Page images
PDF
EPUB

So, too, in the Hercules Furens of the same poet, the chorus of Theban old men exhort one another to dance in the following direct terms:

ΗΜΙΧΟΡ. γέροντες, οὐκέτ ̓ ἔστι δυσσεβὴς ἀνὴρ

σιγᾷ μέλαθρα· πρὸς χοροὺς τραπώμεθα.

And they then strike up the chorus, beginning:

χοροί, χοροὶ, καὶ θαλίαι μέλουσι Θή

βας ἱερὸν κατ ̓ ἄστυ.

V. 760.

In a previous.ode, the same chorus affirm that they are not too old to dance and sing, and that they will not yet bid adieu to the Muses, who had accustomed them to dance :

[blocks in formation]

We need not trouble ourselves with other passages in Euripides. In the Ajax of Sophocles, the following is conclusive:

φάνηθ ̓ ὦ

θεῶν χοροποί ἄναξ, ὅπως μοι

Νύσια Κνώσι ὀρχήματ' αὐτοδαή ξυνὼν ἰάψης.

νῦν γὰρ ἐμοὶ μέλει χορεῦσαι.

A version of this passage, in one of those literal translations made for the benefit of students, is calculated to mislead those who are not well versed in Greek. It is rendered "For now I wish to dance." Mλ never had, nor can have that sense. It means, "for it is now my business, or my care, to dance." And this agrees with what goes before-" Appear, O Pan, that you may join in the dance"-not-"I wish you would appear that you might," &c. There are other passages to the same effect in the Edipus Tyrannus.

If dancing has been proved in the plays of Euripides and Sophocles, we need be less solicitous about Eschylus. Here it would follow, à fortiori, even had there been no evidence. But there is evidence. The xopòv afwμev of the Eumenides (v. 307) is directly to the point, and unmistakeable.

That dancing and music accompanied the epinician odes of Pindar, as well as those of the tragic chorus, may be inferred from several passages in his poems. I shall content myself with citing one.

Χρυσέα φόρμιγξ, ̓Απόλλωνος καὶ ἰοπλοκάμων

σύνδικον Μοισᾶν κτέανον· τᾶς ἀκούει μὲν βάσις, ἀγλαΐας ἀρχὰ, πείθονται δ ̓ ἀοιδοὶ σάμασιν, κ.τ.λ.

1 Pyth. 1.

The fact of singing and dancing is here designated in a manner that it would be difficult to controvert.

THOMAS DYER.

XXI.

THE QUARTERLY REVIEW AND GREEK LEXICONS.

IN No. CL. of the Quarterly Review there is a criticism upon four different Greek Lexicons, among which mine is included, and a comparison instituted between them. If a preference had been simply given to the Oxford Lexicon, without depreciating mine below its real value, as I presume to think has been done, and if the author of the criticism had been always correct in his animadversions, I would have submitted in silence, and allowed the public to judge between us. But I have found, as I hope to be able to shew, various misrepresentations and incorrect translations of passages referred to, evincing neither a spirit of candour nor specimens of accurate scholarship.

I feel indebted to the reviewer for the compliments he has paid to me personally; but it appears to me that he has in a great measure neutralized them by some of his subsequent observations.

I do not hesitate to concur with the author of the review in thinking that the general plan of the Oxford Lexicon is superior to mine. I had not the good fortune to have such a foundation as Passow's Lexicon on which to raise a superstructure. The late Mr. Barker engaged me to co-operate with him in improving and adding to an edition of Schrevelius' Lexicon, published in America. It was not such a one as should have been adopted, as it was meagre, imperfect, and, in hundreds of instances, incorrect. Mr. Barker was an able scholar, but no lexicographer. The articles he furnished were totally unsuitable for a lexicon; I was, therefore, left to make the best of the work I could, almost unassisted, and under many disadvantages. To have altered the arrangement would have been to compose an entirely new work, which neither my time nor my inclination would permit me to attempt. But, however preferable the arrangement of the Oxford Lexicon may be, I am not disposed to allow that the plan I have followed merits the censures of

the reviewer. I even think that in many instances it has its advantages. For what is the use of a Greek and English Lexicon to students? It is not to make them critics, or to enable them to write the language. The latter object will be better attained by an English and Greek Lexicon. But it is to give such explanations of words, founded no doubt upon their use in the best authors, as shall enable students to comprehend the meaning of the authors they are reading. Now, whether this is best done by giving a series of meanings, beginning with the primary, and then noting in order the secondary or metaphorical; or by subdivisions, with references in each to authorities, may admit of some doubt. In the former instance, the student has the different interpretations, in a regular series, under his eye, and can, therefore, more readily fix upon that which may seem to him to explain the meaning of the author, than be obliged to hunt after it through a long maze of quotations and authorities. The former plan requires order as well as the latter. From the circumstance already mentioned, I found it almost impossible to make such an arrangement in many instances as I was perfectly aware was both proper and necessary.

In giving authorities for the primary meaning of words, I by no means think that the poets are the best sources from which to obtain it. Their language in general, as every one acquainted with poetry must allow, is highly figurative and metaphorical. It seems to me, therefore, a mistaken idea to go back to Homer and Hesiod for the primary meaning of many terms, and altogether useless, if not hurtful, to adopt a chronological order in references to Greek authors.

Having made these general observations, I shall now proceed to notice some of the criticisms of the reviewer upon particular words. Referring to yxos, and the explanations given in the Lexicon, he says, "Now here we have no distinction whatever between the different significations, between the older and later use of the word: no author quoted to shew when it was used as a spear and when it took the additional meaning of a sword," &c. The general meaning of a spear occurs so often in Homer, and indeed in almost every one of the Greek authors, that it might seem unnecessary to refer it to any one in particular. I shall pass over ȧyvwç with the acknowledgment that the active and passive sense of the adjec

tive ought to have been more distinctly pointed out. On the meaning of ǎyptoç in Il. xIx. 20, the reviewer says, "But what shall we say of troublesome as the epithet of the flies around the dead body of Patroclus? We can only say that this cannot be the meaning of aypios either in Homer or elsewhere." If the reviewer supposes that ǎypios in the passage referred to can be translated wild restlessness, he will, I should suppose, get few scholars to support his opinion. Homer's words are, τ μèv ἐγὼ πειρήσω ἀλαλκεῖν ἄγρια φύλα μνιάς. “ Therefore I shall endeavour to keep off the wild restlessness of the tribes of the blue-bottles!" It will be observed that Homer uses the plural puλa; consequently there must have been other descriptions of flies besides the blue-bottles attempting to fasten upon the body of the fallen hero. Looking in this way at the passage, I should suppose that a competent judge would be inclined to give the preference of troublesome to ǎypia before that of wild restlessness. Again, he adds, "It does certainly appear that the professor is not happy in his translation of Homeric epithets, for within a page or two we find aɛoíppwv (Il. xx. 183) translated inconstant, for no other reason that we can see (and it is no reason at all) but because it is preceded by and opposed to μTεdoç." I beg to return the reviewer's compliment, that he is here napping. To any one who will take the trouble to examine the passage, it will appear that aɛoíppwv is opposed to μπεdos, and is contrasted with that epithet; the latter denoting that Priam will hold to his purpose to support his sons, and that he is not fickle or inconstant in changing that purpose in favour of one of a rival family. Is that not a sufficient reason for translating asoíppwv inconstant? The Oxford Lexicon has no reference at all to this passage, or to the proper meaning of the term. "Again, anovλoç (Il. v. 876) is rendered troublesome, unjust. We hope the professor will not think us troublesome for remarking, that he seems to have an unfortunate partiality for this term." Whatever be my thoughts as to the epithet, it will not be difficult to shew that the reviewer has acted unfairly in the remark he has made upon the translation. I have stated in the Lexicon, "ánovλos, n, ov, troublesome, unjust, and by the poets (it is, however, used by Plato, Menex. 243, D.), the same with ἀτερπὴς, παράνομος. ἦτ ̓ αἰὲν ἀήσυλα ἔργα μέμηλεν (Ι. ν. 876).” Now the quotation here is not after troublesome, but after waρávoμos; or, passing over

« PreviousContinue »