« PreviousContinue »
the acquisition of what will prove a golden key to the treasures of their favorite Sophocles. A lexicon to the productions of this prince of tragic poets, has always been a great desideratum with the classical scholar; for Brunck's is only an approximation towards one, and Beat. son's is a mere verbal index. Professor Ellendt has, therefore, fairly entitled himself, by the present publication, to the thanks of every scholar. The title of the work is a Lexicon to Sophocles, but our readers will labor under a very erroneous impression if they take this appellation in its literal sense, and suppose that they have here merely an alphabetical arrangement of the terms that occur in the dramas of Sophocles, with a word or two explanatory of their meaning. On the contrary, the true name of the work would seem rather to be, a digest of the several commentaries on the poet in question, in which the results of learned and laborious investigations are briefly and suc. cinctly given, and references at the same time made to collateral au. thorities. A specimen, however, of the work itself, will best explain our meaning. It has been selected almost at random :
“Ελλας. 1. Terram Grαciano significat. Ελλάδος γής, Phil. 256. πόλιν σθένουσαν, εί τιν' Ελλάδος, μέγα, Oed. Col. 738. ώ τλήμον “Ελλάς, Τr. 1102. το κλεινόν Ελλάδος στράτευμα, El. 84. Ει sic explicandum το κλεινών Ελλάδος πρόσχημ’ αγώνος, El. 671, in quo exemplo 'Endúdos dyūros conjuncturus erat Brunckius v. Herm. —(2) Adjective de re Græca quolicunque, o xrua 'Encidos orolis, Phil. 223. Duo Vocabuli exempla reliqua sunt aliquantum dubitabilia, σύθ’ Ελλάς ούτ' άγλωσσος ούθ' όστην εγώ γαίαν καθαίρων κόμην έδρασε πω, Trach. 1049, άγλωσσος pro βάρβαρος, nove dictum esse manifestum, et insequens yaiav suadet ut hæc in unum conjungantur, et 'EMás et ày.wocos unum subjectum habeant yi. Sed Antiatt. Bekk. p. 97, 4. scribit: Eldás ó dvúp. Laporlis Aravii Aoko (vii. 17 D.); itaque etiam illum Trachiniarum locum intelligi et Brunckius vult, advocans diversissima 'Eltàs orudú et similia, in quibus non major in est licentia quam in 'Elùs yi, et Hermannus ad Eur. Iph. Taur. 334., qui quod exemplum profert Eur. Phoen. 1513, id Sophocle illi simillimum etiam in eo est, quod synesis yn in utrumque cadit. Diversa contulere Intpp. Greg. Cor. p. 108, nec in copiis Lobeckii ad Aj. 323, p. 272, quidquam tale extat; Antiaiticistæ autem impudenter mendaci ut novitiorum scripiorum peccata excusei, nihil credo. Jure igitur a Sophocle eam libertatem abjudicat Bemhardy Synt. p. 48., sed plane immemor doctrinæ de nominibus impari genere componendis a Lobeckio I. c. inchoatæ docte, mox eam, ut speramus, absolutissima doctrina exsecuturo.
We are sorry to find, from Professor Ellendt's preface, that fa. voritism is beginning to show its head within the precincts of German scholarship, and that those pests of all sound learning, nec ingenio nec doctrina commendati homines," have managed to take very good care of themselves, within the sphere of our author's observation, to the detriment of real but more unobtrusive merit. We hope for the credit of that learning which has hitherto made Germany its abiding place, that the complaints of Professor Ellendt, in this particular, are merely the offspring of what would appear to be his own morbid feel. ings, and not sober realities. The conclusion of his preface, however, is desponding enough : “ Talia quin animum frangant viresque debili. tant cum fieri vix possit, lectores oro, ut ignoscant, quod serius, quam promiseram, liber meus in lucem publicam emittitur.'
3.—Lexicon Platonicum, sive Vocum Platonicarum Index. Condidit
D. FRIDERICUS Astius. Vol. ii. fasc. 1. Znsa-Kivw. Lipsiæ. 1836. In Libraria Weidmanniana.
Professor Ast is already most favorably known by his edition of Plato's works, now in a course of publication ; and of which the Lexicon here noticed is to form a part. Ast's Platonic Lexicon resembles a verbal index much more than Ellendt's Lexicon to Sophocles, men. tioned in the preceding article, but this is owing to the circumstance of the editor having reserved for his commentary much that would otherwise have appeared in the present work. To quote the words of the Professor, “ Immensi operis ne immensa existeret moles, brevi. tati ita consului, ut nihil quidem prætermitterem quod ad sermonen Platonicum illustrandum videretur pertinere, rerum autem expla. natione locorum similium comparatione variarumque lectionum censura plane abstinerem." This is all, no doubt, very well, yet still we could have wished occasionally to see more of the “explanatio" and somewhat less of the “ brevitas.” For example ; under the head of aixia we might have had the distinction briefly stated between αικίας δίκη and ύβρεως δίκη which Timeus in his Platonic Lexicon has confounded together, a negligence that can find no excuse, although Meier, in his Attische Process, p. 543, has sought to defend it. Under dxiváxns, the remark of Pollux, lib. 1. sect. 138, ought to have been given Περσικόν ξιφιδιόν τι, κ. τ. λ. in order to correct the vulgar error that the dxváxns was a species of scimetar. So again, under Orroudev, some notice might have been taken of Gættling's inaccuracy (ad Aristot. Polit. 2. 2. p. 316), when he seeks to naturalize houdev, and gives it the force of vel maxime. The change of meaning in dwpodoxos, among later writers, should also have been mentioned, in order to prevent any erroneous application of that meaning to the text of Plato. We would have been pleased also, to see under the head of fpopos, the error of Timæus distinctly noted, where he says, "Εφοροι, πέντε μείζoυς και πέντε ελάσσους. Mueller's remark (Prolegom. p. 430) places the matter in its true light : “Es ist klar dass die 5 kleinen ephoren bei Timæus blos Gehulfen der Ersteren waren, welche die immer zunehmende Wichtigkeit des Amtes næthig machte und nichts für die ursprungliche Anordnung beweisen.”
While on this subject, we cannot refrain from recommending, in addition to Ast's work, the Platonic Lexicon compiled by Mr. Mitchell, the well known translator and editor of Aristophanes. It is executed with great ability, and affords, along with Ast's compilation, a suffi. cient answer to the complaint of the London editor of the Variorum Plato, that the age Album w Tūv xonxsvrépw had passed away.
4. Lexilogus, or a Critical Examination of the meaning, and etymo.
logy of numerous Greek words and passages ; intended principally for Homer and Hesiod. By Philip BUTTMANN, L. L. D. Translated and edited by the Rev. J. R. FISHLAKE, late Fellow of Wad. ham College, Oxford. London: John Murray, Albemarle Street. 1836. 8vo. pp. 597.
BUTTMANN's name is already well known on this side of the Atlan. tic by his excellent grammars of the Greek language, which the labors of two of our countrymen have rendered accessible to every American scholar. The present work, however, presents him in a far higher character, as a sound and accurate critic on the earlier and more obscure forms of the same noble tongue. We hail its appearance in our English dress with sincere pleasure, and regard it as putting an effectual end to the reign of Homeric pedantry, and dismissing that bane of true scholarship, the Clavis Homerica, to its ori. ginal obscurity. Nothing can be more erroneous than the notion which so many of our students appear to entertain, that the Greek poets, especially the earlier ones, were enabled by the aid of such mysterious figures as A pocope, Apharesis, Paragoge, &c. to clip and trim their native tongue with the same facility that a Dutch gardener does his alleys of box. So again with regard to the dialects; it is still firmly believed by a large number, that Homer brought into his poems every dialectic form that struck his fancy or suited his verse. How would Milton or Shakspeare look, if such a principle had been adopted by either of them, and if all manner of words had been employed, from the various provincial dialects of England ? Buttmann's work brings us into a purer atmosphere, and inculcates sounder doctrines.
The author very modestly entitled his work, in the original, a “Lexilogus, or Helps in the explanation of Greek words, intended principally for Homer and Hesiod.” His English editor, fearing lest so indefinite a title might induce a belief of the treatise being merely an elementary book for younger students, very properly altered the appellation of the work to one more declaratory of its true character. It affords valuable aid, in fact, to every reader of Homer, and every student of one of the noblest of languages; and no one can after this lay claim to the character of sound and accurate scholarship without having made himself master of its contents.
If, where all is so highly entitled to praise, it might be allowed us to find any fault, it would be on account of the absence of Sanscrit etymologies. When Buttmann wrote his Lexilogus, the study of the Sanscrit language and literature was yet in its infancy. At the present day, however, it attracts so much attention, and throws so much light on the earlier forms of the Greek and Latin tongues, that the translator of the work before us ought not to have passed it by unno. ticed. A vast mine remains still to be explored in this department of Homeric philology, and the day we trust is not far distant, when the bard of Ionia will derive new and ample illustrations from the forms of the Sanscrit tongue. A very able commencement, as regards the Sanscrit origin of several of ihe Greek particles, has been made by Hartung, in his “ Lehre von den Partikeln der griechischen Sprache,” the first volume of which appeared at Erlangen, in 1832.
5. Mogg Megone, a poem. By John GREENLEAF Whittier. Boston :
Light and Stearns, 1836. 32 mo. pp. 69.
We took up this little volume at a chance passage, and thought ourselves for he moment in the stir and bustle of Marmion, or the Lady of the Lake. Mr. Whittier has adapted the metre, and to a certain extent, not slavishly, the style of Scott to some striking inci. dents of Indian life. Without, however, entering into the narrative part of Mogg Megone, which appears to us harsh and unpleasant, we prefer doing justice to the more poetic passages of description and reflection, that are profusely scattered along the work. One trait of pure human feeling outvalues the whole chronicle of Indian treachery and cruelty. Thus the true interest of the poem lies in the history related by herself of a youthful maiden. It shall be mostly given in the words of the author. Ruth Bonython, for so is the heroine called, commences her tale with the recoilection of her dying mother. Slowly, day by day, had she watched the pulse of life as it beat more and more feebly to its extinction. She remembers that parent's look, and recalls the favorite tales she told in life.
Tales of the pure—the good—the wise-
In the all-sacred pages told. But the hallowed influence of the mother over her daughter, passes away with the breath that enforced the lesson. The wild excitement of Indian life soon obliterates the early taught piety-and she falls a victim to love. A sudden yielding to passion amidst the lawless wil. derness procures her the scalp of her betrayer. But revenge cannot cast out quite the hold of woman's affection.
With rather an unnec. essary accumulation of horrors on the part of our author, she slays the Indian who had perpetrated the deed, and now she is standing in a rude forest temple before the priest of religion—a victim of remorse. The vision of her mother had seemed before her to point with a keener sharpness the sorrows of repentance.
The Jesuit shrinks from her, for she has killed in the chief a great defender of the church in that unsettled country. She is spurned from the altar.
Ever thus the spirit must,
In the strength of human dust;
And its anguish thrill afresh,
To the failing arm of flesh. She wanders alone in her wretchedness, unprotected of this world, but not of heaven.
Still, though earth and man discard thee,
Haunted, guilty, crazed and wild,
And careth for his sinful child !
Blessed Mary! who is she
The black-bird's wing against her brushes,
The robin's mellow music gushes;-
“Wake, daughter-wake!”—but she stirs no limb:
And the sleep she is sleeping shall be no deeper,
Ruth Bonython is dead ! The story of the piece is loosely constructed and lacks the com. pleteness of a perfect poem : indeed, it serves little more than a rude setting to protect several poetic thoughts and fancies. There is too little pretence in the volume to subject it to the criticism it might else have provoked : while this modest style renders its actual merits the more conspicuous. It may be taken as a slight, but not the less valuable token that the poetic spirit is not totally extinct among us; that the unworthy strife for money has not alienated us wholly from the Muses. There is evidence in it of talent, that if carefully husbanded and directed to some more important end will yet do honor to the author. Here is a well wrought passage that must leave a favorable impression of Mr. Whittier; it illustrates a fine perception of the