Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

CRITICAL NOTICE

OF PROFESSOR MONK'S HIPPOLYTUS.

To dwell with fond solicitude on the recollection of departed excellence, as it is of all human weaknesses the most pleasing to indulge in, will most easily meet with excuse in the bosom of those, who are alive to the finer impulses of human nature. But since the indulgence of this delightful feeling of attachment to the dead is often productive of consequences injurious to the living, it is our duty to regulate the ardor of affection by the coolness of reflection, and to mark distinctly the point, where justice may be done to the heroes of former times, and not be denied to men of our own.

From the consciousness we feel of being under the influence of sensations like these, and from the necessity we acknowledge of keeping ourselves free from every particle of prejudice, a difficulty is imposed upon us so embarrassing, that we shall need all Mr. Monk's candor, and the reader's kindness, while we endeavour to give an impartial account of the Professor's edition of the Hippolytus of Euripides.

The ideas, which instinctively and instantaneously rise to our memory at the mention of the words Professor and Euripides, so forcibly arrest our attention, as almost to unfit us for the discharge of our duty. Yet if, by elasticity of mind we are enabled to rise above the pressure of melancholy; and if intensity of application deafens us awhile to sounds of woe; our readers must not expect us to suppress entirely the sigh of regret, or murmur of complaint, when we remember what that Man was, who lately filled the Professor's chair; how great the services he had already performed in behalf of Grecian Literature, and how much greater he would, had his life been spared, have still performed for the restoration of the beauties of his favorite bard.

But since the hand of death has arrested the completion of an undertaking, which, though well executed at the commencement, in its progress Porson still found cause to enlarge and to improve; it is honorable to the present Professor to take up the work his predecessor left unfinished; nor will it be a disgrace to Mr. Monk, if his first editorial attempt reach not the finish of Porson's later hand.

It will not be matter of surprise, on the publication of the Hippolytus, (a play which had so far engaged the late Professor's attention as to induce him to print, we have heard from authority, but Death, alas! prevents us from appealing for confirmation, more than the first 200 verses,) if we are led imperceptibly to draw a comparison between Mr. Monk and his predecessor, and to consider what has been done by the former, with what would have been done by Porson. But as Mr. Monk's modesty has properly prevented any attempt to rival, VOL. V. No. IX.

N

while his judgment has equally well induced him to follow,' the great master of modern Criticism, it would be unjust to weigh in the same scale the works of the living and the dead, and useless to point out in what Mr. Monk falls short of Porson's standard. On his own merits must Mr. Monk be judged; and by them alone must he stand or fall at the bar of impartial Critics. And as justice is best obtained by a careful examination of particulars, and not by the sweeping sentence of indiscriminate censure or praise, it shall be our business to discuss singly, and in order, the prominent parts of Mr. Monk's publication; and thus enable the reader to form the truest conclusions on its merits, not from our report, but his own observation.

At the opening of the preface, Mr. M. informs us, his object in publishing the Hippolytus was,-1. to present a purer text of that play than is to be found in former editions, and-2. to illustrate the peculiarities, and explain the difficulties of it, by reference to similar passages of Greek authors, and particularly of Euripides himself.

With respect to the latter object, the propriety of making an author his own commentator is so evident, that although, after the labors of Valckenaer, and the appearance of Beck's Index, the attainment of that end is not a very difficult undertaking; still must we applaud the manner in which Mr. M. has executed this part of his duty; especially as he has escaped the absurdity, prevalent amongst some editors, of citing as vouchers for the language of Athens, what an Athenian would have been ashamed to own, and unable to understand.

In what relates to the former point, the settling the text, since Mr. M. has obtained neither collations of hitherto unknown or unemployed MSS. nor re-collations of those already examined, he has not been led, like Brunck, to rely on the authority of a particular document, but induced rather to select from the readings of MSS. used by others, what he conceived most suitable to his author's manner. Nor has he been neglectful of the advantages to be derived from an examination of those authors, in whose writings are to be found quotations from Euripides corroborative of old readings, or suggesting new; for the

1 Mr. Monk's words are, " In hac arte Critica exercenda ducem et auspicem sumsi Porsonum;"-and shortly after he adds, "Hujus ad exemplum, Hippolyti textum, quantum in me fuit, emendare conatus sum."

2 To the peculiar features of the policy which directs the present contest, a policy that has made war, ever unfriendly to the cause of Literature, now doubly so, must be attributed the impossibility of access to those documents, which our enemies possess in such abundance as to make them insensible of their value; but without which all the exertions of scholars in this country in the department of Grecian Literature must be damped by the idea of risking certain toil for uncertain success. Deprived, therefore, of the aid of foreign libraries, we lament that Mr. Monk did not give a proof of his zeal in the cause he has undertaken, by examining the libraries of this country, and ascertaining the existence or loss of a MS. of the Hippolytus mentioned in Catalogo MSS. Librorum Angliæ et Hiberniæ, p. 90. No. 3620. then the property of Francis Bernard; but which, together with other books of the same person, is probably now deposited in the Bodleian; unless, which is not at all impossible, that MS. be only a Latin translation, either the same or similar to one which we remember to have seen five years ago in the British Museum.

indication of which, Mr. M. candidly confesses himself much assisted by the elaborate commentary of L. C. Valckenaer.

To this just tribute to the merits of his illustrious predecessor, Mr. M. might, nay, should have added, that, with the exception of one or two references to the Venetian Scholia on Homer, published 20 years after Valckenaer gave his edition of the Hippolytus to the world, Mr. M. has not by labor of his own been able to record a single quotation from this play, made by an ancient author, unnoticed by Valckenaer's eye, no less vigilant than comprehensive in its view.

And here it would delight us to step a little out of our way, to dwell at some length on the character of Valckenaer; to show that in him is to be found all that is great and worthy of admiration as the scholar, all that is amiable and worthy of imitation as a man. But a subject so inviting would tempt a too wide digression; we will, therefore, only remark, that the splendid monument which Valckenaer has built for his never-dying fame, in the publication of his Phænissæ, Hippolytus, and Diatribe, (to say nothing of his numerous other works,) wants not our encomium to make it better known, and more admired, than it already is, by every friend of Grecian Literature.

I

We return then to the preface; whence we learn that the Varr. Lectt. except the most corrupt of the MSS. are recorded, but not so carefully as those of Aldus and Lascaris, and that the readings of Musgrave, Valckenaer, and Brunck, are for the most part duly noticed.

In the adoption of probable conjectures, either from the pen of others, or his own, Mr. Monk has exercised a caution he hopes the learned will approve; and in the rejection of the inadmissible attempts of preceding scholars, he has shown the best regard to their feelings, by his silence, on their failings. The oversights of Valckenaer, however, are brought forward with a no less praiseworthy motive, non obloquendi studio, sed quia cavendum videretur, ne tanti nominis auctoritate plures in errorem abducerentur. Of these errors of the Dutch Commentator we shall take proper notice in the course of our remarks; and hope to

I For this difference Mr. Monk assigns no reason: and we are at a loss to conceive the motive of his partiality for the blunders of compositors, to those of transcribers. We say compositors, because after the publication of Schow's collation of the very MS. of Hesychius, from which Aldus printed that Lexicon, it appears clear beyond all doubt, that first editions are not to be considered exactly of the authority of MSS. since the corrupt readings they present are due, not to those MSS. from whence they were taken, but to the fraud of correctors, and ignorance of compositors. It seems, indeed, that men in the time of Aldus did precisely what is done by men of the present day. They altered what they either could not, or would not, endeavour to understand; and like Germans editing for Leipsic fairs, or Englishmen for College Lectures, they sacrificed fidelity to expedition, and truth to time. Had Mr. Monk, indeed, been fatigued with the labor of collating a score of MSS. we should readily have excused his omission or negligent performance of a duty, the utility of which is extensive in its application, and important in its effect, as it enables us to detect the errors of transcription in places, where we are destitute of MSS. by remarking similar errors in passages, where we have access to documents ignorantly written, and fraudulently interpolated.

show, that in some points the observations of Valckenaer are not only defensible, but that his objections are irrefragable.

In choricis versibus distribuendis, says Mr. M. operam dedi ut, que metrorum genera Tragicis frequentata sint, ea, quantum fieri licuerit, repræsentarem. But Mr. M. will allow us to remark, without suspecting in us a wish to raise captious objections, that, as neither himself, nor other scholars, have yet shown what kind and what combination of verses are used exclusively by the Tragedians, the arrangement of the choral songs must be considered to have been regulated more from the Professor's ear, than from rules of art. Hence we conceive, that although Mr. Monk's arrangements are for the most part judicious, yet in others our ear recommends another disposition--of which we shall give specimens in their proper places.

In the interpretation and illustration of difficult and peculiar phrases, the use, that Mr. Monk has made of Grammarians and Lexicographers, does not seem so constant, nor his acquaintance with them so intimate, as his friend Mr. Blomfield has exhibited in his glossary of the Prometheus. Nor indeed does the facility of language, for which Euripides is remarkable, and his noted and studied abhorrence of obsolete and new-coined words, enable an editor to show off with a dashing display of references to Hesych. Suid. Etymol. Thom. Mag. &c. &c.

At the close of the Preface, Mr. Monk makes proper acknowledgement to his literary friends for the communication of their own observations, or those of others in their possession: to Dr. Charles Burney, for a few notule of Musgrave and Markland; to the Master and Seniors of Trin. Coll. for access to the papers of Porson preserved in their library; and to Mr. Blomfield, for some original remarks, no less ornamental to Mr. Monk's work, than useful to its readers.

Since Mr. Monk intends his edition chiefly for the use of young scholars, we conceive we shall do him and them the best service by noticing the objectionable rather than praiseworthy parts of the publication before us. And in wandering occasionally into wider fields of criticism than a review warrants, we trust we shall engage the attention of the more advanced scholar, and lead him to be the companion of our excursion, and witness of our endeavour to remove a few impediments to the perfect knowledge of the remains of Greece. On this ground, we shall extract the notes of Porson scattered through Mr. Monk's volume, those excepted, the substance of which is to be found in the former publications of the late Professor.

It is presumed, all readers of Greek are perfectly familiar with Critical Latin: and as none but scholars of this kind will feel the least interest in the remarks about to be made, we shall not hesitate to adopt the language of commentators; which by its technicality prevents verbiage, and by its universality best promotes the interests of ancient Literature.

V. 1. Πολλὴ μὲν ἐν βροτοῖσι, κοὐκ ἀνώνυμος Θεὰ κέκλημαι Κύπρις, οὐρανοῦ τὸ ἔσω· Ὅσοι τε πόντου, τερμόνων τ' Ατλαντικῶν Ναίουσιν εἴσω, φῶς ὁρῶντες ἡλίου, Τοὺς μὲν σέβοντας, κ. λ. τ. Ita haec distinguit M.

In his et aliis locis litera M. nomen Monkii designat.

at distinguere debuit sic: fed, mox οὐρανοῦ τ' ἔσω, dein ἡλίου" ut sensus esset: Ego, humani generis potens dea neque uno nomine celebris, Venus nominor ab omnibus, quicunque intra cœlum et mare habitant, (Di scilicet superi et inferi,) et quicunque intra fines Atlanticos habitant lucem solis videntes, (scilicet mortales). Male igitur statuit M. κέκλημαι hoc quidem loco significare sum. Quo sensu verbum καλεῖσθαι aliquando esse accipiendum videtur: sed rectius plerumque Latine redditur perhiberi. Illud μèv in v. 1. sibi responsurum habet dè in v. 9.

V. 10. Ο γάρ με Θησέως παῖς ̓Αμαζόνος τόκος, Ad hunc pleonasmum tuendum citat M. Iph. Τ. 239. Αγαμέμνονος παῖ καὶ Κλυταιμνήσ τρας τέκνον. Ubi olim conjecerat Marklandus ad Suppl. 932. τε vice παῖ, ab ipso postea repudiatum propter loca, primo quidem aspectu similia, sed revera longe diversa, scilicet Iph. Α. 896. Ω τέκνον Νηρήδος ὦ παῖ Πηλέως Soph. Trach. 61. Ω τέκνον ὦ παΐ, (quibus addo Philoct. 263. Ω τέκνον ὦ παῖ πατρὸς ἐξ ̓Αχιλλέως) Eurip. Cretens. Fragm. 11. Φοινικογένους παὶ τῆς Τυρίας Τέκνον Εὐρώπας καὶ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζηνός. At in his omnibus, utcunque vitio carentibus, præter locum e Cretensibus, τέκνον et παῖ nescio quid ὑποκοριστικὸν significant; qui sensus plane abhorret a decentia loquendi: etenim Bubulcus Iphigeniam verecunde, non υποκοριστικῶς, alloqui debebat: neque Venus υποκοριστικώς de Hippolyto loquitur. Mendosus igitur est uterque locus facillime emendandus legendo hic Ὁ γάρ με Θησέως κἀπ' Αμαζόνος τόκος et in Iph. Τ. Αγαμέμνονός τε κἀκ Κλυταιμνήστρας τέκνον : quæ duo loca, sicut ovum ovo, sunt simillima. Interpolatoribus fraudi fuit syntaxis recondita, quæ præpositionem facit cum posteriori voce junctam cum priori per ellipsin ut jungatur: cf. Ed. Τ. 734. ὁδὸς- - Δελφῶν καπὶ Δαυλίας. Εt profecto Joannes Malela, p. 173. citat 'Αγαμέμ νονος καὶ Κλυταιμνήστρας κόρη omisso παῖ. Unum tantum prius monere libet quam hæc dimittam, quòd parum ad rem faciant loca Prometh. 140. Antig. 115. Alcest. 512. periphrastice scilicet dicta, nisi ut Cretensium fragmentum tueantur; in quo, si faveant Codices, legi possit, Φοινικογενὲς παῖς τῆς Τυρίας Τέκνον Εὐρώπας κακ τοῦ μεγάλου Ζηνός.

ν. 19. Μείζω βροτείας προσπεσὼν ὁμιλίαν. Ita M. ex emendatione Porsoni vice ὁμιλίας : at Lasc. ὁμιλία.

V. 20. Τούτοισι μὲν νῦν οὐ φθονῶ. Sic Μ. post Valck. Verum Ald. μὲν γ' οὖν οὐ: unde erui potest τούτοις ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ: mox lege τὰ πολλὰ γὰρ vice δέ. Levia quidem hæc sunt; at levia criticum non dedecent.

ν:23. Τὰ πολλὰ δὲ Πάλαι προκόψασ', οὐ πόνου πολλοῦ με δεῖ. Exemplum insigne sententiæ pendentis: cui similia citat M. sex loca Tragicorum : plura dat Elmsleius ad Ed. Τ. 60. et Ηeathius ad Æschyl. Suppl. 455. Καὶ γλῶσσα τοξεύσασα μὴ τὰ καίρια Γένοιτο μύθου μῦθος ἂν θελκτήριος. Qui tamen locus est eximendus. Syntaxis ita se habet. Καὶ γλῶσσα, τοξεύσασα τὰ μὴ καίρια μύθου, γένοιτ' ἂν μῦθος θελκτήριος.

ν. 27. Καρδίαν κατείχετο Ερωτι δεινῷ. Ita M. pro κατέσχετο : quia passivam vocem sensus postulat, et Porsonus ad Οrest. 1330. dubitare videtur, an unquam κατάσχω pro κατέχω usurparint Attici.

V. 29. Καὶ πρὶν μὲν ἐλθεῖν. At nihil hic habet μὲν ; lege viν.

« AnteriorContinuar »