Page images
PDF
EPUB

ART. IV. Eschyli Perse. Ad fidem Manuscriptorum_émén→ davit, Notas et Glossarium adjecit Carolus Jacobus Blomfield, A.M. Collegii SS. apud Cantabrigienses nuper Socius. pp. 248. Cambridge. Smith. 7s. 1814. FEW of our learned readers, we apprehend, are unacquainted with the merits of Mr. Blomfield's edition of Eschylus. It was begun above four years ago, by the publication of Prometheus; a second edition of which was speedily called for, and appeared in 1812, greatly enlarged and improved, and the plan was then completed which Mr. Blomfield has continued to follow in the two next tragedies, the Septem contra Thebus and the Perse. Of these the latter is but lately published, and has on several accounts particular claims to the notice of every admirer of ancient Greek literature.

We must preface our account of this play with some general remarks on the present plan of editing the father of tragedy, which will not, however, detain the reader long: the public ap. probation of Mr. Blomfield's edition has been evinced by the great circulation of the two first plays in the series, and by the high reputation which they have procured to their editor.

For above two hundred years, the reader of Eschylus was obliged to be contented with the text of Canter's edition, which was published in 1580, and copied by Stanley. Though this is somewhat more correct than that of Stephens, yet every page abounds with faults and corruptions, which frequently obscure the sense of the author, and materially impair the pleasure arising from his splendid and magnificent poetry. For that long period, schylus derived very little advantage from the labours of scholars, except Stanley; who, although he left the text nearly as bad as he found it, gave in his learned commentaries a great collection of critical and explanatory matter, which, though too diffuse, can seldom be consulted without advantage: indeed we have little hesitation in saying, that the readers of Eschylus are more indebted to Stanley than to any other scholar, except Mr. Blomfield. Still the text remained in the same corrupt state till the three first plays were published by Brunck in 1779, in a small volume, with two other Greek tragedies in this, as in all ether publications, the author's text is frequently improved, and is frequently made worse than he found it. Brunck, though possessed of equal acuteness, was infinitely inferior to the critics of the Hemsterhusian school in learning, research, and discretion: he was besides not at all nice in appropriating to himself the remarks of others without acknowledgment. This defect of candour, joined to his pre

sumption

sumption and precipitancy, have brought upon his works a more than ordinary quantity of censure from succeeding scholars. Next appeared an edition of the plays by Schütz, a heavy, plodding, and tasteless German, palpably unfitted by nature for an editor of Eschylus. His commentaries are tedious and verbose; and it would be difficult to name a more unsatisfactory book; since the reader, when he turns to the notes for a solution of the difficulties which every page of Schütz's text presents, finds that the editor, unable to comprehend the passage, has only proposed some absurd and revolting alterations, and employs whole pages in explaining the words of his own substitution. It is however impossible to deny, that out of the mass of lumber, much may be selected which a judicious editor may employ in illustrating the author; and this indeed has been done by Dr. Butler. Till the appearance of Mr. Blomfield's edition, that of Schütz continued the source of students; and it was not to be expected that schylus could be a popular author when dressed by so clumsy a hand.

It is now well known, that the Glasgow edition, which goes by the name of Porson's, was printed from a copy of Pauw's re-impression of Stanley's edition, which had been corrected by the Professor. Without entering into the question of the supposed piracy of this text, we must observe, that it is by no means to be considered as having the entire sanction of Porson: since it received only those corrections about which he felt secure at at the moment; and all the passages which required consideration, or admitted of doubt, were left untouched. He never considered himself to be accountable for any of the old readings which he suffered to remain; and he seems to have gone through the whole task of correction in a very short time, probably in a single day, at the instance of his friends. We need not remark, that this edition, not having a word of notes, could not supply the wants of the readers. Neither the student nor the advanced scholar can read Eschylus, without wishing for the assistance of the annotator.

It is commonly understood, that Porson offered to the Syndics of the Cambridge press to undertake an edition of Eschylus, which they declined to patronize, unless he would adopt the corrupt text of Stanley: which condition he, as might have been expected, would not accept. If this statement be true, the Syndics of that time deserve all the opprobrium which we have seen lavished upon them in different journals, for their barbarous hostility to improvement, and their inore than Gothic bigotry. But we are strongly inclined to believe, that there is a material misapprehension in the case, and that the fact was, that the Syndics, wishing the Cure Secunda of Stanley, which were in manuscript

manuscript in the possession of the University, to be published, and judging that they would most probably appear in a reprint of Stanley's Eschylus, offered the editorship to Porson; and that he, contemplating an improved text, declined the proposed task, which was undertaken by Dr. Butler. If this account be correct, as we believe it to be, no blame can attach to any party. The two plans were incompatible; and it was undoubtedly right to preserve Stanley's text in a work, the sole object of which was to give to the world Stanley's enlarged commentary; nor do we believe that the Professor ever complained or felt aggrieved on the subject.

At all events, the University of Cambridge must be considered as having redeemed its credit for taste in Greek texts, by patronizing the present edition which, while it gives the words of the noble tragedian corrected by every legitimate means, contains explanations and illustrations of his language incomparably more learned, correct, and satisfactory than the public were before in possession of. Mr. Blomfield unites with his talents and his erudition, unwearied industry, and an obvious fondness for the task in which he is engaged.

His notes at the bottom of the page contain collations of the early editions of Eschylus, and of the manuscripts, together with his critical reasons for maintaining or altering the text. The notes which he has added under the title of Glossarium, are philological, and contain explanations of the rare and obso lete words taken from the different Greek Grammarians and Lexicographers, with the whole tribe of whom Mr. Blomfield has formed a most intimate acquaintance, and whose authorities he compares, sifts, and weighs with uncommon judgement. The meaning of the author he detects and illustrates by comparing passages from himself, from Sophocles, and Euripides, from Homer, Pindar, and the other writers of antiquity. His industry never flags for a moment, and he seems constantly to keep in view his object of giving pertinent information to the student. In one respect this industry is peculiarly fortunate: we much doubt whether one reader out of one thousand could be found, who, however well provided his shelves may be with the Lexicons of Hesychius, Photius, Scidas, Etymologus, M. Phavorinus, &c. and with the volumes of Eustathius, and the Schol. Venetus Homeri, would take the trouble of hunting for the explanations of a word with the requisite perseverance and caution. Certain it is, that no compiler of a Lexicon has done it, nor any editor of Eschylus before Mr. Blomfield; yet all these pains are requisite for explaining an author, whose language was far removed from the ordinary stile of his contemporaries, and who affected the grandeur of obsolete and high

sounding

sounding words, and dazzled his audience with splendid and daring imagery.

The play of the Persæ has claims upon the attention of posterity, of a different nature from the other remains of Eschylus, and his brethren of the tragic art. The rest of these beautiful compositions consist of stories drawn from the Grecian mythology, or from the early traditional accounts of the heroic age, which are interspersed with mythological fables. The plot of the Persæ, if it can be called a plot, relates to the glorious and successful struggle made by the small states of Greece against the innumerable forces of the Persian monarchy; a part of history which, in our childhood, used to produce delight and exultation, and the importance of which in the affairs of mankind we become more and more sensible of, as we reflect upon the consequences of events. This tragedy contains what appears to be the most faithful narrative that has reached our times of the great and decisive battle of Salamis, written within a short time after the event, by an eye-witness and a principal actor in that triumphant achievement. It represents the feelings at Athens respecting the mighty events of that time, and the opinions entertained by the Greeks of the characters of their enemies. The professed object of Eschylus, in writing this play, was to encourage the martial spirit of his countrymen by a dramatic display of their most glorious exploits. In the Frogs of Aristophanes, he is made to say :

Εἶτα διδάξας Πέρσας, μετὰ ταῦτ ̓ ἐπιθυμεῖν ἐξεδίδαξα
Νικᾷν ἀεὶ τοὺς ἀντιπάλες, κοσμήσας ἔργον ἄρισον.

The time and circumstances of the performance are ingeniously made out in Mr. Blomfield's preface.

The battle of Salantis was fought in the first year of the 75th Olympiad (480 years B.C.). Two years after, when Themistocles was Choregus, a play upon the subject was introduced, probably in compliment to the hero of the day, by Phrynichus, a tragedian, almost twenty years senior to Eschylus. This performance, so flattering to the feelings of the victors, received the prize, and appears, from the frequent mention of it, to have excited much interest: the ambition of Eschylus, who was already the rival of Phrynichus, and had introduced most important improvements in the art, was roused to emulate or surpass this production. Accordingly a few years after (Olynip 76, 4.), he represented the Persæ, the idea of which was borrowed from the production of his rival. The play of Phrynichus took its name from the Chorus, whom Mr. Blomfield conjectures to have been the wives of the Phoenicians, who were beheaded

VOL. IV. JULY, 1815.

E

beheaded by the order of Xerxes after the battle of Salamis, according to the narrative of Herodotus VHI. 90. It was opened by an eunuch, who was employed in spreading the seats for the Persian counsellors. Aschylus, with much more propriety, opens with the Chaus of Persian nobles, who composed the council of regency in the absence of the monarch: they give a lively account of the forces and the leaders who had accompanied Xerxes in his ill-fated expedition, and express their uneasiness at not having heard any news of his success, and the dire forebodings of their minds. This is done in anapæsts, which in this play and in the supplices, supply the place of the prologue. Their Excellencies then sing a very elegant song in a regular and pleasing lyric measure; after which, just as they are preparing for further deliberation, the queen mother, Atossa, comes into the council chamber, to communicate some alarming dreams which she has had, and which too plainly relate to the disasters of Xerxes's armament. The Chorus, though the tendency of these dreams is sufficiently clear, are too sanguine in their hopes, or too much of courtiers, to terrify the dowager with interpreting them, and so recommend her to fall to her prayers, and particularly to propitiate the shade of her late husband Darius. To this she assents, but first indulges herself in asking the Chorus some questions, such as, where Athens is situated? whether it be strong in population, or in riches? whether its warriors be bowmen? who is the ruler of its forces? questions important and natural enough, but which ca modern audience would wonder that the queen had never thought of asking before. This conversation is interrupted by the coming of the Persian messenger, who brings the disastrous tidings of the defeat and total overthrow of the mighty armament. Atossa, when she can recover her speech, extracts from him by degrees a detailed account of the battle of Salamis, and the no less calamitous retreat through Thrace. This part of the play is re ́markable, not only for its grandeur and high colouring, but for the perspicuity and beauty of the narrative. After an appropriate ditty sung by the Chorus, Atossa proposes to them to invoke the spirit of Darius, while she assists with her libations. The shade of the hoary monarch obeys the summons, and enquires why they have disturbed his deep repose, and what has befallen the Persian state. The statesmen, however, are so much awe-struck at the majestic apparition of their former lord, as to be unable to answer his questions. He, fiuding that he is likely to get little information from them, addresses his queries to the queen,' and learns from her the late events, of which no tidings or suspicion had, it seems, reached the lower regions. It soon however appears, that though the royal shade

had

« PreviousContinue »