Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

v. 1512. We agree with Dr Butler in suspecting that a di podia is lost, which answered to podnar in v. 153. for these systems were evidently intended to correspond.

ν. 1633. Πρὸς κέντρα μὴ λάκτιζε, μὴ πήσας μονῆς. Dr Butler proposes un raivas poys, which we apprehend to be the true reading. ν. 1646. . Ἐγὼ δ ̓ ὑποπτὸς ἐχθρὸς ἢ παλαιγενής. ἦν Cariter. Pauw quatenus, Schütz. Porson. "Sed fateor mihi perplacere emendationem Bothei reponentis, quod bene Græcum est." Dr Butler did not perceive that, Mr Porson's reading, is the Attic form for . See Brunck's Lexicon Sophocleum. v. H. (the extract which Brunck has given from Porphyry is also in the Venetian Scholia.) Markland on v. 484. of the Suppl. of Euripides.ag occurs in v. 521. of the Choephori.

ν. 1665. Πημένης δ' ὅλις γ ̓ ὑπάρχε. μηδὲν αἱματώμεθα. Pors. ὑπάρ χει. Read, Πημονῆς ἅλις γ' υπάρχει. μηδ' ἔθ' αἱματώμεθα.

ν. 1666. Στείχετε δ' οἱ γέροντες πρὸς δόμους πεπρωμένους τούσδε, Πρὶν παθεῖν. ἔρξαντα καιρὸν χρῆν τάδ' ὡς ἐπράξαμεν. Mr Porson, Στείχεθ' οἱ γέροντες ήδη. omitting τούσδε Heath, στέρξαντας αἰνεῖν χρῆν τάδ' ὡς ἐπρά Easy. Dr Butler adopts both these corrections, except that for xe he writes xe. We never understood what could be meant by dous gμvo. We would read the passage thus, Στείχεθ' οἱ γέροντες ἤδη προς δόμους, πεπρωμένα Πρὶν παθεῖν. ἔρξαι δὲ καιρὸς hy Tad', as iπengaue. We do not, however, propose this conjec ture with any degree of confidence.

We now proceed to the Note Varr. et Butleri Philologg. in which Dr Butler has succeeded in explaining some passages misunderstood by foregoing commentators. Indeed, we think that his interpretations are generally judicious; and we give him considerable credit for endeavouring, in most instances, to explain the received text, rather than do as Schutz does, who alters it according to his own very limited notions, and then translates his own reading. What we chiefly complain of in Dr Butler's notes, is the extreme deficiency of illustration from Æs'chylus himself and his brother tragedians; and the great want of accuracy and precision in the few references which are made. The learned editor seems also to think, with Heath and Musgrave, that if a word is to be found in Hesychius or Suidas, that is sufficient authority for the introduction of it into schylus, not being aware of the extremely corrupt state of those Lexicons, even after all the labours of the scholars of the two last centuries. * Another defect in the notes of Dr B. is his

* What edition of Hesychius Dr B. uses, we know not. At . 367. he says, 66 " which Hesych. Υπερτελῆ· ὑπές τι τέλος ἀφικόμενον. is scarcely Greek. In all the editions we have seen, it stands, 'YegÄ: Kk 2

τελής;

propensity to broad and general assertions, without a specification of instances, which is not at all suitable to the practice of scholars of the present age. For instance, at v. 294. of this play (ἰσχὺς πορευτοῦ λαμπάδος), Abresch has a note on the active usage of Togsvrou; on which Dr B. remarks, "Sic μos apud Soph. Trach. v. 446. et multa ejusmodi. " Now, independently of the consideration that Abresch's note is nothing to the pur pose, (gròs being used in a passive sense, made to go), there are only four, or at most five, similar instances in the Tragedi ans, besides that quoted by Dr B. viz. Prometh. v. 916. Pers. 55. Soph. Ed. Col. 1031. and perhaps Antig. 1011. Eurip. Hecub. 1125. We noticed, on a former occasion, that Dr B. has confined his critical reading to those earlier writers, whose labours, however extensive and useful, have yet in some measure been surpassed, if not superseded, by the more accurate inquiries of later scholars. Nor have we found, in these additional volumes, any reason to retract this censure. Even of David Ruhnken, with whose vast labours in every department of Greek literature (metre excepted) all other modern scholars are familiar, he seems to have no knowledge whatever. *

Dr Butler intends, we presume, to publish the Fragments of Eschylus. The following example may be added to those which we gave in our notice of his first volume, to show how well he is qualified for the task. At v. 70. Schutz has quoted from Stobæus a fragment, of which these are the two first verses, Μόνος θεῶν γὰρ θάνατος οὐ δώρων ἐρᾷ. Οὐδ ̓ ἄν τι θύων, οὐδ ̓ ἐπισπένδων ναοῖς. σε Lege θύων οὐδ ̓ ἐπισπονδῶν ναοῖς. S. BUTLER. making, we suppose, and substantives. But is it possible that Dr B. should not have been aware of the four following facts; Ist, that vos, (the genitive plural of which is not ; but fur,

[ocr errors]

θυῶν.)

τελής. ὑπὲρ τὸ τέλος ἀφικομένη. which gloss evidently refers to v. 294. of this play. negrenns—ioxus ruunados. Again, at v. 685. he quotes from Hesychius Iorogigara, ig. where, if Abresch and Bos had, not long ago restored g, any fourth-form boy would. We will throw into this note a list of passages variously cited by ancient authors, of which varieties no notice is taken by Dr B., or any preceding critic. THEB. Tit. v. 4. 7. 8. 11. 43. 44. 45. 46. 234. 269. 276. 293. 300. 422. 441. 455. 478. 498. 560. 596. 598. 599. 600. 603.864. AGAM. 33. 40. 41. 58. 147. 164. 292. 596.621. 932. 1365. 1453. 1454. 1633. We may add also, that the value of Dr Bi's book as a variorum edition, is much diminished by the circumstance, that his collation of the editions of Aldus and Robortellus is very inaccurate. No fewer than five mistakes occur in the first 54 lines of the S. ag. Theb.

* Dr B. indeed remarks on v. 1608. of the Agamemnon, "Heathius fic vertit.... quocum facit Ruhnken, quem vide in Notis Varr. Philologg. ". We have searched the" Nott. Varr. Philologg. " for any mention of Ruhnken, but in vain. The fact is, Ruhnken no where fo much as mentions this passage.

vr.) has its first syllable short in v. 1418. of this play, Odyss. o. 261. Theocr. II. 10. and wherever else it occurs. 2d, that was has its first syllable long. 3d, that a solecism is left in the 2d verse. 4th, that this is a fragment of the Niobe of Eschylus; and that Stanley has printed ßos for vois, as it is also quoted by Eustath. ad II. I. p. 744, 3. Schol. Venet. II. 1. 158. Stobæus Grot. cxIx. p. 485.? Dr B.'s emendation, then, has these peculiar merits; that it leaves untouched a solecism and a false quantity, and introduces moreover a second false quantity; and we have no doubt but that Mr Bothe of Magdeburg will on these grounds concur with us in embracing it. But Dr B.'s metrical skill is exerted with equal success on the Latin Tragedians. At v. 834. the following verses of Ennius are quoted by Schutz (who, we suspect, was indebted for his knowledge of them to F. Ursinus's notes on Virgil, Æn. II. 328.) Nam maximo saltu superavit Gravidus armatis equus Qui suo partu ardua perdat Pergama... "Obiter moneo versus Ennianos male dispositos esse. Eos vel tirones in Senarios redigant. S. BUTLER. We should certainly scold any tiro of ours, did he fail to perceive, that these verses are one very good and regular tetrameter trochaic, and a part of another. Maximo saltu superavit gravidus armatis equus ≈ Qui suo partu ardua per dat Pergama Again, v. 150. φάσματα στρουθῶν. Dr B. calls a dimeter dactylic, " modo liceat ultimam in acuara corripere." But this is a license which no scholar, except Mr Bothe of Magdeburg, will concede to him.

- ల

[ocr errors]

The Doctor's philological remarks on the Agamemnon rarely contain any really philological illustrations; but consist, in a great measure, of expressions of surprise and admiration at the great poetical powers of his author: "Summum artificium" "mira sublimitas," "nec ipse quidem Shakespearius major esse potuit" "quam splendide!-quam ornate!-quam vere !-quam suaviter depingunt!" are sprinkled with a profuse hand over 120 pages. In this he seems to have taken Mr Schütz for his model; but, with all due respect to these learned, but talkative gentlemen, we would suggest, that Eschylus is only to be read by those, who are tolerable proficients in Greek; and that such persons do not stand in need of these finger-posts, to enable them to reach an author's beauties. What description of readers would be benefited by an edition of Shakespeare, filled with such notes as the following? "This is prodigious fine!" “ N. B. This is to be admired ! ” "How astonishingly su blime!" "How amazingly pathetic!"

But what we principally object to (and it is what all purchasers of the book must also object to) is, that Dr Butler's edition is, like many other variorum editions, not a judicious selection, but an indiscriminate coacervation of all that has been expressly

written

[ocr errors]

written upon Eschylus. Good or bad, right or wrong, here it is all, one note upon another, neat as imported. First we have Stanley's remark upon Æschylus, then Pauw's note upon Stanley's remark, then Heath's criticism of Pauw's note, and lastly Dr B.'s character of all three. At v. 734. of the Seven ag. Th. we have nearly two pages of matter manifestly useless and irrelevant, at the end of which the editor assures us, Invitus hæc adscripsi; which is but a poor apology to his readers for their loss of time. Again, at v. 925. "Mire hic hallucinatur Heathius, cujus annotatio inter virorum doctorum somnia numeranda est, ut nullo modo sit prætermittenda." If Dr Butler thinks, that even the dreams of learned men are by no means to be omitted, he thinks differently from us, and from all who wish for a useful edition of Eschylus. Again, at v. 768. "Totum locum, ut feliciter se emendasse gloriatur Wakefield. adscribam, non ut viri cl. conjecturis acquiescam, sed ut officio seduli editoris defungar. Now, putting out of the question the excessive verbiage of this sort of remark, we must be allowed to observe, that it is no part whatever of the duty of a judicious editor, to commemorate the palpable absurdities of his brother critics, The object of publishing a book of this description should be, not to preserve and embalm the follies and oversights of other editors, but to enlarge the boundaries of real knowledge; to instruct and amuse its readers, by compressing as much useful information as can be procured, into as convenient a shape as can be given to it. And whatever scruples Dr B. may entertain, about omitting any of the critical vagaries of preceding commentators, he might at least spare his readers in the philological part, where we naturally seek, not for the absurdities of men who did not understand schylus, but for the elucidations of those who did. So far, however, is this from being the case, that, after detailing page upon page of the crudities of one man, the scurrilities of another, and the puerilities of a third, he makes such remarks as the following. Non semel puduit nos Pauwii, hominis frontis perfrictæ et audacis inscientiæ, contume→ lias exscribere, in quos jactas viros!" S. BUTLER. "Nec hung nec illum operæ pretium est refellere." S. BUTLER.

But, above all, we object (considering the great scarcity of fine rags occasioned by the present war), to the enormous waste of pa per upon what Dr B. terms enarrations, or declarations of the me tres. As a specimen of what occurs repeatedly, we need only mention, that at v. 880. of the S. ag. Th. we have, first, two pages of the metrical crotchets of Pauw and Heath, "quorum hic, says Dr B., “non semper bene rem gessit, ille in his metris declarandis ubique fere turpiter erravit:" These are followed by four pages of Mr Hermann's declaration of the same chorus,

and

and these by no less than six of the Doctor's own. And, after all, no mention whatever is made of Dr Burney's arrangement, which is incomparably the best,-and which reaches almost to certainty in every instance where any thing like certainty is attainable; for which reason, were there no other, we judge that the metrical discussions, which occupy nearly 80 pages out of 270 in the critical commentaries, are next to useless. On the whole, we affirm with confidence, that if all the matter which is manifestly superfluous, and, even according to Dr Butler, confessedly wrong, were expunged from the Notæ Varr. et Butleri Critt. et Philologg." they would be reduced in bulk at least one half. The learned Editor is, we presume, himself aware, that the inconvenience which attends the great size of his book, is such as to render it nearly useless to every one but an editor; for we are informed, that when he has published seven thick octavo volumes of a corrupt text, he intends to publish an eighth, containing the text according to his own notions; for which a subscription is, we hear, on foot. We embrace with pleasure this opportunity of announcing a circumstance of such importance to the literary world, who, having been taught by the specimen which we have just given them, what is to be expected from Dr Butler, will no doubt await the appearance of this supplemental volume with an impatience proportioned to their opinion of his merits.

We had nearly forgotten to remark, that Dr Butler writes Latin fluently and with ease, but not without considerable affectation. His desire of exhibiting his style, leads him into long and vapid declamations upon the beauties of his author. We must content ourselves with transcribing one of these ef fusions on v. 900., where Clytemnestra is describing the exceeding annoyance and want of sleep, occasioned at night by the vexatious morsitation and stridulous buzzing of that nimble little insect, which the Greeks called xávat, or iuxis, and Englishmen, a gnat. "Imago quam suavissima! quam ad affectus. pingendos miro artificio, quam breviter expressa! Qualis profecto nemini alii præter Shakespearium in mentem venire potuisset. * Nec prætereundum illud, quod se adeo vigilantem dor

[ocr errors]

mire

This is not quite correct. Meleager complains, in the Anthology, that the gnats torment his mistress; and intercedes with them to allow her half an hour's sleep and Pliny seems to have suffered in the same way, for he calls the buzzing of this insect positively truculentam.' The Shepherd, in Virgil's Culex, moreever, was bitten till he awoke. Horace complains that mali culices raneque palustres Avertunt somnos; and mentions, that Cleopatra slept under a musquito-net, (conopiun with which piece of luxury Cly mnestra seems to have been unacquainted. One of the little birds, called xwwwwóenpai, would have been singularly useful in her apartment. Brodæus (M. Jean Brodeau) facetiously tells us, that gnats were called pūves, from their noise, si, si, si. An equally ingenious derivation is that of xavad.

[ocr errors]

από

« AnteriorContinuar »