Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub
[ocr errors]

But to proceed with our Author's Criticisins. Æschy!,
Perf. v. 786-7-8.

Ευ γαρ σαφως τοδ' σ' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
Απαλες ημείς,
οι κραιη τα

έσκομεί,
Ουκ αν φακο μεν πηματερξανθες
" The learned Dawes, (says he) in his Miscellaneous Cri-
tịcisms, p. 334, has vainly attempted to mend this passage;
for the place is quite well, and wants no physic. The read-
ing he proposes is as follows:

Εν γαρ σαφως τοδ' σ' εμοι ξυνηλικες,
Απανίες, ημεις, ει

κράτη ται' εσκομεν,
Ουκ αν εφανημεν πημαι' εξαντες τοσα.
« Now as to this amendment, in the firft place απαντες
joined to ξυνηλικες, is cold and languid, and hangs to it,
dangling like an idle tail. In the next place, how could
Darius fay ει κραλη ταδ' εσκομεν, had I had the empire; far
he certainly had it: without doubt he ought rather to have
faid ει κραλη ταδ' ετ εσκομεν, had I yet had the empire. Laftly,
observe also how frigid, with all this parade, would this
speech of Darius be, Had I been in the place of Xerxes, and
then held the sceptre of this empire, ye 1hould not have fuf-
fered these evils from me.” Thus far our Commentator on
this emendation of Dawes. But notwithstanding all he has
advanced against it, we believe the learned and judicious
Reader will perceive, that it has much more force and pro-
priety than the usual text; that the physic has been very suc-
cessfully administered, and that the tail hangs not ungrace-
fully. ,

We are much obliged to our learned Commentator, and so is every Reader of Æschylus, for his explication and emendation of the following difficult passage in Agamennon, ν. 104-13.

Κυριος ειμι 9ροειν oδιoν κρατος
Αισιον ανδρων
Εθελεων (ελι γαρ θεοθεν καιαπιειει
Πειθω μολπα)
Αλκαν συμφυλον, αίων
Οπως, Αχαιων,
Διθρονον κραιος, Ελλαδος ηξαν
Ξυμφρονα ταγοί,
Πεμπει συν δουρι δικας πραγορι

Θερμος ορνις Τευκριδ' επαιχν.
Verte, idoneus fum enarrare victoria omen fauftum in itinere
oblatum viris principibus (adhuc enim divinitus inspirat fiduciam

vaticinium) vaticinium) audiens quo faéto avis impetuosa mittit robur cognatum achivorum, geminum imperium (i. e. Agamemnonem et Menelaum) Græciæ Pubem eadem cum ducibus sentientem, cum hasta pænarum exattore Trojanam ad terram.

The Reader will perceive that it is not with this, as with most difficult pallages of the antient Writers, upon which, if their Commentators do not pass them over sacro filentio, they generally heap one difficulty on another, and in the end, ex nihilo nihil fit.

The following verses, in the fame Agamemnon, have been still less underftood than those we have already quoted, The Interpreters and Commentators have concluded, all alike mistakenly, that the word spetwv, in the last line, referred to the omen of the eagle mentioned before, but without doubt it alludes to the well-known story, in Homer, of the sparrow and her young ones being eat up by the serpent. (See the Iliad, b.v. v. 300—330.)

Τοσσον περ ευφρων α καλα
Δροσοισι αεπλοισι ματερων ούλων, ,
Παίων αγρονομων φιλομαιους
Θηρον οβρικαλοισι, τερπνα
Τείων αυλη ξυμβολα φαινες, ,
Δεξια μεν, καλα-

Μομφα δε φασμάα τεθων. . Thus our Author thinks it should be read, and thus tranflated :

“Quanquam tantopere benevola fit pulchra illa Dea pullis nondum volare valentibus (aut, fi mavis *, pullis immaturis) omnium quæcunque sint matres (vel, omnium imbecillium) et omnium agrestium ferarum, Catulis mammas amantibus (id efi, teneris) jucunda horum quæ dixi præfagia ipla oftendit, faufta illa quidem, sed culpanda oftenta passerculorum.”

We never thought the following passage so exquisitely difficult as our Author has represented it to be; but, as it has not been generally understood, we shall quote his translation of it for the benefit of such of our Readers as may not have an opportunity to consult his book : on which account also we desire it may be observed, that we make

many
other

quotations.

Πολλων παθησμον δ' ειμαιων αν εξαμης,
Δομοισι πρoυνεχθείος εν χρηστριες, ,
Ψυκης κομιερα

της δε
funxarwfleurise

Agam. v. 972-3-4.

For this construction amETTOICI should be

put

for

CETTOIOL.

Instead

Inftead of μηχανωμενης, Dr. Heath reads with Stanley μηχανωμενη, which, in our opinion, is right; as ψυκης mon probably refers to Agamemnon, and not to Clytemnestra. For ευξαμην he reads ηυξαμην, and tranflates the paflage thus : “ Plura vero vestimenta conculcanda vovissem, fi reditus tuus prius domui tuæ in oraculis fuisset denuntiatus, præmia ob animam hanc tuam fervatam rependere moliens."

Verfes 1437-8-9, in Agamemnon, as they have hitherto
stood, have always to us been unintelligible. Some light has,
however, been thrown upon them by the Transation and
Emendations of our Author. Thus he reads and construes
the passage :

Λιπος επ' ομμάτων
Αιμαίος και πρεπει ατιετον: είι σε χρη

Φιλων Γερομεναν

.

[ocr errors]

χαχα.

Τυμμα τυμματι τισα.
“ Un&tio sanguinea circum oculos non præbet speciem
impunitatis ; adhuc oportet te amicis orbatam plagam plaga
rependere."
Choephoræ, v. 273.

Αποχρημα τοισι ζημιαις ταυρουμενον,
Αυλον δεξασκε τη φιλη ψυκη ταδε

Τισειν μ' εχουλα πολλα δυστερπη κακα
« In vain (says the Doctor) would you try to scratch any
proper sense out of this paffage as it stands.' Thus, I sup-
pose, it should read :

Αποχρων δε τασδε ζημιας, ταυρουμένος
Αυλος γε φασκε, τη φιλη ψυκη ταδε

Τισειν μ' εχούλα πολλα δυστερπη
« Verte, oraculo vero denuntians hafce pαnas, ipfe qui-
dem exasperatus dixit me eas anima propria luiturum, multa
hæcce sustinentem injucunda mala.'

The Emendation and Explication of the following passage,
in the Eumenides, deserve attention. v. 361-365.

Σπευδομεναι δ'αφελει»
Τινα Ιασδε μεριμνας
Θεων δ' α'ελειαν εμαι-
Σι λιταις επικραινείν,

Μηδ' ες αγκρισιν ελθειν.
“ In his Constructionem non abfolvi, sed imperfectam et
suspensam relinqui, nemo non videt. Expendat lector annon
forfan ita fcripferit Poeta,

Σπευδομεναι

Σπευδομειαι δ' αφελειν
Δια τασδε μεριμνας
Θεοι γαλελειαν εμαι-
X. 21.005 ETT EXFOLIVON,

Μηδ' εις αγκρισιν ελθειν. . Verte, Dii vero Joven hisce curis levare studentes immunitatem ab omni alia jurisdictione meis precibus concesserunt, et ut rationem cuiquam reddere non tenerer.”

Would our limits allow us, we could with pleasure point out many more passages in Æschylus, which Dr. Heath has happily illustrated. Without doubt his critical labours on the works of this Author are very valuable, and deserve the thanks of all the literary world, as Æschylus is by far the most difficult and abstruse of the Greek Poets. But the Doctor will pardon us if we give it as our opinion that he has sometimes made too free with the text of his Author; though it must be owned he has in general only proposed alterations in such paffages as were otherwise hard to be understood.

These Emendations are much more excusable than such as are made merely for the sake of the metre, the rules of which are so extremely vague and various, as they are laid down by the metrical Critics, that we will venture to say any chapter in Robinson Crusoe might be reduced to measure by them, This is not conjecture; the thing ihall be proved. As I was rummaging about her, lambicus dimeter bypercataleElus I found several

Dochmaicus Things that I wanted,

Dactylicus dimeter [Jyllabus A fire-shovel and tongs,

Dochmaicus ex epitrito quarto et Two brafs kettles,

Dochmaicus
A pot to make chocolate, Periodus brachycatalectus
Some horns of fine glaz'd powder, Euripideus
A gridiron, and feve-

Dafiylica penthimimeris
Ral other necessaries.

Basis anapefiicacum syllaba. Enough for a specimen. For our strictures on Dr. Heath's Annotations on Sophocles and Euripides, we must refer the Reader to our next Review.

La:

A Discourse upon the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality

among Mankind. By J. J. Rousseau, Citizen of Geneva, 8vo. 53. Dodfley,

[ocr errors]

HE

very favourable idea, which the English Reader must

have formed of Mr. Rousseau, from such of his Pieces as have already appeared in our language, will, no doubt,

[ocr errors]

excite his curiosity to peruse this performance. The gratification of this curiosity seems, indeed, to be the most commendable motive for the present Publication ; for, in justice to this elegant Writer, we must observe, that the Translation is by no means equal to the Original.

It is now several years since the Academy of Dijon proposed the following prize-question to the philosophical world ; * What is the Origin of the Inequality among Mankind ? and whether such Inequality is authorized by the law of nature?” The discourse before us was designed as an answer to this question, and was honourably diftinguished by obtaining the prize. How far it may be a satisfactory solution, however, of the difficulties that occur in reflecting on the question, we do not take upon us fully to determine; contenting ourselves with giving a short abstract of the Author's design, and making a few animadversions on the most remarkable passages we meet with.

Our Philosopher sets out with distinguishing two species of Inequality among Men. The one he calls a natural, or phy, sical Inequality, consisting in the difference of

age, health, bodily strength, and the qualities of the mind. The other he terms a moral, or political Inequality, depending on a kind of convention, and established, or at least authorized, by the common consent of mankind. This species of Inequality confifts in the different privileges which some men enjoy, to the prejudice of others, such as that of being richer, more honoured, more powerful, and even that of exacting obedience from them. “ It were absurd to ask, (says he) what is the cause of natural Inequality, as the definition of the term answers the question : again, it would be still more absurd to enquire, if there might not be some essential connection between the two species of Inequality, as it would be asking, in other words, If those who command are necessarily better than those who obey; and if itrength of body, or of mind, wisdom or virtue, are always to be found in individuals, in the fame proportion with power, or riches ? A question fit perhaps to be discussed by flaves in the hearing of their marters, but unbecoming free and reasonable beings in quest of truth.”

With our Author's leave, however, we cannot see the object of the latter enquiry in so absurd a light as he has placed it. It were absurd, indeed, at this time of day, to draw the conclufion he exposes; but in a profefled investigation of the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality in

troduced

« ПредишнаНапред »