CLASSICAL JOURNAL;

N°. LV.

SEPTEMBER, 1823.

NOTICE OF

ΑΝΑΛΕΚΤΑ ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΑ ΜΕΙΖΟΝΑ: sive COL LECTANEA GRECA MAJORA; ad usum Academica Juventutis accommodata. Cum notis Philologicis, quas partim collegit, partim scripsit ANDR. DALZELL, A.M. Pluribus in locis emendata, et Notis. uberioribus aucta, curavit et edidit GEORGIUS DUNBAR, A. M. Edinb.

THE leading feature of the present times is, we think, that of improvement. Not only has the greatest progress been made in chemistry and mechanics, not to specify other arts and sciences, but a spirit of investigation has been carried into all of them, productive of the highest advantages. In none, however, has this thirst for inquiry prevailed more, or been more successful, than in Greek literature. True, indeed, the discoveries and discussions in this science do not excite the same attention as they did some centuries ago. Other tastes, manners and pursuits have succeeded, and the admiration and respect which were formerly paid to the venerable scholar, are now transferred to the speculative philosopher, the eloquent writer, or the ingenious novelist. Nevertheless, though silent and unobserved, the work of improvement has proceeded. Manuscripts have been collated, obscure passages illustrated, the art of criticism cultivated, and the ardor and elegance of modern scholars added to the learning and experience of their predecessors. Hence, we can scarcely mention a Greek author of any VOL. XXVIII. NO. LV.

Cl. Jl.

A

celebrity whose works have not been edited within these few years with all these advantages; and hence, too, the necessity of bringing forward our school-books to the present scale of improvement. And what method more effectual for doing this, than to collect in the manner of Mr. Dalzell, into one great repertory, all that knowledge which is dispersed among the various annotators, and conjoin it with the stock which that indefatigable scholar had treasured up? Or what persons can be supposed more capable of doing this, than those who are themselves thoroughly acquainted, as well with the deficiencies, as the manner in which these ought to be supplied?

But it is not on these grounds alone that we approve Professor D.'s new edition of Dalzell's Collectanea Majora. The original work itself is defective in several respects; but in none more than in the inadequacy of its selections, and the deficiency of its illus

trations.

To propriety of selection it is particularly requisite that a compiler of such works devote his attention. Nor is it only necessary that he advert to the character of his author as a writer of talent, purity, and information. He must also carefully adjust the extent of his extract, so as to set before the student a suitable specimen of the whole, and afford him at once the opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the idiom and structure of the language, and the peculiar style and character of the writer. Nor is it proper that he consult merely his own taste in making these extracts. Like a skilful caterer, he must provide entertainment for various appetites, and therefore the fare must consist of “navτodañà éμBáμμara Kai Вρúuara." In this respect Prof. Dalzell seems to have consulted too exclusively his own judgment. We allow, indeed, that he shewed both a correct taste and a sound judgment in his selections. For what historian pleases more than Xenophon, denominated by the ancients the Attic bee, “ του και απο γλώσσης μελιτος yλvkiwv jeev avdn?" But circumstanced as he was, he should not have limited the extracts from Thucydides to 12 pages, nor those of Plato to 21, whilst to Xenophon he allotted no less than 118. This was neither appreciating justly the merits of the accurate historian, nor duly reverencing the wisdom of the divine philosopher; and it was acting injudiciously as a compiler.

Propriety of selection, however, was perhaps after all the easiest task. Desirous of affording his students the means of prosecuting their studies during the summer recess, he accompanied the extracts with notes, critical as well as explanatory. This plan, of itself excellent, he was well qualified to execute with success. His acquaintance with the language was minute and extensive, his application indefatigable, and his researches laborious. The notes accordingly contain a treasure of judicious criticism, which his industry collected from various sources. But we look in vain for

excursions into the philosophy of the language, or for original attempts in philology, or any endeavours to trace words through their various significations and modifications. This department in Greek literature is, in fact, almost wholly neglected, and whilst we have ingenious theories about the five duads, Æolic digammas, and middle voices, few scholars have as yet attempted to give us any thing like a philosophical analysis of the various shades of meaning which the terms of the language assume. No works, however, are better adapted for these disquisitions than such selections; nor can they be given any where with more advantage to the student, since they cannot fail of being impressed on his mind with the inflection of his nouns and verbs, and the knowledge of his syntax. Such appear to be the deficiencies in Dalzell's work which more particularly call for a remedy. In the volume under review, those of them that regard the excerpts are supplied; so much so indeed, that it would be somewhat difficult to find in the Greek language a like number of passages equally well adapted in every respect to impress the student with a just sense of the value of its acquisition. In the philological department, however, a great deal yet remains to be done, but we are not without hopes that in a future edition Professor D. will so finish the work, as to fulfil the high expectations which a careful examination has induced us to

entertain.

It will be observed, that Professor D. has offered no alterations in the text of Herodotus. To the notes he has made many useful additions, and, when it was necessary, important alterations. With his observations, until we reach page 4. n. 9, we are disposed to acquiesce, but the ellipsis in that note we cannot pass without a few remarks.

In an addition to the original note, Professor D. remarks, "Sententiam ellipticam et hoc modo explendam censeo ; καὶ τούτους πείθεσθαι αὐτῷ ἐσελθεῖν γὰρ—Angl. " And they yielded to him, for they had a great desire." If Professor D. had pursued the sentence to its termination, or considered the structure of the narrative all along from its commencement—τοῦτον τὸν ̓Αρίονα λέγουσι, <. T. λ., he would have seen sufficient reason for an ellipsis different from what he has given. It would certainly be much simpler to supply "Aéyovoi," the word used by Herodotus himself; thus: (commencing with the paragraph) ἀπηλειθέντα δὲ τὸν ̓Αρίονα, sc. λέγουσι—καὶ (λέγουσι τούτους) ἀναχωρῆσαι ἐκ τῆς πρύμνης ἐς μέσην νέα, ἡδονὴν γὰρ ἐσελθεῖν τοῖσι, κ. τ. λ. Angl. (They say) that Arion being driven by threats to an inextricable difficulty, (they say) that they (the sailors) removed from the prow to the middle of the ship, for they had, &c. This ellipsis of Aéyovoi harmonizes not only with the spirit of the passage, but also with the general simplicity of the historian's style, while it equally accounts for the peculiar structure of the sentence, which, according to Schweig

hæuser, is "naturæ convenientior, quoniam per rerum naturam causa præcedit effectum."

Ρ. 12. 10. πρᾶγμα εὐηθέστατον μακρῷ) In this short note, we have a specimen of the mode of criticism, which to us seems so great a desideratum in Dalzell's work. Nor shall we be singular in our opinion, when it is considered, that philology, in its higher branches, ought to enter more into our system of education than it has hitherto done. It will be in vain however to expect this, unless something is done in our elementary treatises to give a proper direction to the inquisitive student. We are, accordingly, happy to observe this liberal style of criticism springing up amongst us, and though the specimens in the present volume are few, we receive them as the earnest of a rich and vigorous produce. Let Professor D. put forth his discriminating powers in this direction, and the same success will attend him as in his other pursuits.

P. 18. 4. ovx eqvoe) To this note Professor D. has added a very proper remark. As it formerly stood, we were apt to accuse Dalzell of inexperience, to say the least of it, in the art of illustration. The information, indeed, which was here requisite, could not display his knowledge of a Greek idiom or construction, but it would have brought out his acquaintance with general literature, and shewn us the character of his prelections. Herodotus was a curious observer of nature, and the occasional sketches. which he gives of the natural history of different countries form not the least interesting or useful portion of his multifarious history. It is, therefore, quite allowable, and even necessary for his commentators to follow the footsteps of their author, and try his descriptions by the more accurate observations of modern times; and especially in such a work as the present,-to prevent the errors into which students are apt to fall, from the mistakes of the original, from their own limited information, and the reliance they may place on the authority of so famous a historian. We can readily, indeed, apologize for the father of history gravely saying, that the crocodile was the only animal that had no tongue, yλwoσαν δὲ μοῦνον θηρίων οὐκ ἔφυσε, but we cannot so easily extend the same indulgence to those, who, professing to illustrate his work for the benefit of learners, allow such an observation to pass unnoticed. A single remark in passing would have required no great effort, whilst it would have demonstrated the anxiety of the Annotator to instruct his readers in what is at least common sense. But neither Dalzell nor his London editor, who, in a short "monitum," subscribed C. J. B., professes to have corrected errores satis spissos ad minimum quingentos," thinks it at all necessary to say a single word about it ;-probably supposing that every schoolboy must conceive it an absurdity. To be content with this apology, what shall we say for their silence on the next observation of their author, “ οὐδὲ τὴν κάτω κινέει γνάθον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο μοῦνον θηρίων

τὴν ἄνω γνάθον προσάγει τῇ κάτω ?” This remark is equally erroneous with the former, and is the less liable to detection as it does not at first sight do the same violence to common feeling. Still, nothing proceeds from Dalzell, and C. J. B. has not been at the trouble of turning to any commentator to supply the omission, which is done very simply by Professor D. in the following quotation from Schweighæuser: "Lingua non prorsus carere crocodilum, porro inferiorem ejus maxillam moveri, ut in reliquis animantibus, non superiorem, diligentiores observationes docuere."

Although we must be thus brief with our notices on this part of the work, yet we cannot dismiss it without remarking, that both the teacher and his pupil will find their labors materially diminished by the many useful additions which the learned Professor has made to the notes of the original work.

With respect to Thucydides, it will be observed that Mr. Dunbar has made a few alterations, obviously, however, of the utmost importance. The extracts which Dalzell furnished from this most accurate and profound historian, were quite disproportionate to the value of the subject. Even of these extracts, two only, from the philosophical spirit which they breathe, were sufficiently calculated for his purpose. These two Professor D. has judiciously retained, and with equal propriety has rejected the narrative of the death of Pausanias, inserting in its place, the whole of the seventh book, containing an account of the siege of Syracuse, which forms, as it were, an interesting episode during the bustle and confusion of the Peloponnesian war.

Ρ. 34. 5. ἡ νόσος-λεγόμενον) We cannot allow this note to pass without entering our protest against the spirit of criticism exhibited in it. We are quite willing that Gesner should have pronounced the opinion, that λεγόμενον, although it refers to νόσος, is neuter, because vóonua is also in use. But we regret that Professor D., whose penetration on most subjects conducts him far beyond the ordinary herd of critics, should have sanctioned such an opinion, or that he should have selected from Duker, when he ought to have consulted his own sounder judgment. This commentator agrees with the scholiast, that such construction is by an anacoluthon. What talismanic virtue there is in this term we know not, but it is plain that they have considered it as decisive of the syu-tax. Towards such figures of words, however, we are disposed to look with no benignant eye, nor do we reckon them of any greater value, than that they are convenient at times for the annotator and grammarian. The quotation from Homer ought to be Odyss. p. 74; and this passage under review Dr. Clarke has explained in so philosophical a manner, that none can reasonably withhold his assent. After adverting to the opinions of the Scholiast, Dionysius Halicarnensis and other critics, he adds, "Verisimilius tamen videtur, neque Thucydidem per istud "Xeyouevor" rò voonμa ne