πύκασε φρένας ἀμφὶ μελαίνας. et Α. 103. ἀμφὶ μέλαινα. Πίμπλαντ'. ubi Schol. Venet. ἤδη δὲ οἱ νεώτεροι μελαίνας τὰς φρένας φασίν. Nostri Scholiasta Homerum in animo habuit, cum μελαγχίτων per άμφιμέλαινα explicaret. Male autem pergit ή συντή καὶ ἐν βάθει κειμένη, καὶ ἀφανής οὖσα. quo in errore versati sunt Homeri interpretes, et Hesychius, Mixava Opéns, ai Babi, imo tristes, solicite. Theognis 1199. καί μοι κραδίην ἐπάλαξε μέλαιναν, Οττι μοι εὐανθεῖς ἄλλοι ἔχεσιν ἀγρούς. Noster Choeph. 411. Σπλάγ

δέ μου κελαινοῦνται πρὸς ἔπθε κλύουσαν. Suppl. 792. Μελανόχρως δὲ πάλλεται με καρδία. Sophocl. Ajac. 968. Η μα κελαινωπὸν Θυμόν p. ubi egregia quædain adnotavit Musgravius. Cf. Gataker. ad M. Antonin. IV. 28."

P. 112.

The reading of all editions, before the present, is

V. 149. πῶς ἄρα πρασσει Ξέρξης βασιλούς

Δαρειογενής,

τὸ πατρωνύμιον ὢν γένΘ. ἡμέτερον.

Mr. B. justly observes that walfwvo, whether it be used for walgwvomov or walgovoxov, is a barbarous word; and accord

ingly

fhgly he prints τὸ παρώνυμον ὢν γένω ἡμέτερον. 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 ro algúμ was the interlinear insertion of some scholiast, who with the xaxo2.60€ common to his rate, wanted to explain a term which required no explanation. Nor is it any objection to this supposition, that Aageoyevns 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 γένει 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, και δέγεις κακοῖς, ὅμως,

τίς οὐ τέθνηκε, &c.

Mr. B. renders uws, nihilominus, tamen, to which we do not object, but we cannot altogether approve of his placing a comma before ouws; it was agreeable to the Greek idiom, however inconsistent it may be with our own, to put duws 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 contrà 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 au 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 marmer 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.

τάδε

* V. 1. ΤΑΔΕ καλεῖται, στο ἡμεῖς ἔσμεν. Eurip. Androm. 168. Οὐ γάρ ἐσθ ̓ Εκλωρ τάδε. ubi vid. Gaisford. Troad. 99. Οὐκέτι Τροία καὶ βασιλεῖς. Cycl. 63. Οὐ τάδε Βρόμια. ibid. 203. Τί βακχιά ζετ'; οὐ Διώνυσον τάδε. Sed hæc paullo diversa sunt. τάδε πιτά pro oda soi, enallage satis nota. Infra 687. 'N wish wisŵi. 1016. μεγάλα τὰ Περσᾶν. Eumen. 486. ἀγῶν τῶν ἐμῶν τῷ βίλτατα Eurip. Orest. 1244. Μυκηνίδες ὦ φίλαι, Τὰ πρῶτα κατὰ Πελασγὸν Εδω ̓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 μica Tv T. Plato Theætet. 5. p. 107. ed. Fischer. Αριτά γ' ἀνθρώπων, ὦ παῖδες. Theocrit. Adoniaz. 142. "Agye äxga Пλασyoí. Demost. Phil. I. 4. TaŬTa 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. Âm. I. i. 9. Summa ducum Atrides.

"Ibid. Пrá. Satrapæ et amici regis Persarum solenni ap pellatione ir audiebant; quod recte observatum est in Bibl. Crit. IV. 98. ad locum Xenophontis Anab. I. v. 15. oùr rois wapotos Tv 5, ubi vid. Zeunium.

"3. AQVEOs. Opulentus. Notior forma est presó. Eustath. ad Iliad. Ζ. p. 623, 59. ὅτι δὲ ὁ ἀφνειός δύναται καὶ ἀφνεὸν λέγεσθαι, δῆλον καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Χερσὶν ἀφνεωτέραν, παρά Σοφοκλεί. (Electr. 457.) Noster. ap. Polluc. VI. 3. apsoños déposo. Anyte Anthol. III. χχίν. 12. κατ' ἀφνεὸν ̓Ακίδα οἶκον. Ab από et i annus deducunt Ammon. de diff. Voc. p. 113. Proclus ad Hesiod. p. 16. Thomas Μ. ν. Πλούσια

"4. "Edgavor.. Sedes. Sippor. xalidpav. Hesych. Minus fre

quenter

quentur occurrit. Sophocl. Ajac. 194. ̓Αλλ ̓ ἄνα ἐξ ἑδράνων. Eurip. Troad. 539. έδρανα λάϊνα.

66 Ibid. Κατὰ πρεσβείαν. Secundum senectutem, vel, ut Schol. Hesychius, et Stanleius, propter dignitarem. Lex. Rhetor. MS. apud Ruhnken. Auctar. in Hesych. II. p. 1017. Πρεσβείς. γέ. ροντες, βασιλεῖς, ἄρχοντες, προτετιμημένοι καὶ ̓Αθήνησιν οἱ δημογέροντες. οὖν δὲ καὶ οἱ πρεσβυταί. Vid. Glossar. in Theb. 386.

66

10. Ορσολοποῦμαι. Feror. Agitor. Hesych. Ορσολοπεῖται. διαπολεμεῖται, ταράσσεται. Αἰσχύλω, Homer. Η. in Merc. 308. Η με βοῶν ἔνιχ ὧδε χολούμενοι ορσολοπεύεις; Poeta Alexandrinus περὶ καταρχῶν, 107. a Ruhnkenio laudatus, αἰεὶ κι πανήμερον όρσος λοπεύοι Μυθῷ ὀνειδείω, ή και πληγῆσιν ἰάπτοι. Mars vocatur όρος λοπ Anacreonti ap. Hephaest. p. 90. Photius, Όρσολοπεῖν. λοιδορεῖν, πολεμεῖν.

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

« 17. Κίσσιον ἕρκΘ. 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. 375. F. Πότε δεῖ πυκνότερον ἐπαγαγεῖν, καὶ πότε βάδην. Aristaenetus II. 10. εἰσιοῦσα θάττον ή βάδην. Homer Iliad. N. 516. Τοῦ δὲ βάδην απιόντα ακόντισε δουρί φαεινώ. Xenoph. Αnab. 1V. viii. 28. ἄνω δὲ πρὸς τὸ ἰσχυρῶς ἔρθιον μόλις. βάδην ἐπορεύοντο οἱ ἵπποι. ibid. IV. vi. 25. Χειρίσοφον δὲ βάδην τάχυ ἐφείπετο. at quick march. Cf. Herodot. IX. 57. Aristoph. Lysistr. 254.

σε 20. Στέφ. Stipata turma. τάξις πολεμική, ἢ ὄχλο, σύτρεμμα. Hesych. Infra 372. Herodot. ΙΧ. 57. ἀναλαβόντα τὸν λόχον ὅπλα έγε βάδην πρὸς τὸ ἄλλο είρω.” P. 99.

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

ART. V. An original View of the Night of Treason, &c. By the Rev. Frederic Thruston, M.A. &c.

8vo.

276 pp.

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, euria 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, animation 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 misconceptions.

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 all.

These points are

1. 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