« AnteriorContinuar »
dus has λυπηρόν. Why not read, λυπηρόν, πρόσωπον άντα ? in which *collocation of the words there is nothing unusual. 953. έθανε δάμας, έλιπε φιλίαν.
The true reading, we think, is φιλία, 80 825-940, φιλίας αλόχου. 961. Λυπρόν διώξω βίοτον. άρτι μανθάνω.
We approve of Musgrave's conjecture, Λυπρόν διάξων βίοτον άρτι μανθάνω. Βacch. 11υ. κακού γαρ εγγός ών έμάνθανεν. Supra ν. 151. *Iστω νυν ευκλεής τε κατθανουμένη, where Mr. Monk gives some other
instances of this construction. 1017. τύμβος σας αλόχου θεοίσιν ομοίως ατιμάσθω, σέβας εμπόρων.
This passage may be aptly illustrated by the following verses of Plato the comic poet, (ap. Plutarch. Themist. p. 138. E.) which have often struck us as affording an apposite inscription for the monument to be erected to Nelson on the coast.
ο σος δε τύμβος, ένα καλό κεχασμένος,
χώπόταν άμιλλ' ή των νεών, θεάσεται. 1092. Ει γάρ τοσαύτην δύναμιν είχον, ώστε σην Εις φώς πορεύσαι νερτέρω εκ δωμάτων Γυναίκα.
Frequens est si yap optantis ; sed notanda in hoc usu differentia indicativi et optativi. ει γαρ είχον valet utinam haberem, ει γαρ έχουμε utinam habeam. The exact state of the case is as follows. εί, είθε, ei yap or sine gap with an indicative imperfect expresses a wish that something were done now ; with an indicative aorist it indicates a wish that something had been so formerly; with an optative aorist it wishes that something may be done at the next moment, or at some future time. We will give a few instances of each usage. I. Orest 1630. ει γαρ τό» ήν. I wish it were S0. Heracl. 731. Είθ' ήσθα δυνατός δράν, όσον πρόθυμος εί. ΕΙ. 1061. Είθ' είχες, ώ τεκούσα, βελτίoυς φρένας. Incert. Rhes. 105. Είθ' ήσθ' ανήρ εύβουλος, ως δράσαι κερί. ΙΙ. Οrest. 1596. (quoted by Mr. Monk.) Ει γάρ κατέσχον, μη θεών κλεφθείς υπο. Would I had kept hold of her.Androm. 293. είθε δ'υπέρ κεφαλήν έβαλεν κακον. ibid. 184. είθε σ' υπ' 'Ιλίω ή ναρε δαίμων. Alc. 121. Είθ' έξ άγωνος τήνδε μη λαβές ποτε. Suppl. 821. Είθε με Καδμείων έναρον στίχες και κονίαισιν. Aesch. Prom. 158. Ει γάρ κ' υπό γην-τάρταρον ήκεν. Choeph. 343. Ει γάρ υπ' 'Ιλίω-κατηναρίσθης. ΙΙ. Εurip. Hecub. 830. 1057. Orest. 1098. 1207. Phoen. 165. 168. Hippol. 232. 1088. 1089. 1127. 1404. 1429, Alc. 92. Androm. 522. - Supp!, 371. 373. 1008. 1144. Ιph. Τ. 440. 1221. [Rhes. 369. 464.] Troad. 1113. Cycl. 436. Heracl. 52. 740. Helen. 174. 1495. Ιon. 151, ΕΙ. 663. Esch. Theb. 260. 550. 566. Suppl. 1. Soph, Oed. T. 80. 1068. Oed. Col. 1082. Trach. 955, Aj. 1265. Sometimes, but very rarely, a subjunctive aorist occurs. We remember only two instances, which are both faulty. Eurip. Suppl. 1027. Είθε τινές είναι δικαίων υμεναίων Ξέν 'Aργει φανώσει τέκνοισιν, where we should perhaps read τέκνοισι φανείη. Helen. 269. Είθ' εξαλειφεϊσ', ώς άγαλμ, αύθις πάλιν Αίσχιον είδος αντί του καλού λάβω, where Scaliger reads έν' εξαλειφθείσ'. but we conceive the true reading αντί του καλού "λαβον. I wish I had rèceived. In v. 1120 of this play Aldus bas rezy náßors for μη 'λάβες. By way of relieving the dulness of this criticism we will observe that Brodæus is right in understanding yanma to mean a statue in this passage; and that Barnes and Musgrave are wrong in rendering it a picture, contrary to the constant usage of Euripides, The ancients used to paint their statues ; Plato Rep. iv. p. 420. C. ώσπερ ούν αν εί ή μάς ανδριάντας γράφοντας προσελθών άν τις έψεγε, λέγων ότι ου τους καλλίστοις του ζώον τα κάλλιστα φάρμακα προστίθεμεν, where indeed ανδρίαντας is taken to mean pictures by a grammarian in Bekker’s Anecdota, p. 210, but without reason. Plin. N. H. xxxv. 10. Hic est Nicias, de quo dicebat Praxiteles, interrogatus quæ maxime opera sua probaret in marmoribus, " quibus Nicias manum admovisset," tantum circumlitioni ejus tribuebat. Virg. Æn. i. 593. Quale manus addunt ebori DECUS. Where none of the commentators have perceived that decus is to be understood of the colouring with which ivory used to be stained : compare Æn. xii. 67. Iliad A. 41. Pausan. vii. 26. εν τούτω τω ιερώ και 'Αθηνάς άγαλμα έστηκε πρόσωπόν τε και άκραι χειρες ΕΛΕΦΑΝΤΟΣ, και οι πόδες: το δε άλλοξόανον χρυσού τε επιπολης
ΔΙΗΝΘΙΣΜΕΝΟΝ έσι και ΦΑΡΜΑΚΟΙΣ. 1095. Μη νύν υπέρβαλ', αλλ' εναισίμως φέρε.
Μ. υπέρβαλλ', in the present tense. 1125. Χρη, σού γε μη μέλλοντος οργαίνειν έμοί.
Mr. Monk gives iné. “Hactenus εμοί omnes : verum οργαινείν eat irritare. Soph. Oed. T. 334. Και γάς αν πίτρου Φύσιν σύγ οργήνειας. ibi Gloss. εις οργήν κινήσειας. Extat verbum in Tracb. 552. Correxi εμέ. We are inclined to prefer the old reading. όργαίνειν is intransitive in the line of the Trachiniae referred to above. 'Αλλ' ου γαρ, ώσπις είπον, οργαίνειν καλόν Γυναίκα νούν έχουσαν. The sense is, I
must'; at least if I would not have you angry with me. 1137. Και μη προτείνω, Γοργόν' ως καρατόμων.
In his note on this verse Mr. Monk combats the opinion of Lobeck (ad. Ajac. 801.) and Mr. Elmsley, (ad. Heracl. 693.) who contend that in the writings of the tragedians I in the dative singular never suffers elision. We are inclined to think with the learned editor that this canon cannot be maintained. The line wbich be adduces from Soph. (Oed. Col. 1435) Σφών δ' ευοδοίη Ζεύς, τάδ' ει τελείτε μοι Θανόντ', επει ού μοι ζών τε γ' αύθις εξετον, is altered by Lobeck into τάδ' ει θανόντ' έμοί Τελείτ'. • lo qua ratione,' says Mr. Schaefer,
dirimantur, que poeta arctissime juncta voluit, θανόντι et επεί. 1136. "Έχεις και ΑΔ, έχω ναί. ΗΡ. σώζε νύν.
Mr. Monk restores this line very happily. "Έχεις 3 ΑΛ. έχω. ΗΡ. ναι, σώζέ νιν, and compares Orest. 147. xΟ ίδ–ως φέρω βοάν. ΗΛ.
ναι, ούτω κάταγε κάταγε. 1152. Ω φιλτάτης γυναικός όμμα, και δέμας, "Έχω σ' άέλπτως, ούποτ' όψεσθαι δοκών.
Mr. Monk reads these verses with an interrogation. But in that case Euripides would have said άρ' έχω σε. We prefer the common mode of reading them, which is sanctioned by v. 582 of the Electra,
ώ χρόνο φανείς, "Έχω σ' άέληπως. Pheniss. 319, tủ tivosteove còn όμμα- προσειδον. Ιph. Τ. 828. ώ φίλτατ' --έχω σ', 'Ορέστα.
We make no apology to our readers for the length and minuteness of this criticism. Those who take no interest in such matters have only to transfer their paper-knife to the next article. And to those who think that the interests of literature are effectually promoted by the accuracy of philological researches, no excuse will be necessary. We are not disposed to exalt the utility of such disquisitions above its real level: but they are at least to be classed with those radices stirpesque literarum which Cicero speaks of as essential and indispensable. Omnium magnarum artium, sicut arborum, altitudo nos delectat; radices stirpesque non item: sed illa sine his non potest.'
ART. V.-The Antiquary. By the Author of Waverley and Guy Mannering. 3 vols.
12mo. 1816. HAVING already delivered our opinion
on the general character of Waverley and Guy Mannering, we have little or, indeed, nothing to add on that subject with regard to the present novel, which professes to be a third brother of the same family. We doubt whether the voice of the public has ratified the preference which we so decidedly gave to Waverley over Guy Mannering; but a second perusal of both has convinced us that our judgment was not incorrect; and we are satisfied that the time is not far distant, if it be not already arrived, when the best claim of Guy Mannering on the attention of its readers will be the line of the title-page, in which it is described as the work of the author of Waverley.
The Antiquary is a work of precisely the same style; it unites to a considerable degree the merits of Waverley with the faults of the Astrologer; and we have no hesitation in placing it, with the crowd of modern novels, below the former, and, with very few modern novels, above the latter.
The author tells us in his preface, that the present work completes a series of fictitious narratives intended to illustrate the manners of Scotland at three different periods. Waverley embraced the age of our fathers, Guy Mannering that of our own youth, and the Antiquary refers to the last ten years of the eighteenth century. (p. v.) This may, in an occult sense, be true; but if it means, as it at first view imports to state, that the three novels have been written with this original intention, and that they were meant, in their first conception, to exhibit three different stages of society, we presume to doubt a little the literal authenticity of the statement.
In the first place we hardly think that so skilful an observer of manners could have imagined that in sixty years such changes.could: take place in national language, manners, habits, and character, as to warrant à priori, the design of three distinct pictures. In the second place we find the author himself confessing that he has, especially in his two last works, sought his principal personages in that class of society who are the last to feel the polish which assimilates to each other the manners of different nations ;'(p. vi;) or, in other words, which change most slowly; and of course it follows that so far from endeavouring to illustrate the manners of three different periods, he has endeavoured to describe three different periods of which the manners were very much the same. And, finally, we appeal to our southern readers, at least, whether they can distinguish between the Astrologer and the Antiquary, and whether, with equal probability and appearance of truth, Jonathan Oldbuck, and his associates, might not have preceded in chronological order Guy Mannering and his dramatis personæ. We admit that, provided. the author succeeds in amusing us, it is, in ordinary cases, of little consequence on what theory he may choose to proceed, or to say that he proceeds ; but when he affects, as in the present instance, to write a work in some degree historical of men, and professedly historical of manners, it becomes our duty, as contemporaries, as well as reviewers, to withhold our testimony from what we consider a misrepresentation. We believe that the manners of Guy Man. nering are as much the existing manners of the day as those of the Antiquary; and we are satisfied that the able and ingenious author, after having written these three very amusing romances, has indulged himself in a very fanciful classification of them, and, waiving his higher claims, prefers the humbler one of writing on a system, which he never thought of, and in which, if he had designed it, we should have no hesitation in saying that he has, by his own confession, failed.
That, however, in which he has not failed is the higher duty of the novelist-character, interest, eloquence; something that hurries rather than leads you on; traits of feeling that melt, and strokes of humour that enliven the heart; all these he, in an emi... nent degree, possesses ; with them he combines so curious and accurate a delineation of human nature, that, through the Scottish garb and the Scottish dialect, we distinguish the characteristic fol. lies, foibles, and virtues, which belong to our own acquaintance, and to all mankind.
This is the peculiar merit of the author of these works, and no slight merit it is, for the want of it constitutes, as we have said on another occasion, the chief fault of some of our most eminent novelists, and the possession of it, the chief merit of the greatest poet that ever lived-of Shakspeare. His Romans, his Frenchmen, his Englishmen, are all men ; the features of the national character
are varied and amusing, but the great charm of his exhibitions of human life is, that modified a little by their age and their country, his characters are all human beings, to whose pains and whose pleasures our own hearts are responsive, and to whose reasons and motives of action our own minds assent.
Our readers will recollect that our dissatisfaction with some parts of Guy Mannering was excited by the gratuitous introduce tion of supernatural agency, and that we said quodcunque ostendis mihi sic, incredulus odi. Even Shakspeare, who has been called the mighty magician, was never guilty of this mistake. His magic was employed in fairy land, as in the Tempest,and his ghosts and goblins in dark ages, as in Macbeth and Hamlet. When he introduces a witch in Henry VI. it is because, historically, his representation was true; when he exhibits the perturbed dreams of a murderer in Richard III. it was because his representation was morally probable ; but he never thought of making these fancies actual agents in an historical scene. There are no ghosts in Henry VIII, and no witches in the Merry Wives of Windsor, (except the merry ladies ;) and when, in one of his comedies, he chooses to wander out of nature, he modestly calls his drama a Dream, and mixes up fairies, witchery, mythology, and common life in a brilliant extravaganza which affects no historical nor even possible truth, and which pretends to represent neither actual nor possible nature. Not so Guy Mannering,--it brings down witchery and supernatural agency into our own times, not to be laughed at by the better informed, or credited by the vulgar; but as an active, effective, and real part of his machinery. It treats the supernatural agency not as a superstition, but as a truth; and the result is brought about, not by the imaginations of men deluded by a fiction, but by the actual operation of a miracle contrary to the opinion and belief of all the parties concerned. From this blame the present work is not wholly free; there are
ee marvellous dreams and apparitions, upon which, we suspect, the author intended to ground some important parts of his denouement; but his taste luckily took fright, the apparitions de not contribute to the catastrophe, and they now appear in the work as marks rather of the author's own predilection to such machines, than as any assistance to him in the way of machinery.
This,then, isa manifest advantage which the present work has over Guy Mannering; and we own, that while we felt little or no interest in the fortunes of those whose fate was predestined, and whose happiness or woe depended not on their own actions, but on the prognostications of a beldam gipsy or a wild Oxonian, we are very differently affected for those who, like the characters in Waverley and the Antiquary, work out their own destinies, and must stand or