1833.] On the Apple of the Eye.-Harford's Eschylus. tin ab, and Greek año (apo), never had nor could have any thing to do with the eye; and therefore the origin of the word must be sought for elsewhere. Now, it does so happen that in the Coptic language bal means the ball of the eye. Hence apple would be only a corruption of al-bal, where al, the definite article, has been united to the noun, as in Al-chemist, Al-coran, Almagist, and Al-manach, with all of which we are accustomed to repeat the article, when speaking of the Alchemist, the Alcoran, the Almagist, and the Almanach; and thus the apple would be anly another example of the repetition of the definite article the al-bal, of which the Latin orb-is is a still greater corruption. Of the Coptic Bal, the radical consonants are BL, which, by the insertion of the five vowels a, e, i, o, u, have given rise to an infinity of words in various languages, all referable to some property of the eye. For instance, the English ball, i. e. a large mass of matter disposed into a round form, has reference to the round ball of the eye; while the Latin albus, white, has reference to the colour of a part of the eye; and thus the Latin ball-a, whence bull-io, and the English verb boil, is evidently connected with the idea of the swelling of the eye-bull; since all liquids in a boiling state swell into globular bubbles. Thus, too, from the same radicals BL is formed the Greek Baλ-w (ball-o) I throw; the peculiar property of the eye being to throw itself from object to object in the twinkling of an eye; and thus it appears that AaB-w (lab-o) I catch, the antagonist idea of I throw, is naturally derived from the same radicals, while both are referable to the properties of the eye, by the aid of which the child first sees and then seizes the breast of its mother. From the same root are evidently divided BA-AL, BA-LI, BEL, BELIAL, found in different parts of the East, as the titles of Providence, and all referable to the power of vision; and hence we can undertand why the Scythians called their Gods Пono or ETOTO, i. e. inspectors, similar to the 'Eлons of the Greeks, and why other nations had their OG the same as the Teutonic OCH, the eye, and GOG, i.e. the eye both ways, an attribute given by the Romans to their God Janus; and : 31 thus the Jupiter Max-imas, a corruption of mag-issimus, is only a Roman representation of the Oriental MAGOG, where MAG is the root of the Latin Mag-e, and the Greek Mey-as (Meg-as) and thus we learn that OG, GOG, and MAG-OG, from the Trinity of the powers of Providence looking to the past, present, and future, or before, behind, and all around; a symbol still to be found in the three-headed idols of the East, called Tri-murti, or Tri-morti, the counterpart of the Greek Moipai тpioppo: while to a similar symbol of a trinity of powers must be referred the mythic and mystic, three Gorgons, three Harpies, and the three daughters of Phorcys, possessing, according to Eschylus, one eye in common; an idea, says Bryant, founded on the representation of the eye of Providence, painted on the façade of a temple, or over the holy of holies, as done by the Jews, or over the altar, as done by the Christians at the present day. The Agamemnon of Eschylus, translated from the Greek, and illustrated by a Dissertation on Grecian Tragedy, &c. By John S. Harford, Esq. D.C.L. & F.R.S. AT the close of our notice of Med win's translations of the Prometheus and Agamemnon of Æschylus, we expressed our intention to devote some space to a review of the present publication; and we now sit down to luctance, as we understand that Mr. perform our promise with the less reHarford has candidly confessed, on perusing Mr. Medwin's translation, that, though his own is closer to the letter of the original, it is far less spirited than his rival's; both of whom, by a coincidence not uncommon in literature, were employed simultaneously in a similar task. After such a confession, it were almost a cruelty to the author to prowhich, as it was never commenced duce a specimen of his handy-work, with a view to publication, it is a pity Mr. H. should ever have been tempted to put into print-less, it tion of its excellence, than from the would seem, from his own appreciaopinions of foolish and false friends, See Gent. Mag. Aug. 1832, p. 144. who either could not or would not give an honest opinion of his work in MS. through the fear, forsooth, of wounding the feelings of the writer; as if a man's feelings were not wounded far more keenly by unfavourable criticism of an unknown reviewer, than of a known-friend! But though Mr. Harford has been unfortunate as a translator of poetry, yet, as a prose composition, his Dissertation on Greek Tragedy, derived, as he fairly states, from the usual cram-books* used at Cambridge, is written with the feelings and fancy, and in tone and temper of a gentlemanly scholar; and would make, when duly dished up under the eye of a skilful maitre de cuisine, a capital article in a leading Review; as it exhibits learning enough to amuse without fatiguing the attention of the reader. Of the difficulties that a translator, and especially of Æschylus, has to contend with, Mr. Harford seems to be fully aware; for, says he, "if a close adherence to the literal meaning of the original were alone requisite, every sound scholar might be a successful translator. But mere learning, however ably it may develope the sense, or illustrate the allusions of classical poetry, can no more do justice to the flashes of airy fancy and impassioned feeling, of brilliant sentiment and graceful expression which sparkle in their pages, than a philosopher could imitate, by any artificial means, the corruscations of lightning. "Literal translation," says Dryden, "is very like dancing in irons on the slack rope. A man may shun a fall by using caution, but gracefulness of motion is not to be expected." Now this we deny, in defiance of glorious John himself, than whom no man has been either more or less successful as a translator; for we have met with a version of Horace's Otium Divos, &c. (lib. ii. xvi.) which occurs in Sir Richard Fanshawe's "Selected Parts of Horace, Prince of Lyricks," &c. These are Bentley's Phalaris; Barthelemy's Travels of Anacharsis; and Schlegel's Lectures on the Drama, that perpetual crib for all contributors of tinsel articles to our popular Magazines, Reviews, and Penny papers. 1652, 8vo; a translation, that for closeness and spirit united, owns no parallel, and which for the benefit of future translators we will quote, and this the more readily, as the original work is not generally known. Quiet! the trembling merchant cries, Quiet! in war the Thracian bold; His little's much, whose thrifty board Why in short life eternall care? Himself could shun? A hundred flocks about thee bleat, But can disdaine. We cannot close our notice of this volume, without directing the attention of the admirers of typographical beauties and pictorial embellishments to the exquisite engravings, from numerous antique gems; and other illustrations, to be found here, selected from the designs of Flaxman, the only English sculptor, who, having with all due humility worshipped at the shrine of Phidias, Stole thence, Prometheus-like, the ætherial spark, That genius feels and feeds on in the dark, Till toil on Time's wide sea shows glory's ark. 1833.] Dr. Bloomfield's Thucydides. Thucydides, with English Notes. By the Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D. F.S.A. 3 vols. 8vo. OF a work, which first appeared two years ago, it would be perfectly absurd to give at this distance of time any thing like a regular review. But as Dr. Bloomfield's publication is doubtless proceeding rapidly to a reprint (for we will not do the Tutors of colleges, and Masters of public schools, the injustice to believe, that they are so regardless of their own reputation and their pupils' improvement, as not to adopt the only edition of Thucydides, which this or any country has produced, really suited for the instruction of young persons), we have been led to revert to the subject, the more so as our attention has been naturally called to it by the recent appearance of Dr. Arnold's second volume of Thucydides; and this with the greater readiness, as we are not without hopes that we shall be of some service in directing Dr. Bloomfield's eye to points, which he seems to have studiously neglected, or to have considered only in a secondary light, rather in compliance with the foolish fashion of the day, that shrinks from every thing bordering on real learning, than with his own better judgment, which, if unshackled, would have given us the ripe and rich fruits of many years' labour, bestowed, as his learned notes subjoined to his English translation of Thucydides testify, upon a favourite author. Nor is it Dr. Bloomfield alone, that we trust will be benefited by the perusal of the present article: for Dr. Arnold also, who has entered the field as a competitor rather than equal, will doubtless be gratified to learn that passages, which not a single scholar can understand, though like Poppo, they heap Alp on Alp of a German's lumbering commentary, are all per 33 fectly easy of solution, if Editors will be only content to abandon the absurd theory of Hermann and his school, that the text of Thucydides has been preserved by a special mi racle in certain MSS. of a favourite class; and that no corrections are admissible, except such as turn on the slightest alterations possible; as if, forsooth, the scribes had covenanted to make no greater mistakes than a ye for a re, in order that Godofredus Hermannus, and Ernestus Poppo, might be led to defend every absurdity of thought and incorrectness of language, that Thucydides, as commonly read, furnishes so abundantly. Indeed, to such an extent has this corruption been carried, that so far from not resorting to the same means of correcting Thucydides, as have been adopted so successfully in the case of other Greek writers, we are bold to say it will require men, such as the olden time can boast alone, to unite all their efforts to give even a faint idea of what Thucydides actually wrote in passages without number. Startling as this language may appear to the generality of readers, who have been taught to pin their faith on the so-called immaculate text of Immanuel Bekker, we are pretty sure that Dr. Arnold will, by the time he has finished his Thucydides, come to nearly the same conclusion; since we find even now, that he has ventured to assert in vol. ii. Præf. p. xiv. that "his increased acquaintance with the MSS. of Thucydides has greatly lessened his respect for their authority ; and that he would not hesitate to alter the text in spite of them, whenever the Grammarians, who laboured to keep alive a knowledge of the genuine Attic dialect, required or sanctioned the correction." But why we are to confine our corrections, as Peter Elmsley did in his Of these notes, Poppo, in his cumbrous volume of Annotations, extending to 764 closely printed 8vo pages, upon merely one book of Thucydides, has very properly made frequent and honourable mention, as they contain numerous references to the Greek historians and sophists of later times, who, as Abresch first taught us, have perpetually imitated the son of Olorus, and have thus occasionally preserved the true reading obliterated in all the MSS. of Thucydides. For example, in i. 71, avayan dè, ὥσπες τέχνης ἀεὶ τὰ ἐπιγιγνόμενα κρατεῖν, where the genitive is perfectly indefensible, Libanius Or. xix. p. 483, has preserved the very words of Thucydides wong iy rais τέχναις, in his quotation οὐκ ἀκουσόμεθα τοῦ λέγοντος, ὡς ἐν ταῖς τέχναις τὰ ἐπιγιγνόμενα gar: for be it remembered that where arts are spoken of generally, the singular is hardly admissible. GENT. MAG. January, 18. edition of Thucydides, to the restoration of Atticisms, Dr. Arnold says not; nor could he give any valid reason for so doing, at least in the opinion of those, who know that in a singularly difficult passage of Thucydides, one of those very Grammarians, Thomas Magister to wit, not only found in his MS. the same faulty reading as that which disfigures all the existing MSS. of Thucydides, but even had the hardihood to quote it as an awaέ λεγόμενον; so little did he dream of its being a mere literal error, or that the passage, when read as it ought to be, would actually confirm the very grammatical canon, which the faulty reading was produced to overthrow. The passage to which we allude, is in iii. 44, and is thus read in all the éditions and MSS. : ἤν τε γὰρ ἀποφήνω πάνυ ἀδικοῦντας αὐτοὺς, οὐ διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀποκτεῖναι κελεύσω, εἰ μὴ ξυμφέρον· ἦν τε καὶ ἔχοντές τι ξυγγνώμης εἶεν, εἰ τῇ πόλει μὴ ἀγαθὸν φαίνοιτο. On this passage, quoted by Thomas Magister as the only instance in Thucydides where is united to an Optative, Poppo wrote, more suo, a long dissertation of five 8vo pages, and at the end of it fairly confessed himself checkmated. Not so Godofredus Hermannus; who determined to pass in gallant style this pons criticorum, made no less than three fruitless attempts to explain, what G. Burges was the first to prove a mere literal error, by showing in Cl. Jl. No. XLIV. p. 376, that Thucydides must have written τε καὶ ἔχοντάς τι ξυγγνώμης, ἐαν, εἰ τῇ πόλει μὴ ἀγαθὸν φαίνοιτο: where ἔχοντας is governed by anоpivo and ear by Re λεύσω. Of this emendation,† which has been approved by Poppo, Goëller, and Dr. Bloomfield, Dr. Arnold has not deigned to take the least notice; preferring, it appears, to err with Hermann, whose absurd defence of v elev is worthy of the pseudo-philosophy of grammar, promulgated by that fidei defensor on all points of perfectly untenable criticism; although Dr. A. could not have been ignorant that Dindorf had supported the emendation by quoting most appositely Plato Euthyphr. p. 4. Β. εἴτε ἐν δίκῃ ἔκτεινεν ὁ κτείνας, εἴτε μή· καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐν δίκῃ, ἐᾷν, ei de un, éreέiévai: and to which he might have added, Rep. vi. p. 536, E. λέγειν ἐθέλω, εἰ καὶ ὑμῖν φίλον· εἰ δὲ μὴ, av. We are not ignorant, however, that Dr. Bloomfield objects to this emendation, because it wants authority; as if any emendation requires other authority than its being necessary to the sense, and supported by the jus et norma loquendi, and keeping close to the ductus literarum; conditions which this correction eminently fulfils; nor ought Dr. Bloomfield to have retained elev, in which the whole difficulty lies; and still less ought Dobree to have expunged it entirely, since av is absolutely requisite to preserve the balance of the sentence; a consideration which, if duly attended to, will enable us to unravel not a few knots in this most intricate of all Greek authors ; and as a slight specimen of what can be done for Thucydides, by attending to this very point, we will produce just a halfdozen passages, where, in the language of a saucy critic, it shall be our busi In i. 39, we meet with the words following: πάλαι δὲ κοινώσαντες τὴν δύναμιν, κοινὰ καὶ τὰ ἀποβαίνοντα ἔχειν· ἐγκλη μάτων δὲ μόνων ἀμετόχους, οὕτω των μετὰ τὰς πράξεις τούτων μὴ κοινώνειν. He who is anxious to know what the Germans have written on this puzzling passage, must turn to their respective long-winded notes; where he will find that, because a certain family of MSS. honoured with the title of Codd. Opt. omit the clause ¿ykλŋpáτwv — KowwVeiv, Bekker, Goëller, and Poppo, consider these words as an interpolation. But as Dr. Bloomfield truly observes, it is far more easy to account for their omission than insertion. Besides, says he, Dio Cassius doubtless found them in his MS. as appears from his imitation, p. 282, 35. καὶ οὕτω τῶν πλεονεξιῶν οὐ συμμετο έχοντες αὐτοῖς, τῶν ἐγκλημάτων τὸ ἴσον pepóμeba: where however Poppo, determined to reject the words, asserts of course that he can see no vestige of The same correction has been proposed also by Lindau, although it unaccountably escaped the late highly-gifted Carolus Reisig, Thuringensis, whose hapless attempt to amend the passage might excite the pity of Augustus Wellaver himself. 1833.] Dr. Bloomfield's Thucydides. an imitation. Dr. Bloomfield, indeed, thinks all the difficulty may be obviated by expelling μόνον. But the disease is seated deeper; and we doubt not he will at once acknowledge the truth of our correction ἐγκλημάτων δὲ νόμιμον ἀμετόχους ὡσαύτως τῶν μετὰ τὰς πράξεις ἄτων μὴ κοινωνεῖν, when he is told that two MSS. read μόνον ἀμετόχως οὕτως, an evident corruption οἱ νόμιμον ἀμετόχους ὡσαύτως : and when he remembers the similar sentiment of Libanius Or. p. 209. C. quoted by himself, πάντων ἀλογώτατον τὰ μὲν ἐγκλήματα ἑτέρων εἶναι, τὴν δὲ τιμωρίαν ἑτέρους ὑπέχειν ; and with regard to μόνον and νόμιμον, we refer him to i. 71, where Stobæus quotes μόνιμα incorrectly for νόμιμα. Again, in i. 69, we meet with the following ill-arranged sentence: Οἱ γὰρ ὁρῶντες, βεβουλευμένοι πρὸς οὐ διεγνωκότας ἤδη, καὶ οὐ μέλλοντες, ἐπέρχονται. These words Dr. Bloomfield thus translates : “ The active, the decided, and the undallying advance against those who are yet unresolved what to do :” a translation, says Poppo, than which nothing can be conceived more perverse. Now though we assert that such is the only meaning these words are capable of, yet did not Thucydides so write, nor could he have written other than—οἱ γὰρ βεβουλευμένοι πρὸς οὐ διεγνωκότας ἤδη καὶ ὁρῶντες ἀεὶ μέλ. λοντας ἐπρχονται : where μέλλοντας, the conjecture of Lindau, is confirmed by 2 MSS. Poppo indeed fancies the difficulty can be overcome by a new punctuation-οὐ διεγνωκότας, ἤδη καὶ οὐ μέλλοντες, ἐπέρχονται—as if ἤδη καὶ could thus begin any member of a sentence. Again, in ii. 7. we meet with a passage which even Poppo gives up as desperate; and as neither sense nor syntax can be made out of or in it, we are quite sure Dr. Bloomfield will acknowledge that Thucydides could not have written καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις μὲν, πρὸς ταῖς αὐτοῦ ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ Ιταλίας καὶ Σικελίας, τοῖς τὰ κείνων ἑλομένοις ναῦς ἐπετάχθησαν ποιεῖσθαι— but that he must have written καὶ Λακεδαιμονίοις μὲν, πρὸς ταῖς ἔτι τότε ὑπαρχούσαις ἐξ Ιταλίας καὶ Σικελίας, τοῖς τὰ κοινὰ νῦν ἑλομένοις νῆες ἐπετάχθησαν ποιεῖσθαι ; for, the construction is, νῆες ἐπετάχθησαν ποιεῖσθαι, τοῖς ἑλομένοις νῦν τὰ κοινὰ Λακεδαιμονίοις ; i. e. "" Ships were ordered to 35 be built by those who would now make common cause with the Lacedemonians :”—while the expression ἔτι τότε ὑπαρχούσαις may be compared with ὑπαρχόντων—ἔτι τότε, in ii. 13; or, since ἔτι τότε is too far removed from αὐτοῦ, which Poppo absurdly interprets there, we may read ἀεί που ὑπαρχούσαις. Again we find a very difficult passage in iii. 38. which none, as Dr. Bloomfield justly observes, have ventured to grapple with; for he might have added, All fear'd to meet the hapless Milo's end, Wedged in the timber that he strove to rend. The vulgate has τὰ μὲν μέλλοντα ἔργα ἀπὸ τῶν εὖ εἰπόντων σκοποῦντες ὡς δυνατὰ γίγνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ πεπραγμένα ἤδη, οὐ τὸ δρασθὲν πιστότερον ὄψει λαβόντες ἢ τὸ ἀκουσθὲν ἀπὸ τῶν λόγῳ καλῶς ἐπιτιμησάντων. But who does not see that Thucydides wrote τὰ μὲν μέλλοντα ἔργα ἀπὸ τῶν εὖ εἰπόντων σκοποῦντες, ὡς δυνατὰ γίγνεσθαι, τὰ δὲ πεπραγμένα ἀηδῆ, οὐ τὸ δραθὲν πιστότερον ὄψει λαβόντες ἢ τὸ ἀκουσθὲν λόγῳ, ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶς ἐπιτιμησάντων. Sentences more beautifully balanced than the preceding, it were impossible perhaps to find in any other author. For thus τὰ μέλλοντα are opposed to τὰ πεπραγμένα, and ἀπὸ τῶν εὖ εἰπόντων to ἀπὸ τῶν κακῶς ἐπιτιμησάντων, and ὁραθέν—ὄψει to ἀκουσθεν λόγῳ: and with regard to the ductus literarum, from πεπραγμένα ἤδη are formed πεπραγμέν ̓ ἀηδῆ; and from δρασθὲν comes ὁραθεν (the origin of θεαθὲν read in many MSS.), while the change of δρα into opa is confirmed by a similar var. lect. in Eurip. Alc. 404. where δρώσαν for ὁρῶσαν is found in MS. Flor. Again we meet with a most intricate passage in iv. 19. where the vulgate has νομίζομεν τε τὰς μεγάλας ἐχθρὸς μάλιστ ̓ ἂν διαλύεσθαι βεβαίως, οὐκ ἦν ἀνταμυνόμενός τις καὶ ἐπικρατήσας τὰ πλέω τοῦ πολέμου, κατ ̓ ἀνάγκην ὅρκοις ἐγκαταλαμβάνων, μὴ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἴσου ξυμβῇ, ἀλλ ̓ ἦν, παρὸν τὸ αὐτὸ δρᾶσαι πρὸς τὸ ἐπιεικὲς καὶ ἀρετῇ αὐτὸ νικήσας παρὰ προσεδέχετο, μετρίως ξυναλλαγῇ. The seat of corruption, as Dr. Bloomfield properly remarks, is in the second avrò: and accordingly he would read αὐτὸν found in 4 MSS. But still we do not get rid of the difficulty in the words τὸ αὐτὸ δρᾶσαι, which can |