« ForrigeFortsæt »
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 ; και (τούτους meibeobai avro) édeleiv yap-Angl." And they yielded to him, for they had a great desire.” If Professor D. bad pursued the sentence to its termination, or considered the structure of the narrative all along from its commencement-τούτον τον 'Αρίονα λέγουσι, K. 7. d., he would have seen sufficient reason for an ellipsis different from what he has given. It would certainly be much simpler to supply “Néyovol,” the word used by Herodotus himself; thus : (commencing with the paragraph) árnetdevra dè tòy 'Apiova, sc. λέγουσι–– και (λέγουσι τούτους) αναχωρήσαι εκ της πρύμνης ές μέσης νέα, ηδονήν γάρ εσελθείν τοϊσι, κ. τ. λ. Αngl. (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 Néyovat 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. πρήγμα ευηθέστατον-μακρώ) 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. oók ëpvoe) 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
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 à historian. We can readily, indeed, apologize for the father of history gravely saying, that the crocodile was the only animal that had no tongue, giãoσαν δε μούνον θηρίων ουκ έφυσε, 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 bis 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 obs ration of their author, " ουδε την κάτω κινέει γνάθον, αλλά και τούτο μούνον θηρίων
riv åvw yvářov tpooáyel rũ kárw ?" 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 Schweighäuser : 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.
P. 34. 5. η 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 deyóuevov, although it refers to vóoos, 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 syutax. 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. . 74; and this passage under review Dr. Clarke has explained in so philosophical a manner, that none can reasonably wiihhold bis assent. After adverting to the opinions of the Scholiast, Dionysius Halicarpensis and other critics, he adds, “ Verisimilius tamen videtur, neque Thucydidem per istud " leyójevov" rò vóonma: ne
que Homerum per
voculam Tò,” rò vépos, sed utrumque rem in universum designari voluisse.” Aeyouevov, therefore, is not neuter, on account of the ellipsis of vóonua, but because it refers to the circumstance, tò mpaypa, (viz. i vócos) just mentioned.
36. 11. napalcóVTI) With this note, as it stands either in Dalzell's original work, or in the present volume, we have no fault to find. We take it up to express our opinion of the manner in which 'the London edition has been conducted. The note, as the Editor has left it, runs thus: "Tapa lóvre) hoc est, ējov napalenóvros, ut taceam. Gesner.” With all due deference to so respectable an authority, that is merely Gesner's opinion. But we think no one on proper reflection can hesitate in subscribing to Dalzell's resolution of the passage in the later editions of the Collectanea. After citing Gesner's opinion, he subjoins : “Sed mapahitórti recte ponitur in dat. (post ήν scil.) sic-νόσημα ήν έπίπαν (κατά) την ιδέαν (uol) zapalınóvti, k. T. 1. This appears so evidently correct, that we cannot account for its being omitted, except from the excessive anxiety of the editor to throw out every thing which he considered as superfluous. We shall be pardoned however for quoting an apophthegm which on these occasions is seldom out of place,
Incidit in Scyllam, qui vult vitare Charybdim. It is very proper to retrench what is superfluous, but in no respect is it meritorious to reject what is useful; and we should be more inclined to pardon a little redundancy in explanation, even at the risk of increasing the size of the work, tban to give credit for a scantiness of it in order to diminish its magnitude. We cannot, therefore, withhold our censúre from the London editor in suppressing many of the most useful of Dalzell's original notes, whilst it would be injurious to Professor D. not to declare honestly our approbation of his conduct in this respect. Occasionally, indeed, he has abridged and omitted some of Dalzell's, but he has done it with a sparing and judicious hand, while he has added many others well deserving a place amongst those of his worthy predecessor.
44. 5. Evvnaudwv å v pútwy is the reading given by Professor D. in place of the common one, tvyklúdwv. As the alteration is supported by no manuscript, and as the common reading agrees perfectly with the sentiments which Gylippus might be presumed to express, we see no urgent reason for abandoning it, however inge. nious the conjecture may be. In these circumstances, it ouglit to have been submitted in the note, rather than introduced into the text.
45. 9. ή κατά την του λέγειν αδυνασίαν) 'Αδυνασία seems to have staggered not a few of the commentators, and our Professor among the rest, “nescit an apud ullum alium scriptorem invenitur” (inveniatur). We beg leave to refer to Herodotus, iii. 79. Besides, we have the authority of Hesychius that dúvaois is used in the same sense with δύναμις; what wonder then if αδυνασία should be of the same import with úduvapia. Although the infrequent use of a word renders it suspicious, we ought not hastily to conclude against its propriety.
48. 3. πολλή δ' η Σικελία) In Duker's edition of Thucydides we find the sentence thus pointed, ως έκαστοι δύνανται (πολλή δ' η Σικελία) εισι δ' οί, κ. τ. λ. To make any sense of the passage with this punctuation is utterly out of the question, and Duker, by allowing it to pass without the least remark, tacitly confesses his inability to cope with it, whilst, by placing it within brackets, he shows, in our estimation, not unequivocally, what he thought of it--the interpolation of some blundering transcriber. Professor D. is however of a different opinion, and, by a slight variation of punctuation, gives the words that prominence of place which is requisite to complete the sense. Nicias writing to the Athenians for reinforcements, says of his army, some desert to the enemy at fit opportunities, others withdraw, as they most conveniently can;" and he accounts for this facility of desertion, by adding, noin d' Eekelia, “ and Sicily is large.
48. 7. άλλ' ανάγκη, κ. τ. λ.) We are inclined to think that the learned Professor has not brought out the meaning of this passage with his usual success. The ordo and ellipsis seem to be all'avaya κη [πληρώματα] τά τε όντα και απαναλισκόμενα γίγνεσθαι από [των πληρωμάτων] ών έχοντες ήλθομεν, « but tlie crews that survive and those that are perishing, are necessarily from the complement we had when we arrived.
50. 4. και τας ολκάδας-την φυλακήν ποιούμενοι) We could have wished the Professor had given the following judicious note of Hudson, explanatory of this pulakh or squadron: “ Erant naves quæ quotiens in salo classis staret, tanquam vigiles ante eam erant in perpetua statione. Ceterum ut hæ perpetui (ut ita dicam) præsidii causa in eodem semper loco commorabantur; ita aliæ, et ipsæ ex firmioribus agilioribusque præsidii causa infirmiores præsertim onerarias per mare prosequi solebant, quas apoTEJTOùs appellabat Appianus.” Την φυλακήν ποιούμενοι we would therefore translate
forming a squadron of observation," rather than “ protecting themselves.”
56. n. 1, 2. In these notes we are favored with some accurate remarks on ακροβολισμός and προσβολή-νεώσοικος and νεώριον. We would only notice, in passing, tbat velitor is used by no Latin classic in the sense of “ eminus pugnare," as it is assumed to be by the Professor in his explanation of ακροβολίζεσθαι. .
58. 7. το γαρ αυτους πολιορκουμένους, κ.τ.λ. appeared so teazing to Duker, that, in despair, he is fain to acquiesce with the opinion of the scholiast, although his words do not imply his full conviction of its accuracy, and, as usually happens to one ignorant of the syntax, he has given a very confused translation of the passage. Our Professor, by a simple ellipsis entirely in the style of his